Truth Defended, Tract 1
A juſt Reproof to Mr. Obed Will's, &c.
IN p. 14: of our Anſwer to Mr. Will's Appeal, after we had as mildly treated him, and with as much impartiality as was poſſible; we made a motion to him, that if he thought himſelf concern'd to appear any further in the Controverſy, he would be perſwaded that things may be tranſacted in an amicable and friendly way, which we hop'd may tend to our mutual ſatisfaction, in the clearing up of truth, and to cheriſh that love, that all that fear the Lord ſhould bear each other, though differing in ſome things. Yet notwithſtanding, he comes forth in ſuch a Contemptuous, Sarcaſtical, and Inſulting ſpirit, as if that mode of writing were the very Sinews of his undertaking, and of the eſſence of his faculty. Which I ſhall mention only once for all, and betake my ſelf more immediatly to the matter of his Cenſure, having neither leaſure, nor will to ſtrive with him for maſtery in ſuch Rhetorick.
1ſt. He ſayes p. 5. That we accuſe him for what was never brought to our Bar. But if he muſt needs call us forth, without any ſeeking of ours, and inveſt us with a power to Judge his Appeal, he muſt give us leave alſo, (which is not deny'd to any in that Capacity, as appealed unto) to hint unto him what Circumſtances we found, that made his grievance not ſo notirious as he pretended, and the antecedent paſſages that argued him precipitant, and the Defendent far from Contumacious.
2ly. He ſayes we borrow our accuſations from Mr. Danvers Preface. But ſuppoſe we had, that's no excuſe ſufficient for him: For he ſhould have diſprov'd the things if untrue. We noted them from our own knowledge of the truth of them, and not meerly becauſe Mr. Danvers ſaid ſo.
His talk that we gave Mr. Danvers's Judgment, not our own; and that the things brought to our Bar, we carry'd back to his; is utterly untrue: For we conſulted with him no more then the nature of the matter before us required; Nor did we hold any Intelligence with him, but what conſiſted with Juſtice and Impartiality. We were obliged in equity to hear him, before we could proceed to a determination: For Alteram andire partem, is allowed in every Law. And that our anſwer was à capite ad Calcem of Mr. Danvers forming, as Mr. Will's has the confidence to publiſh, p. 8 is a groſs falſhood, and his Inference of our Colluſion, unrighteous; His very parallels confute him; VVe muſt needs have the ſame matter, as far as we treat upon the ſame thing; yet our expreſſions are not of Mr. Danvers's framing.
VVhether Mr. Will's hath done ſuch great ſervice, as he boaſts of p. 6. in detecting Mr. Danvers his miſtakes, any further then what are acknowledg'd, is left to underſtanding Readers to determine. VVhat we found fault with, in Mr. Will's his appeal, deſerves a ſmarter reprehenſion then we gave him. Mr. Danvers truly, and ſufficiently demonſtrates it; and Mr. Will's anſwers it not but with an excuſe of little weight. For if Mr. Danvers upon a private intimation, had retracted publickly, what he miſrepreſented, why may it not be as ſatisfactory, as if after this publick, and clamerous way of detection? VVe know no reaſon to the contrary; but that then perhaps Mr Wills might miſs of the glory of the Conqueſt he fancies he has obtained, and the opportunity of making this Oſtertation of his parts.
His own method he is left to follow…; But that method of an Appeal, that accepts of no treatment with the perſon charged, and yet cryes out for Juſtice, is moſt irregular, if ſquared with the rule of God in caſes of offence, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. And if Mr. Will's find nor the Apellatees contumacie, to be a neceſſary circumſtance in the Lawyers Definition of an Appeal, yet he may find it in Chriſts directions in caſes of Appeal, in the text cited; Yea ſo neceſſary, that no appeal muſt be made, but upon the Criminals refuſal to hear, Mat. 18.16. &c. And ſurely that Patern ought to challenge more of our Conformity, then the Lawyers Maximes, which are not to teach us Divinity. Hence we made a Difference of the binds of Appeals, which Mr. Will's might have underſtood, if he had been candid, when we ſaid An appeal in theſe caſes, viz. Religions Conteſts, which is not his Lawyers buſineſs to Define. Now whether that Law above mentioned be not againſt the form of Mr. Will's his Appeal, is left to his more ſerious conſideration.
But he tells us p. 7. That if we had conſidered things as we ought, we might have ſeen good cauſt for his way of procedure. And gives 4 Inſtances to prove Mr. Danvers Contumacious; Three from the Magdeburgs, and a quotation from Luther.
To which it is replyed, that the three inſtances from the Magdeburgs afford no Juſtification of Mr. Will's his procedure. For any judicious Reader will find upon peruſal of the 1ſt. of thoſe places he cites, that Mr. Danvers is guilty of no greater miſtake, then not obſerving an exact variation of the character; which Mr. Will's knows is too often the Printers fault, (and his own Books are not free from it) For which Mr. Danvers makes amends enough, in owning publickly the words to be his own.
2ly. As to that of adding the word [only] Mr. Danvers gives a very ſatisfactory Return to it, in his Reply p. 32. (and Rejoyned p. 54, 55.) His words being a neceſſary Conſequence from the Magdeburgs ſpeech, who expreſly ſay — Baptizatos eſſe adultos exempla probant, and, de Infantibus baptizatis exempla annotata non leguntur, which put together amounts to what he ſayes, viz. That the Magdeburghs find only examples for adult baptiſm viz. In the Scripture inſtances they produce. Therefore it is ſtrange that Mr. Will's ſhould inſiſt with ſo much Obſtinacy upon this particular.
3ly. As to the third, that Mr. Danvers quoted thoſe pages 125, 126. as relating to the ſuperſtitious rites, may (without any ſuch impoſſibility as Mr. Will's talks of) be underſtood by a mean Reader. And ſurely none but a man of Cavil would inſinuate it, as ſuch a Juſtification, for ſo irregular, and clamerous an Appeal as his is, if you read Mr. Danvers Treat. p. 101. Reply p. 36. and Rejoynder p. 71.
4ly. As to the Quotation from Luther, as we compared it with the plain and well grounded Treatiſe Mr. Danvers mentions p. 40. Rejoynd. whence he took it, and which we found to be word for word, as he expreſſed, and where it ſeems it was miſquoted, ſo, we are ſatisfied he is therein no forger. And though he mentioned it not in his Reply, yet one miſtake not owned, will ſcarce be enough to vindicate Mr. Will's his procedure; (and his refuſing the civil accomodation tendred him) to rectifie all miſtakes as in his Preface to Rejoynder moſt amply appears: And let it be conſidered that if one miſtake, not own'd by a ſufficient ground to render a perſon contumacious and ſtubborn, and will juſtifie an Appeal againſt him. Then what will thoſe many do which Mr. Danvers in his Rejoynd. p. 21. to 77. charges upon Mr. Will's? In that appeal to his conſcience for his Impenitency, for Backbiting, Scoffing, Railing ſalfe Accuſation Slandering, Prevarication, Forgery, Miſtranſlation, &c. As demonſtrated by divers inſtances out of his Writings.
Yet let it withall be underſtood as to that one particular, had Mr. Will's had but had ſo much patience to have heard Mr. Danvers Anſwer thereto, as is ſo fully expreſt in his Rejoynder before he had Appealed, he had doubtleſs ſaved himſelf and others the trouble thereof.
So that upon a candid ſurvey of theſe four paſſages, nothing can be found in them to juſtifie Mr. Wills his raſh and inconſiderate procedure.
That we conſulted with the party accuſed for a ſentence (which he bids us deny if we can, p. 10.) is not demonſtrated by his Inſtances, compared with this Reply. And is hereby denyed, and hope a bare Negation will be deem'd as valid, as the unprov'd aſſertion of a man, that ſhews himſelf ſo frequently halting in this kind, as (to an indifferent Reader) may eaſily appear.
He tells us p. 10. That there is much in our dealing with his Appeal that looks like partiality, of which he pretends to give a fourfold Inſtance. In remarking ſome things in his Appeal as falſe and Injurious, or unfit, and paſſing by in ſilence ſome things in Mr. Danvers of the ſame or like nature.
Reply, If Mr. Wills had conſidered things with candor and ſobriety, he might have known, that it was our work to give Judgment only in matter of fact diſputed by them both, and ſuch as were Mr. Wills his miſtakes, and never owned ſo, was our part to remark to him in order to his acknowledgment. VVhereas there was not the like reaſon to remark Mr. Danvers his miſtakes, they being already owned in Print. For which we made a ſufficient Apology in our anſwer p. 13. No more being required from us, but to bring Mr. Danvers to ſuch a publick acknowledgment. And Mr. Wills his bare ſaying, that Mr. Danvers his anſwers to ſome of them, are not only weak, but untrue, is no proof, that they are ſo.
2ly. In giving our Judgments only upon part of his Appeal, and paſſing by others, as the ſtrange Doctrines he charges upon him, which Mr. VVill's ſayes we ſlightly anſwer.
Reply, For this alſo we give the Reaſon, p. 14. Becauſe they were things Controverted (viz. betwixt us and Paedobaptiſts, who ſomtimes beſtow that Epithete upon ſome Doctrines which we own not to be ſo) And it were as proper for Mr. Will's to put the Queſtion, whether Infants Baptiſm be lawful to our Deciſion as theſe things. And to put it out of doubt, Mr. Danvers his anſwer to them is owned to be good and ſubſtantial Rejoynder, p. 49, 50, 51. And our ſaying they were Collateral, is no untruth; the grand Queſtion before us, being, Whether Mr. Danvers was ſuch a falſiſter as his accuſer pretended; and not whether Infant Baptiſm was lawful: For to put that Cueſtion to us, would be Ridioulous. And whether what we mention about the Milevitan Canon, be ſo Collateral, as Mr. Will's pretends, ſhall be conſidered in its due place.
3ly. In taking Mr Danvers words for Anſwers to ſome of the particulars in his Appeal, and for ſufficient anſwers to the trivial and inſignificant.
Reply, — If Mr. Danvers his anſwers were full and proper, here lyes no juſt charge againſt us, nor any inſtance of partiality. And when Mr. Will's demonſtrates they were not ſo, it ſhall be conſidered.
4ly. As to what relates to my ſelf, I refer you to my particular defence made afterwards by it ſelf.
Next Mr. Will's, having, as he ſayes (though untruly) manifeſted our Partiality, comes to ſhew that Mr. Danvers his acknowledgments are not ſo ingenuous as we make them; And
1ſt. About the paſſage of Nazianzen Baptizandos peccata ſua confiteri ſolitos, which Mr. Danvers owns ſhould be Tranſlated, The Baptized were wont to confeſs their ſins. And what would Mr. Will's have more? Would he have Mr. Danvers ſay he prevaricated, when his Conſcience tells him no ſuch matter? Or can Mr. Wih's make out, that that ſenſe Mr. Danvers deduced is not to be Conſequently drawn from that expreſſion?
2ly. Mr. Danvers his acknowledging his error about Deus Dedit, prevented that fear of Mr. Will's, that the Reader might conclude that gifts were given by the Baptized to the Church, and his gueſſing happily thereby that none were Baptized, but the adult. And is not that enough?
3ly. As to the quotation out of Walden about Wickliff, the thing charged upon Mr. Danvers, was, That he made Walden ſay, that Wickliffs Doctrine was very agreeable to the Doctrine of former Hereticks, as Pelagius, &c. App. p. 173. Which he owned to be his miſtake. And what could we expect more from him? It was not our buſineſs to lanch into the Controverſy, whether Wickliff oppoſed Infant Baptiſm &c. That muſt be ſub judice. Though by the way, ſince Mr. Wills acknowledges that Wickliff and the Albegois did deny that Infants were to be Baptized with Water, as neceſſary to their Salvation; has himſelf confirmed the truth of the thing, till he make appear that the Paedohaptiſts in thoſe dayes did upon any other ground Baptize their Infants. VVhichWhich Mr. Timbes and Mr. Danvers have ſo often called for. That of the Faederal right, which the Proteſtant Paedobaptiſts have ſo boaſted of, being but of yeſterday; never heard of as ſaid, till Zwinglius time. And as to Mr. Will's his talk, that we never examined the Hiſtory of theſe things, it is untrue, and juſt of the complexion of the reſt.
4ly. That miſtake about Zonaras, p. 41. is alſo own'd; and if Mr. Will's in his own conceit magnifies it as no ſuch trifle; he muſt give us, and others, the liberty of our thoughts
5ly. The miſtake about Lanifrank, Mr. Danvers very honeſtly owned, and intended to rectifie it before Mr. Will's minded him of it; which is enough to ſatisfie any man of common ingenuity. And thoſe other untruths Mr. Will's found complicated there (as he ſayes) were acknowledg'd in the grand error that produced them, and could no more injure any afterwards, then branches can grow, when the root is taken away.
6ly. The miſtake of Sericius for Hi…omarus is alſo owned, which was to us enough; though the following words of Mr. Danvers ſhould be omitted.
Next Mr. Will's comes to ſhew, That the particulars in his Appeal, which we call trivial and inſignificant, deſerve not thoſe epithetes: And that Mr. Danvers his anſwers, which we make our own, are very inſufficient to ſatifie an Impartial Reader.
Reply, In regard Mr. Will's makes the greateſt Flouriſh, and …angling about the particulars he brings under this head; I ſhall offer theſe few conſiderations to all impartial men, in juſtification of our procedure herein.
1ſt That the thing charged upon Mr. Danvers was forgery and perverting of Authors, which indeed is a great charge, and reflects much infamy upon the Cauſe that muſt be beholden to ſuch props for its ſupport.— And that Mr Wills …n theſe particulars made that charge good, doth not yet appear.
2ly: It is acknowledged Mr. Danvers was in ſome particulars miſtaken, which we found him very willing to own, as publickly as he had before delivered them; and which, as far as he was convinced of, are acknowledg'd in his Rejoynder, but how inconſiderable the Reader can beſt judge.
3ly. It muſt be declared (that as far as we are capable to judge, both from the experience of his Integrity, Candor, and piety, as vvell as our tracing him upon this occaſion, in his quotations) we could not find any of his miſtakes to proceed from that principle Mr. Wills inſinuates, Infant Bapt. p. 57. viz. That he will not refuſe the moſt ſordid, and ſhameful wayes to promote his cauſe; or that he knowingly miſrepreſented any of his Authors. And we cannot but judge Mr. Will's an egregious over-laſher, in that conſident aſſertion, p. 34. of the ſame book viz. That never any writer did more prevaricate, or ſhew more falſhood then he hath done; and that he would certainly have forborn it, if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and ſearch, whether he ſpoke truth or not. But,
4ly. Inaſmuch as we found no ſuch weight in the particulars under this head, as Mr. Will's would ſuggeſt, to prove his charge of prevarication, but on the contrary, an enumeration of Cavilling exceptions of no great affinity to the general charge of Forgery, &c. And in our Judgments for the moſt part ſufficiently defended by Mr. Danvers, we thought no law, did oblidge us to condemn him for a Forger, from ſuch inſtances as carryed no ſufficient evidence in them, that he was ſo. And therefore theſe particulars coming ſo far ſhort, of what Mr. Will's produced them for; what fitter Epithetes could we give them, then that they were trivial and inſigniſicant, and merited not a ſecond Confutation?
But ſince Mr. Will's now falls upon us, the ſaid particulars ſhall be reviewed, and the naked ſenſe given of them, and ſo diſcharge any further tranſaction, in ſuch conteſts, with ſo unreaſonable an oppoſite. And if Mr. Will's will have the laſt word, I think I ſhall not quarrel with him for it.
And as for his menace of an anſwer to Mr. Danvers Rejoynder, it is like his way of dealing, and ſcarce to be reconciled to the Concluſion of his firſt preface vind. VVhere he gives ſecurity for his future ſilence. But if the Circumſtances he ſuppoſeth his Antagoniſt is under, may incourage Mr. Will's, to revive his clamours, and perpetuate, the quarrel, we hope If his attempts be worth oppoſition) truth ſhall not want an Advocate, that may diſappoint this i…vader of the Trophyes he promiſes himſelf in its ſpoil. But to the matter,
1ſt. Mr. Danvers having quoted a paſſage from Bellarmine, to ſhew that Apoſtolical tradition was eſteem'd the principal ground of Infant Baptiſm, (it ſeems) omitted that ſaying— deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis. And Dr. Fields ſaying, (after ſuch another expreſſion) that the Scriptures deliver us the ground of it Mr. Will's though he pleads for himſelf in the like caſe, Vind. p. 7. accuſes him for it App. p. 162. To which 'tis ſaid, that in all ſuch caſes, to prevent Cavil and offence, it were better; if the intire ſentence were alwayes expreſt. But the Circumſtances that made this appear to us, to have, no great weight in it, were theſe, 1ſt. Mr. Danvers ſets down Rep. p. 74. theſe words of Bellarmine omitted before, of which we were bound to take notice, being a Book precedent to Mr. Will's his appeal, and before any reproof for the omiſſion. as we can find.
2ly. It is evident the Jeſuite urged Tradition for their practice of Paedobaptiſm; And that phraſe was but a faint Inſinuation, that it may be gathered from Scripture, viz. Joh. 3.5. and ſuch miſtaken places. And the quotation was pertinently enough applyed, if Mr. Will's his example were a ſufficient excuſe for thoſe that imitate him, in giving only what Authors ſay to the matter in hand.
But in Mr. Danvers his Anſwer in his Rejoynder p 25. here are two new errors charged 1. That he ſayes he quoted Bellarmine under the head of Tradition. 2. That he quotes the paſſages before omitted, under the head of Conſequences p. 74. Reply.
1ſt. 'Tis true, the term [Tradition] is not mentioned in the Contents of that Chapter, but there is that that's equivalent, viz. The Scriptures total ſilence about Infant Baptiſm; with the neceſſity of Scripture warrant to Authorize every Ordinance. For both which branches ſeveral Authors are produced; And Bellarmine for the firſt, which he expreſly owns, viz. That there is no expreſs Scripture for it, though he pretends it may be deduced from thence.
That Mr. Danvers quotes that paſſage Rep. p. 74. (as before) Mr. Will's owns, being not able to contradict it. And though the Chapter or Section, has not the term [conſequence] mentioned, no more then the other [Tradition,] Yet the Marginal note expreſſes it to be a Tradition (as they word it) gathered from the Scriptures — which is the ſame with them as Conſequence. So that upon the whole matter, it doth nor appear how this charge can be advanced to any other title then trivial and inſignificant, nor can we expect that labour can turn to any great account, that's ſpent in conſulting ſuch a meer Catching at words.
2ly. 'Tis true, we find not Dr. Field expreſly quoted in that 74th. page; Yet it is to be conſidered that it is plainly referr'd to. For Mr. Danvers drawing a Parallel between the Popiſh and Proteſtant Paedobaptiſts, ſayes thus p. 74. Do the Papiſts affirm that notwithſtanding it is a Tradition or cuſtome of the Church, yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures, viz. from Circumciſion; for which he quotes Bellarmine. And then adds — ſo doth Mr. Will's for the Proteſtants ſay (who in p. 105, 106, 107, 108. Infant Baptiſm gives their ſentiments from Rivet, Calvin, Dr. Field, the later in this very quotation word for word, all which Mr. Danvers ſums up) that notwithſtanding there is neither precept nor practice expreſly written in the Scripture, yet it is gathered thence by conſequence, as coming in the room of Circumciſion; and therefore that Infants have a right to Baptiſm, from the right that Infants had to Circumciſion Mr. Will's p. 105. Now Mr. Danvers referring to the place where Mr. Will's quotes the Proteſtants, one of which was Dr. Field, referred neceſſarily alſo to Dr. Field there, which the matter diſputed, muſt needs lead the enquiring Reader to; And though it were better in order to prevent the Cavils of ſuch as lye at Catch to be more expreſs in references, yet we conceive a Candid and Judicious Reader will have better thoughts of Mr. Danvers in this particular, then what are ſuggeſted by an Antagoniſt, that ſo ground leſly perſerveres in his ſevere and unjuſt inculcations of unfaithfulneſs in Mr. Danvers, and partiality in us; and that without ſtronger demonſtration then ſuch frivolous Inſtances as this, and what are ejuſdem farinae.
2ly. As to the paſſage of Dr. Owen, Mr. Danvers his anſwer is full and proper, and ſatisfactory (doubtleſs) to any ingenious Reader, as appears in his Reyonder p. 25, 26. It being indeed needleſs to add any more thereto.
3ly. Mr. Will's Appeals to the Reader p. 22, 23: Whether the paſſages about Lydia, Beza and Ames App. p. 167. be ſo trivial and inſignificant as we make them. And which is alſo left to be determined at that Tribunal, whether they be not indeed ſo? Or have evidenced enough in them, to prove Mr. Danvers a forger?
Next he Renews his Charge of Self-contradiction againſt Mr. Danvers, viz. That if he made the ground of the Corinthians ſcruple 1 Cor. 7.4. To ariſe from the inſtance of putting away ſtrange Wives in Ezra and Nehemiah's time, it was a plain contradiction to make the words [elſe were, &c] an Argument ab abſurdo, becauſe from thoſe Inſtances they could conclude no otherwiſe, but that their children were Baſtards, and to be put away; And then deſires ſuch of us, as know what an Argument abaſſurdo is, to exerciſe our reaſon about this matter, and again affirm it no contradiction, if we can, and the Inſtance trivial and inſignificant.
Reply, What Mr. Will's calls a contradiction here, appears not ſo to be, but the contrary. For the Jews being under a ſtrict inhibition to marry with ſtrange wives, or mix with the Gentiles as appears Ezra. 10.2. &c. and Neh. 13.27. &c. Yet tranſgreſſed againſt the Lord in that particular, and began a Reformation in Ezra's time. Which practice of old, queſtionleſs gave ground to the Corinthians ſcruple, whether the believing husband or wife may cohabit with the unbelieving Yokefellow. Which doubt the Apoſtle Reſolves in the affirmative; as if he had told them, 'tis true, you were ſtrictly prohibited under the law to cohabit with ſtrange wives; but that was under a Diſpenſation, which is now relaxt: And the end of ſuch a prohibition [viz. to keep the people of whom according to the fleſh, the Meſſiah was to come, unmixt with the Idolatrous Nations] is now come to paſs, as ſo the cohabiting with a ſtrange or unbelieving Yokefellow, which was then a ſin, is not ſo now; and the iſſue of ſuch a marriage, is not illigitimate now, as it was then; Therefore the relation is mutually ſanctified, elſe (that is, had not the Goſpel diſpenſation taken off the legal inhibition aforeſaid, and the Relation were not ſo ſanctified your children were unclean, (that is, the iſſue of an unlawful bed;) but now, [the Goſpel diſpenſation allowing this Cohabitation] are they holy; that is, not the product of an unlawful marriage, as in Ezra, and Nehemians time, but legitimate. And therefore the Apoſtle uſes an Argument ab abſurdo (which is drawn from the abſurdity following the contrary practice) to perſwade them to dwell together, that ſo they might not fall into the abſurdity, they were by their ſeparation thinking to avoid; the way to have an unhallowed iſſue, being now contrary to what it was in Ezra's time, viz. theirs was ſo by cohabiting, but ours by ſeparation.
Therefore where to find any other contradiction here, then what is between the two diſpenſations of Law and Goſpel, vve cannot yet diſcover. VVas it Contradiction in the Apoſtle to ſatisfie the ſeruple of his doubting Gorinthians, and to ſhevv them, that the vvay they vvould take to eſcape an abſurdity, vvas to fall into it? Certainly this charge is eaſily avoided, and the Contradiction found there, if any, degenerates from its definition given by Ariſtotle l. 1. poſter. c. 5. foreign. So that I conclude there is no inconvenience in affirming this inſtance to be ſtill trivial and inſignificant.
Mr. Will's his next inſtance of ſelf contradiction is as p. 24. That Mr. Danvers tells us [from Sabaſtin Franck] 2 Ed. p. 231. That about the year 610. Childrens Baptiſm was held in many places of little eſteem [by the learned endeavours of Adrianus and others] And yet in his Reply p. 140. He tells us [viz. from Auſtin] That Infants Baptiſm was univerſally received in the 7 Age [in other parts of the VVorld] to beget them to regeneration [as impoſed by the Church of Rome —
But as to this Mr Will's vvould do vvell to conſider that the contradiction (if any) lyes betvvixt his tvvo Authors Auſtin and Franck. And vvhichwhich kind of ſcruings may be very unſafe, leaſt abſurdety be reflected upon the Scriptures themſelves; vvho tell us in one place, that the Diſciples went out preaching the word in every place Mar. 16.20. Act. 8.4. And yet again that the Ap. Paul aftervvards preached in many places vvhere the vvord had not been preached Rom. 15.14.20. And that Infants Baptiſm it ſelf, as Mr. Danvers obſerves may be of little eſteem in many places in England vvhere ſo univerſally impoſed and received in every Pariſh: A ſign hovv hard Mr. Will's vvas put to it vvhen he vvent ſo far, and yet could find no greater contradiction then this.
5ly. As for Innocents giving Divine honour to the Popedome, 'tis true, vve find not the Original vvords litterally bear any ſuch thing, though he joyned Peter vvith God himſelf in his invocation. And the veneration Papiſts give Peter, as they fancy him to be their Proto-Pope induced Mr. Danvers to think Innocent addreſt his adoration to him as ſuch, he not mentioning any other Saint.
6ly. In the Quotation from Voſſius App. p. 108. Mr. Will's is groſly out. Mr. Danvers ſaid 2 Ed. p: 118, 119. That Voſſius informeth us from good authority, that from Auſtin to Bernards time, ſeven or eight hundred years the Cuſtome was to Baptize naked, both men, women, and children, with the reaſons uſually given by the Ancients for the ſame, viz. That they might therein be as in the ſtate of Innocency, and as naked in their ſecond as at their firſt Birth; and as they expected to be in heaven, and therein no otherwiſe then Chriſt was upon the Croſs, which you may read at large in p. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. quoting theſe ſeveral authorities to juſtifie it, Cyril, &c. (Mr. Danvers mentions all p. 119.
In our former examination of this Charge, finding Mr. Wills under a miſtake, vve let it paſs under that remark of trivial and inſignificant, but ſince he is not contented therewith, it ſhall novv be demonſtrated, that Mr. Will's his accuſation, vvas not only trivil, but a groſs falſhood, and therefore he had better have been ſatisfied, vvith our firſt Anſvver. For,
1ſt. In Mr. Will's his quotation of Mr. Danvers, he diſingenuouſly conceals the later part, vvhichwhich plainly evidences that Mr. Danvers gave only the ſum of vvhat's largely inſiſted upon by Voſſius in the ſaid pages, and ſhould neceſſarily be inſerted. But Mr. Will's ſavv, that that vvould ſpoil his charge. And let any man of common reaſon judge, vvhether it be not an unrighteous and unhandſome procedure in Mr. Wills, thus to frame a charge of his ovvn, and produce a large quotation from Voſſins, inſinuating that Mr. Danvers had miſtranſlated it; vvhereas Mr. Danvers only takes a fevv vvords out of that quotation, and the follovving pages comprehending the ſubſtan…e thereof, vvhichwhich he faithfully gives.
2ly. As to the matter of fact in Controverſy, viz. Whether the Ancients gave thoſe as the reaſons, for Baptizing naked, vvhichr M. Danvers aſſerts, and Mr. Wills denyes, charging Mr. Danvers with ignorance and groſs perverſion, of that quotation, is certainly Mr. Wills's groſs perverſion, if not ignorance; as theſe inſtances clearly prove, and as clearly Juſtifie Mr. Danvers.
Voſſius in his …heſ. Theol. Edit Belloſiti Dobunorum 1628. p. 350. &c. and in the Ed. quoted by Mr. Danvers p. 32, 33. &c. Cites Cyril, Hieroſol, Catech, yſtag. 11. Statim igitur ut ingreſſi eſtis veſtem exviſtis, quod quidem exuti hominis antiqui cum operibus ſuis imago fuit. Atque ita exuti, eratis nudi, imitantes & in hac eum, qui in cruce nudatis fuerat, Chriſtum — that is; Therefore as ſoon as you were entred, you put off your Cloathes, which was indeed the ſignification of your putting off the Old man, with his works; which being ſo put off, ye were naked, ſo imitating Chriſt, who was naked upon the Croſs. And a little further — nudi fuiſtis in conſpectu omnium, & non vos pudebat, Revera in hoc enim protoplaſti Adam ferebatis exemplum, quia nudus in paradiſo fuit, & tamen nullo afficiebatur pudore, that is, ye were naked in the ſight of all men, and were not aſhamed, in which you did truly hold forth the example of your firſt parent (or firſt formed) Adam, who was naked in Paradiſe, and was not aſhamed. So Amphilochius in the life of Bazil, vvriting thus of him — Petebat adeo aliquod ſuae fidei ſignum oſtendi: ſurgenſque cum tremore, ſuis ſe veſtibus ſpoliat, unáque cum veſtibus, veterem exuit hominem — that is — he beſought of God that ſome ſign of his faith may be ſhewn, and ariſing with fear, diſrobes himſelf of his apparel, and with his Cloathes, put off the old man, Ergo (ſayes Voſſius) eo quod veſtimenta exuebant, myſticè ſignificabatur veterem, exui hominem — that is — therefore in as much as they put off their Cleathes, the putting off the old man was myſtically ſignified. And to this purpoſe ſeveral other Fathers are Cited; concluding vvith a paſſage from Bernards 46 Sermon de paupertate — Ideo nudi naſcimur in hoc ſaeculo, nudi etiam accedimus ad Baptiſmum, ut nudi & ſine impedimento perveniamus ad Caelum — that is — Therefore we come naked into this world, and naked do we approach Baptiſm, that naked and without any impediment we may come to heaven.
Novv is it not evident that the Ancients baptized naked (as Mr. Danvers ſayes) to ſignifie the ſtate of innocency, and that they may be as naked in their ſecond, as at their firſt birth, &c. And if ſo, is not Mr. Wills his charge falſe and injurious? and his Reflection upon us, (of partial and inconſiderate) raſh, and unrighteous? And if he has read Voſſius, hovv can he clear himſelf from ignorance or diſhoneſty, ſo to miſrepreſent him? or if he has not read thoſe pages, hovv unfit is he to controul or correct thoſe that have?
7ly. As to the Quotation about Arnobius, I cannot Judge Mr. Wills his quarrell about it, to be any other then an inſtance of his unrighteous vociferation — for Mr. Danvers rold him he mentioned that ſome only of thoſe that follovved where taken from the Magdeburgs, and if Arnobu… be not there, how could he take him thence, But under this head it may be neceſſary to prevent further Cavils of this nature, to acquaint the Reader that Mr. Danvers ſometimes, when he takes ſome quotations from the Magdeburgs, adds alſo (as in this particular, and that from Jerom. 2 Ed. p. 56. and that of Bazil p. 55. and ſome few others) ſome quotations; from the original Authors themſeives, not taken from the Magdeburgs; and ſometimes takes part of a quotation from the Magdeburghs, and adds to it out of the Original, which indeed ſhould be ſo mentioned, in diſtinction from what he borrows from the Magdeburghs; though Ingenuous and Candid Readers would have recourſe to the Authors themſelves whom he mentions, in their examinations, before the publication of their Cenſures; yet it were better to prevent thoſe that are not Ingenuous from this ground of Cavil by mentioning particularly what he took from the Magdeburgs and what from the Originals.
8ly. As to what Mr. Wills complains about himſelf p. 27. of his Cenſure that Mr. Danvers patcht up words at a 100 pages diſtant, to make him ſay that Infant Baptiſm may be lawful becauſe not forbidden in Scriptures. I ſay that I find what Mr. Danvers quoted as Mr. Will's Speech, is truely recited, and Mr. Danvers only gathers from Mr. Wills that he inſinnates ſuch a thing, and Mr. Wills his words ſeem to lookas if he would have ſuch an inference take place, though in direct terms not ſo worded as Rep. p. 93. to which I refer, and to Rejoynd. p. 43.
9ly. As to the phraſe, is puerum ſine baptiſmo mortuum reſuſitârit ex mortuis & tandem baptizarit; It is granted the moſt genuine Interpretation is, that he raiſed a child that dyed unbaptized from the dead and Baptized him. And Mr. Danvers denys it not, only pleads for an equal liberty of offering the Reaſons that induced him to that tranſlation, and remark which is but fair to allow him.
10ly. As to the Synod of Illerdon in Spain, we found by the reſtimony of two able perſons in the Dutch Tongue, that Mr. Danvers had it from that Dutch Martyrology cited a ſew lines below it. p. 114. And Mr. Danvers citing it from thence acquits him from the Charge of forging or perverting it. And if they that inſerted it there miſapply it, they ought to bear the blame.
11ly. Next Mr. Wills p. 30. repeats his charge of ſtrdnge Doctrines, and conceals Mr. Danvers his anſwers to them which is ſcarce honeſt dealing. But the Reader is referred to Mr. Danvers his Rejoynder p. 49, 50, 51. For an Anſwer to this Charge.
At length Mr. Wills p. 31. comes to vind cate the particular inſtances we remark to him. And 1ſt. makes an Apology for leaving out part of Nazianzens ſentence; to which it was ſaid that the reaſon of that remark was to make him ſenſible, that he ſhould not bear ſo ſeverely upon Mr. Danvers for ſuch matters, as he himſelf was guilty of, as that particular was a proper inſtance of; and that it is but equity in him to take the ſame plea he himſelf makes uſe of. As for his calling Mr. Danvers his addreſs to him about the paſſage in Bazil (trepanning,) is doubtleſs an expreſſion that argues Cholar and paſſion, which commonly overmaſter judgement and charity too. But how candid Mr. Danvers was therein, let p. 74. of Rejoynder be conſidered.
2dly. Next he endeavours to excuſe his ſtopping his tranſlation out of Calvin, which we mention to him p. 4. And ſayes, He tranſlated ſo much of it as might ſatisfie any that bad the uſe of their reaſon, that Calvin owned it was no where expreſly mentioned (viz. Inſant Baptiſm) therefore although, &c. Clearly imply'd it.
Reply, …ſt. If Calvin owned (as Mr. Wills is forced to confeſs) that there was no expreſs Scripture for the practice, what ground had he to accuſe Mr. Danvers for ſo repreſenting hith?
2dly. An Engliſh Reader might be impoſed upon, though having the uſe of his reaſon, notwithſtanding Mr. Wills his For although, &c. His talk that our affection to our Champion would not ſuffer us to be ſo juſt a… to blame Mr. Danvors, is a ſarcaſtick and groundleſs ſurmiſe. Mr. Danvers ſayes that Calviz confeſſes, no Infants were by the Apoſtles bands baptized; which is true, and appears from the very Latine Quotation cited by Mr. Wills, p. 161, 162. Appeal Therefore how could we blame Mr. Danvers for ſpeaking truth?
3dly. As to his excuſe about charging Mr. Danvers for adding to Jerome, whereas the words (as we found) were Verbatim his; cannot be eſteemed ſo plauſible as to acquit Mr. Wills, who ſhould (before ſo raſh an aſſertion, that the words were not Jeromes) examine Jerome himſelf. Mr. Danvers ſayes ſome, not all that follows, are given by the Magdebargs. Though 'tis confeſt, it were better (as ſaid before) if what he took from them, and what from the Originals they refer to, were ſo ſpecified.
4ly. Whether Mr. Wills his palliation of leaving out Eſtins Ann. Gen. 17.7 at the end of the Quotation fathered upon Calvin, be ſufficient to cover ſo wilfull an abuſe, we leave the Judicious Reader to determine. And judge Mr. Wills his ſenſeleſs ſhifting it over, not worth while to detect.
5ly. As to the Quotation from Dr. Hammond, Mr. Wills was miſtaken in affirming ſo confidently that Mr. Danvers miſquoted it; whereas he did not, as was demonſtrated Rejoynd. p. 31. with ſome concurrent paſſages, that evidenced Dr. Hammond was of that mind ſully (as of truth he ought.) And if Mr. Wills eſteems that firſt, a worſe edition, we are not of his mind in that particular: For we judge that paſſage as it is altered to contain an untruth, as may be eaſily demonſtrated; and the Drs. firſt to be ſound and conſonant to the moſt Orthodox Writers, and to himſelf alſo in the ſame thing. 'Tis true ſome of us ſaw a late Edition of the Drs. Annotations, wherein that paſſage was as Mr. Wills quoted: but being Printed ſince the Drs. death, we knew not but it may be an alteration of ſome others making, and ſo not to be regarded, having an undoubted Book before us. Nor did we ſee that Review Mr. Wills ſpeaks of. And ſo could not tell where more properly to place the miſtake then at Mr. Wills his door; who ſhould of right examine the firſt Edition too (and later Editions alwayes put in mind of a former) before he had ſo preſumptuouſly exhibited an accuſation; and back'd it, with ſo heedleſs and untrue a Remark as App. p 171.
6ly. Next Mr. Wills would clear himſelf for leaving out [pa…v…lis] in the quotation from Walden. And if his excuſes in relation to it be ſufficient, let the Reader acquit him. We think it needleſs to make his winding ſhifts to get off any reply. He layes, if it be an error, it is venial, and not wilful. Be it ſo, but to us it appeared ſuſpiciouſly, that he ſhould leave out that word, and take the words going before, and coming after.
7ly. Our producing that Milevitan Canon from the Collectione Regia, was to convince Mr. Wills and his Readers that Mr. Danvers forged it not. And indeed all the errour Mr. Danvers is guilty of, is, that he did not originally quote the Regia Collectione where it is, for it, which he rectifies Rejonder p. 37. But Mr. Wills ſayes, we are miſtaken when we affirm this to be an Anathema againſt thoſe that held children might be ſaved without Baptiſm; and to make his aſſertion believed, mangles the Caron and perverts it groſly; disjoyning vvords in a continued ſentence moſt diſingenuouſly to ſerve his turn. To evidence vvhichwhich, vve vvill here again recite the Canon, and tranſlate it. 2. We vvill ſhevv Mr. Wills his interpretation to be falſe, and not to be vvith any ſhevv of ſenſe Grammatically gathered from the vvords. The Canon is.
Item placuit, ut ſiquis dicit, ideo dixiſſe dominum; In domo Patris mei manſiones multae ſunt, ut intelligatur, quia in Regno Caelorum, erit aliquis medius, aut ullus, alicubi locus, ubi beatè vivant parvuli, qui ſine baptiſmo ex hac vita migrârunt ſine quo in regno Caelorum quod eſt vita aeterna intrare non poſſunt, Anathema ſit, that is It alſo pleaſeth us, that whoſoever affirms, that the Lord therefore ſaid, In my Fathers houſe are many manſions, that it may be underſtood, that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be ſome middle or any other place, where little ones may live bleſſedly, who departed this life without Baptiſm; without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is eternal life, let him be accurſed.
Novv is it not as clear as the day, that the perſons againſt vvhom this Anathema vvas made, held, that Children dying unbaptized were to be received into the Kingdom of Heaven, grounding their upon conceit the text recited in the Canon viz. In my Fathers houſe are many manſions — Though they ſancyed that ſuch Infants ſhould enjoy ſome diſtinct place there from others. And if the muſt have any place in the Kingdom of Heaven, then certainly they are ſaved — unleſs Mr. Wills can vvith ſome nevv Criticiſm diſtinguiſh Regnum Caelorum, from Regnum Caelorum, the Kingdom of Heaven, from the Kingdom of Heaven.
But Mr. Wills ſayes, Thoſe perſons Anathematized, held that Infants who dyed without Baptiſm, cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; and recites that part of the Canon to prove it—qui ſine baptiſmo ex hac vita migrârunt, in regne caelerum quod eſt vita aeterna intrare non poſſunt.
Reply, But the quite contrary is true; and it is very ſtrange that Mr. Wills ſhould ſo confidently betray either his ignorance or diſhoneſty, thus to interpret the Canon, and impoſe his miſtake with ſuch a face upon his Reader: For I appeal to any man that underſtands the Grammatical conſtruction of a Latine phraſe, whether he doth not groſly pervert it? And his beginning at qui ſine baptiſmo, &c. giving it as an intire ſentence, is deceitfully done. For theſe words have an immediate connexion to the preceding words, and cannot without a manifeſt intention of perverting them, be taken disjunctive from them, not being divided by ſo much as a Comma: And they are indeed the ſenſe and opinion of the Anathema makers themſelves, not of thoſe they curſe, who (its apparent) held, That Infante may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without Baptiſm. And for that cauſe was this Anathema framed againſt them. And ſo we diſmiſs this particular, referring the Keader to our Anſwer, p. 8, 9. and Mr. Danvers his Rejoynder p. …7. where it is ſully ſpoken to. Where you have the words of the Councels Letter to Innocent, and his decretal Letter to them again, ſo expreſly demonſtrating the grounds of the Anathema to be, That ſome did then aſſert that Children might be ſaved, or enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without Baptiſm.
8ly. As to the paſſage about Bazil, I gave already a hint that this is one of the quotations which Mr. Danvers ſhould expreſſe as taken from its Original, not from the Magdeburgs; and 'tis like that of Jerome before mentioned. Mr. Danvers cites Bazil as ſaying, that Faith muſt needs precede and go before Baptiſm. And we find the words as we cited them in our Anſwer, p. 11. viz. It is neceſſary: firſt to believe, and after to be ſinged with Baptiſm. And whether it be not the ſame thing, let the Reader judge, though not the ſame ſyllables.
And thus … our Anſwer Reviewed to Mr. Wills his Appeal, having gone over every particular in this unjuſt Genſure of his, (not mentioning that of the Virgin Mary's being added to the form of Baptiſm, Mr. Wills owning it his miſtake to averre the contrary) and we hope have evidenced that his charge againſt us of ignorance and partiality is unrighteous and groundleſs; and that our Carriage towards him deſerves not ſo uncivil a treatment as he gives us. Therefore (as ſaid before) there is no farther cauſe at preſent to trouble our ſelves with him; being ſatisfied that we have given the ſober and impartial no cauſe to cenſure or blame us. And if Cavillers will ſet themſelves to carp (fince, as Mr. Baxter ſayes, a man may find words at length for almoſt any cauſe) we will give them their liberty of purſuing ſuch unworthy undertakings, which ſeldom meet with any better ſucceſs, then the hiſs of the Judicious, and the juſt Indignation of all Readers, but ſuch as have little of ſerious employment for their time.
FINIS.