A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 9
SECT. IX. In my alleading Peter de Bruis and others as Antipaedobaptists 500. years ago, is no untruth.
BUt there is a foule sin Mr. B. chargeth me with when he saith in his History my reports are untruths, and page 176. he chargeth me with very many palpable grosse untruths which I either knew or might to be so. Two he hath selected as most remarkable: The first is, That the lying Papists do accuse the Albigenses and Waldenses (our first reformers) to be witches, Buggerers, Sorcerers, and to deny infant-baptisme, &c. now what doth Mr. T. but perswade the world, that the Papists accusations of these were true in this, &c. Is it railing to say, that this dealing is starke brazen-faced and unconscionable: and after he stiles it horrible foulnesse of dealing with other words, He that dare do thus what dare he not? &c. And page 201. A most unconscionable Jesuitical trick to seduce poor ignorant soules. To which I answer, My words Examen part. 2. sect. 2. tend to prove, that there were some that opposed Infantbaptisme 500. years ago, who were both godly men, and had godly societies joined with them: nor do I see cause to recede from the same opinion notwithstanding what either Doctor Usher, Mr. M. or Mr. B. have said to the contrary. I do no where charge the Waldenses, but onelyonly cite in my Examen part. 2. sect. 2. Cassanders, and Osianders words in my Exercit. of the Albigenses. But let us consider what is brought to the contrary, 1. for Berengarius, Deodrinus, Leodiensiis took it up as a common fame. 2. It is not found charged in Synods against him. 3. That it appears to Doctor Usher, they who were charged in those dayes to hold that baptisme did not profit to salvation held nothing but this, That baptisme doth not conferre grace by the work wrought. Yet Durandus Leodicensis in the 3d. tome of the Bibliothica patrum the last book in his Epistle to Henry King of France makes it such a fame as filled all their eares, praiseth the King of France for calling a Councel against him and Bruno by reason of it. Nor are Doctor Ushers words as Mr. M. recites them, that it appeared to him, but nec aliud videntur negavisse, &c. Which is lesse then to say it appeared to him. And for his conjecture it may be answered by another conjecture, that it seems rather Berengarius did at first discerne the vanity of infants baptisme as arising from Austins errour about the necessity of it, and not much used till after his daies: yet finding the opposition of the corporal presence in the Eucharist too hard a businesse being forced to recant by Pope Nicholas, it's likely he concealed his opinion of infant-baptisme; to which conjecture Cassanders conceit in his preface to the Duke of Gulick and Cleve before his Testimonies for infant-baptisme is somewhat like, That though he overthrew baptism of little ones, yet he brought it not into publique, because as Guitmund saies, He knew, That the eares of the worst men would not brook that blasphemy. I also related a speech of the same Cassander concerning the Albigenses, besides which in my Exercitation I alleadged the words of Lucas Osiander accusing the Albigenses as agreeing with Anabaptists. And to shew that there was some reason for what I averred, to wit that there were others that made head against infant-baptisme before Baltasar Pacimontanus, I alleadged Bernard Serm. 66. in Cantica. Epis. 240. to Hildefonsus Earle of St. Giles, Petrus Cluniacensis his Epistle to three Bishops of France, and in my Antidote sect. 9. Eckbertus Schovangiensis his seventh Sermon adversus Catharos in Auctario Biblioth. Patrum tom. 2. Against these allegations Mr. M. excepts and Mr. B. lets flie at me as before: neither deny that I rightly cite the Authors. But 1. That the Authors were lying Papists. 2. That no impartial Authors so charge them. 3. That they did bely them in other things 4 That upon report these with other things were charged on them. 5. That the Councels charge them not with this. 6. That other Historians charge not the Waldenses. 7. That their confessions acquit them. 8. That I do but joine with malicious Papists to take up any the falsest slander to defend my cause by it. For answer hereto I will not return railing for railing, but this I say and leave it to indifferent men (if there be any) to judge between us whether of us be in the right. Cassander was never accounted, that I ever read, one of those railing lying Papists Mr. B. mentions; but as impartial a man as any Papist living in his time. Maximilian the second Emperour who favoured Protestants more then any Emperour prized him. His study was reconciliation and a middle way, which Mr. B. professeth to be his. Mr. B. page 261. saith, He spake the best of all parties that he might displease none. Bernard is by Mr. B. himself page 265. stiled a pious man. Petrus Cluniacensis was though a zealous Papist, yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned among Witnesses of Truth in his Catalogue. They are as impartial Authors (specially Bernard) as that age yielded; if these be not taken for witnesses of things in their times, I know not how Protestants will make up their Catalogue of witnesses for them in all ages. Protestant writers do frequently alledge these very Authors for other things. Mornay in his Mysterie of Iniquity progress. 46. cites these very writings against Papists. I conceive Mr. M. Mr. B. think they said true, when Bernard charged them that they derided prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, Purgatory: and Cluniacensis that they excepted against Altars, adoring of Crosses, the Masse, chanting inquires, praying for the dead. If they be to be believed in so many, why not in this, which they put first? Lucas Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. lib. 3. cap. 3. anno Christi 1158. cites Cluniacensis for the same thing. Eckbertus saith when he was Canou at Bon he with his Companion Bertoly did often speak with them whom he refutes, sayes in his Sermon that they alleadged against Infant-baptisme Mat. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 15, 16. Though I make no question but that they bely them at least some of them in other things, some upon report, as Cluniacansis, that they denyed some of the Scripture, it may be saith Osiaander, because they denyed the Apocryphal writings, or perhaps because they denied arguments valid from the rites of the old Testament; some upon false inferences, which is a frequent thing in writers to make the consequences they gather from their writings the tenets of the Authors they impugne; some it may be out of that abuse of charging those tenets and practises upon all of the same profession, which is too true of some, as that all Christians did lewd practises, because the Gnosticks did so, that all Anabaptists are wicked because those of Munster, Copp, and some others proved so, in which way Mr. B. walkes page 138. &c. (for which the Lord forgive him) yet it seemes utterly unlikely to me, that in this Petrus de Bruis and Henricus and their followers should be belied, when so many of chief account in their time from several places charge them with denying infant-baptisme, and rebaptizing, Petrus Cluniacensis writes to 3. Bishops of France, and Bernard to the Earle of St. Gyles of purpose against them for this reason, Bernard and Cluniacensiis put it for their prime error, Petrus Cluniacensis and Eckbertus produce, and take on them to answer their allegations against infant-baptisme, but not so (as I remember) any allegations against the Scriptures or Marriage, which they charge them to deny, and therefore it's likely they wrong them in these, not in that. As for the Albigenses and Waldenses, it might be true that some might be against Infant-baptisme, yet others not, some following Peter de Bruis, others Waldus; as it was in the reformation, when some followed Luther, others Zwinglius in the points of the Eucharist, Images, &c. or it may be that they all at the beginning held so, but after left it, which seemes to be the conceit of Cassander ubi suprà. And yet in the old book wherein their doctrince is cited by Illyricus in his Catalog. test. verit. printed Argentinae 1562. pag. 3, 4. there are some speeches, which Illyricus is faine by glosses to free from the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme: But whether the Waldenses were Antipaedopatists or no what I did alleadge was rightly done, not with a brazen face or seared conscience, or out of a desire to take up any slaunder or joine with any party to defend my cause, as Mr. B. doth most unbrotherly insinuate, yea in my Examen part. 2. sect. 2. before I cite Bernard and Cluniacensis, I have these words: Now although he charge them with denying marriage & abstaning from meates, yet you may smell out of his own words that this was but a calumny: but because by the reasons given I am induced to conceive notwithstanding Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bs. allegations that Peter de Bruis and Henricus, and other godly persons and societies were 500. yeares ago Antipaedobaptists; yea I conceive as good a catalogue of Antipaedobaptists may be made almost in all ages as may be made for Protestants against many Popish corruptions, and better then Antiprelatists can make against Episcopacy. And this I dare still to do, and marvel Mr. B. dare bring such railing accusation, to which I onelyonly returne, The Lord rebuke him. The other untruth if not malice Mr. B. chargeth me with, is concerning my dealing with himself, when I had in my Valedictory Sermon and Antidote shewed how impertinently the 2. monsters in New England were brought as evidences of Gods judgements against Anabaptists I added in my Sermon, one of the errors condemned in New England is the 21. [To be justified by faith is to be justified by works] which I moved to be considered whether it were not near Mr. Bs. doctrine Aphorisme 73. of Justific. and in my Antidote sect. 8. page 24. said it is near to it. Hereupon Mr. B. adjudgeth this dealing so grosse, as he never found in any Jesuite, a shamlesse charge, and page 190. the vile ebullition of rancor and malice in a most evident falshood, that hath left no roome for blushing. And then cleares himself from the sense in which the Antinomists held it, and then addes. Now what doth Mr. T. but bring this as the same tenet with mine? when it is even directly contrary. To which I answer, Mr. B. page 189. in these words [Your language about the absolutenesse of the Covenant is too like many of the tenets of the Antinomists in N. E.] useth the same dealing with me, which he chargeth me with towards himself. For he doth or might know when I say with many Divines the Covenant is absolute, I meane it as they do in respect of the first promise, Heb. 8. 10. I will write my lawes in their hearts, which Doctor Twisse and many other prove must be absolute or else the grace of God must be given according to mans desert as the Pelagians held, which thing I expresse plainly in my Examen page 164. whereas the Antinomians make it absolute in respect of justification, in which I am assured that Mr. B. knew by conferences with me that I was against them, and yet he chargeth me with symbolizing with them. But recrimination is no purgation. 2. It is not true that I bring it as the same tenet with Mr. Bs. but neare it: which is so true, that however their in tent and his were contrary, yet their words are the same. For Mr. B. Aph. 76. and in the first edition of the Saints everlasting rest page 11. saith, Doubtlesse the Gospel takes faith for obedience to all Gospel-precepts, of which the workes, James 2. 16. of giving food or clothing to a brother are a part: which if true, he that is justified by faith is justified by works, and so Mr. Bs. proposition is the same with the Antinominians, however he used it to a contrary end: it's the same medium though Mr. B. prove one conclusion by it, and the Antinomians another, and I think is condemned by the censure of them of N. E. in Mr. Bs. sense as well as the Antinomians. But Mr. B. goes about to clear himself from error in it and singularly, and then saith, How can Mr. T. have ground to think that no Minister in England is of my judgement? and then challengeth me to confute the doctrine of his book, or leaves to judge whether I be not a meere empty calumniator. And addes, that these words of mine [I am sure in his letter to me, he saith he was hissed at from all parts of the Kingdome] are a relation like the rest from a bitter roote so most falsely, when I had his letters, which might have directed me to speak truth, that the words [from all parts of the Kingdome] are my addition, which is become ordinary with me. Then mentions the occasion of the passage in his letters, my offer of help to him for dividing ends, but he thought he had no need of my help, and was resolved not to engage with a renter of the Church. To which I answer, 1. My exceptions against his doctrine in his Aphorismes have been sent to him afore his death, though not to answer his challenge, yet at the motion of his Postscript. I conceive he erres, 1. in making justification by faith to be onelyonly in law title. 2. In making a first and after continued justification. 3. In making it, a continued, not instantaneous act. 4. In making obedience to all Gospel-precepts an essentiall part of justifying faith, and not a fruite onelyonly. 2. I did no where say that I thought no Minister in England is of his judgement, though I said I thought he had not made one Minister of his judgement. 3. to the crimination of my speaking falsely I will set down his own-words in his letter to me, [That pamphlet of justification I well knew was likely to blast my reputation with most Divines, and the issue hath answered my expectation: I am now so hissed at by them, that I feele temptation enough to schisme in my discontents]. I had hot his letter by me when I spake those words not out of a bitter roote but to answer the prejudice against me as conceived singular. But there was no falshood in my speech [by most Divines] and [from all parts of the Kingdome] being equipollent. And if this be to adde falsely, our Lord Christ will be found to adde falsely Mat. 15. 8, 9. &c. my offer of helpe to him in what we agreed was not for dividing ends, but because of his complaint of weaknesse of body and want of time for study. It seemes he accounted me a renter of the Church afore my preaching at Bewdley the many Sermons on Mat. 28. 19. against Infant-baptisme, for discovering of the error of it in my bookes without other practises. It appeares thereby that even then when he seemed to be most friendly he had hard thoughts of me, and however he protest of his love, yet his misinterpreting so many of the things I have done or said to him, and at last casting up his accusations in his book in charging me with frequent untruths, schisme, pride, worse then the Devil in accusing my own children, with bitter scoffes, and insulting tauntes, with other aggravations and expressions beyond brotherly and neighbourly respects, yea I may I think say, a sober minde are undeniable evidences of want of love to me, and candour towards me, if we may judge what is in a man by his deedes rather then by his words. As for his pretence of zeale for God, the peace of the Church, and the duty of brotherly reproof, were he never so much in the right, and I never so much in the wrong for my judgement, yet these could not justifie his carriage to me. And if other Ministers deale with me as Mr. B. Mr. M. Mr. Baillee, Mr. Geree have done without doing me right after their false criminations of me, I shall have temptation to think that they have learned a principle like the Jesuites, to think it no sin to say as bad as may be against a supposed Anabaptist for the Paedobaptists cause.