Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 7 · Section 3
We now come to examine the Apology which is made for the German Anabaptiſt.
1. Firſt, he ſaith, They were not the Anabaptiſts that firſt began the Sedition, but it was from a conſpiracy of Husbandmen againſt the Biſhops, and Canons, which was called the Ruſtick League, for which he quotes Baronius, how that it began in the year 1502. which was the Praeludium of that great Sedition, which was in its Vigour 1525. according to Oſiander's account. But how doth this mend the matter, they were not firſt in the wickedneſs, in the ſedition, but ſeconded it? A ſorry evaſion: and beſides the Author is gone off from that which he ſhould ſpeak to, and that is of the Ʋproar and Confuſion that was made in Swevia in the year 1525. and did not the Anabaptiſts begin and propagate that? Spanhemius tells us in his firſt Chapter, that Nicolas Storch, Mark Stubner, and Thomas Muncer three Anabaptiſts, were the Perſons that began that lamentable Sedition.
2. The Author tells us Perſons of all ſorts concerned themſelves in it. Like enough, for ſo it is uſual in all popular commotinos, perſons of all ſorts, and intereſts, joyn in. No Man is ſo weak as to think thoſe 40000 peſants in Swevia, and Franconia were all Anabaptiſts; but Sleiden in his Com. L. 5. and alſo Spanhemius informs us, that the Trumpeter and Ringleader was Thomas Muncer, who (with other Anabaptiſt-Teachers) ſtirred up the diſcontented people to rebel againſt the Magiſtrates, and imbodied them into an Army. It was that impoſtor, who was their General, that ſet out his Declaration that his deſign was to reſtore Liberty, and to deliver Subjects from the Youke and Tyranny of Princes, which was as much to be caſt off, as the Popes of Rome.
3. He makes an odious compariſon between the Proteſtants of Geneva in the recovery of their Civil and Spiritual Liberty, and theſe Germans, who, if they had miſcarried in their attempt, might (he conceives) have fallen under as much Obloquy, as the chiefeſt of thoſe People did in their defeat.
But the actings of Geneva, the Switzers and the Cantons were more juſtifiable than theirs, and not ſo barabarous, nor their Tenents ſo blaſphemous as theirs: Notwithſtanding the reflections of the Papiſts, and ſome others of late, who have in print branded our firſt Reformations for Rebellions, and they are Men too that would be thought obedient Sons of the Church of England, and of great names: but yet one that hath but half an Eye, may eaſily ſee that theſe Theologaſters, either wanted diſcretion, or affection to the Proteſtant Intereſt; and 'tis pitty the Virga Cenſoria is not taken from them, and they turned out of their office, as the Romans uſed to ſerve the Cenſors, when they abuſed it. But I hope no foreign can charge thoſe of Geneva to have robb'd the Nobility, plundred Towns and Caſtles, and rifled all that is Sacred as thoſe Germans did, but that they fell off from popery, and ſought Reformation in a more regular way.
4. The Author ſpeaks not right concerning the Commotion at Munſter, in ſaying, Spanhemius acquaints us, that the firſt ſtir in the City was about the Proteſtant Reformation, the Synod (he means Senate) ſiding with Mr. Rotman and other Reformed Miniſters againſt the Papiſts and the Biſhop that oppoſed them to Arms. For though the Senate would not obey the command of the Biſhop, (who was then at a diſtance from the City) in taking away ſome of the Churches, which a little before they had granted for the uſe of the Reformed Divines, yet this difference was ſoon compoſed and it never came to Arms or Blows, Spanhemius tells us.
5. That which follows is exreamly ſcandalous, namely, That there is good ground to doubt of the truth of what is reported concerning the Monſtrous wickedneſs, and villanies of John Matthias, and John Becold of Leyden; and what are thoſe grounds of doubt? why,
1. Becauſe, ſaith he, the things are written either by malicious Papiſts their mortal enemies, or elſe by ſome of their moſt inveterate enemies the Proteſtants, who were willing to take up and improve ſuch reports, to blaſt not only the whole party of the Anabaptiſts, but their Principle alſo.
Reply.
I dare ſay that here are in the latter part of this Sentence, ſo far forth as it relates to Proteſtants many untruths, and may ſigh over it, that old ſaying, Quot dicta, tot maledicta. Alas to ſee whither affection to a cauſe will carry Men!
1. Then, the Proteſtants were not inveterate Enemies to the Anabaptiſts, but very loving Friends to ſome of the chiefeſt of them, both before and after they took up the Opinion, until the Rebellion of Muncer, and that at Munſter. Witneſs the Friendly and Brotherly conference that was between Luther and Muncer at Wittenberg where they had often Conference, and Luther intreated him to be quiet, and not broach ſuch Doctrines as were againſt Magiſtracy and Civil Government. Zwinglius dealt tenderly and gently with thoſe that fell off from his Church, for they were his intimate Friends, Muſculus viſited them in Priſon, relieves them, and was their Advocate, and perſwaded the Magiſtrate to be kind, and to uſe no ſeverity; for that was not the way to reduce Men from their errors.
2. Bullinger (of whom we have before ſpoken) begins his Book with a Lamentation at God's Judgments on Chriſtians, for their not profiting by the Word; for which God gives them up to deluſions and to a reprobate Senſe: he profeſſeth that before he did in ſilence conceal their Crimes, and ſpoke leſs than they committed. Luther, hearing of their vile pranks at Munſter, was neceſſitated (and ſo were divers other Miniſters for the honour of the Reformed Religion which did ſo much ſuffer by thoſe Exorbitancies) to put forth a Teſtimony in print againſt them; in which he ſaith, It was plain that Munſter was become the habitation of Devils; for ſo the Juſtice of God had puniſhed the Sins of Germany, and eſpecially the looſe and prophane life of thoſe that profeſſed the Goſpel; but in this Tragedy of Munſter the marvelous Mercy of God evidently appeared, that e had not permitted that old ſubtil Serpent and cunning Satan, to contrive and govern that buſineſs, but only had given way to ſome Silly Blockiſh Devil, who ſeemed not well skill'd in Villany, to be their Guide and Conducter; and that though the State was diſturbed by it, yet he conceived the Church on that account would receive the leſs prejudice by it.
3. Spanhemius, in his Hiſtory of their Actings, ſaith, That the Proteſtant Miniſters were extreamly troubled at what happened, and the Papiſts vilified the Goſpel by reaſon of it; for the Popiſh party ſaid this was the fruits of revolting from them; and they were afraid the Magiſtrate would have an evil eye upon them, and ſuſpect that the liberty which they granted, might tend to the ſowing of Sedition, if they did not declare againſt them, and preach down the Doctrine, and Practices of thoſe Anabaptiſts.
4. Laſtly, What other thoughts can we have then of that uncharitable paſſage, That the Proteſtants were willing to take up and improve ſuch reports, to balſt not only the party of Anabaptiſts, but their Principle, but that it is the Ebullition of a Malicious, or at beſt Prejudicial Spirit? and yet for all that if ſuch tumultuous and rebellious carriages proceed from the diſtempered brains of ſome Men, I ſee not why they ſhould be imputed to thoſe amongſt us who are of a better temper. But if from their Opinions and the very Conſtitution of their Sect, as we have cauſe to judg much of it doth, it will be ſomething difficult to make it out how it may not be chargeable upon all. But I think our Antagoniſt is the only Man that ever Apologized for thoſe Germans: But well-fare a ſure friend in a corner! it ſeems he loves them ſo well that he would fain ſave their credit, though by laying an imputation of forgery on the moſt faithful Hiſtorians and grave Divines ſince the Reformation. Yet theſe Hiſtorians cannot be ſo put off; for they are punctual, name Perſons, Time Place, Opinions, Condemnation, and Puniſhment, all matters of Fact open to the World: But if all who bear witneſs againſt an evil-doer muſt be held as Enemies, and their Teſtimonie be rejected under that Plea; and nothing believed but what themſelves are pleaſed to acknowledge upon record, who will be guilty?
2. His other Plea is as follows: Another thing there was, ſaith he, by which people in all Ages took occaſion to miſrepreſent this People at Munſter, That they were for Community of Goods, caſting their Eſtates into one common Stock, and was the ſame thing that Oſiander tells us Muncer did in Mulhuſian in Thuringia 1524. And which the Waldenſes did reſpecting the Example, Act. 4.34.
O fearful! And did not John Matthias their chief Prophet (as they called him) take an excellent courſe to effect it, by ſetting forth a Proclamation to be read through the City, requIring all Perſons upon pain of Death to bring forth their Glod and Silver, Silver, and all their Goods, unto a publick place appointed for that purpoſe; the ſeverity of which Edict ſo aſtoniſhed the People that they were fain to obey it.
The other Objection which the Author attempts to Anſwer, is that of the Waldenſian Confeſſion in favour of Infant-Baptiſm. The firſt is that of Laodiſlaus King of Bohemia 1508. preſented to Ferdinand 1535. Which Confeſſion he looks on as ſignifying nothing to the point, becauſe they were a mixt People, ſome for, and ſome againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and diſowned the name of the Waldenſes. This indeed is ſomething to invalidate the Authority of that Confeſſion, to which I can ſay nothing, having not had the opportunity to ſee it. However if it be ſo, as he ſaith, then we underſtand that thoſe of them that were aginſt Infant-Baptiſm were not Waldenſes, no more than they who were for it.
The other, ſaith he, is a paſſage in the Spiritual Almanack, owning the Baptiſm of Children, which he conceives was written by George Morel, 1530. one of the Miniſters ſent by the Waldenſes of Provence to Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Capito, at a time when they were in a declining condition, and for ſelf-preſervation were ready to comply with the Maſs.
I muſt take the freedom to tell the Author that he doth prevaricate again, and is more than ordinarily at a loſs how to come off handſomly in this thing: For;
1. He cannot deny the Confeſſion; that's ſmething for us: you have the Confeſſion taken from Perin the French-Hiſtorian, in pag. 62. of the 2d Part of our Anſwer, to which I refer you.
2. He ſuppoſeth it was put forth by G. Morel about the year 1530. and why ſo late? others ſuppoſe it of an ancienter date, but however the Church unanimouſly did aſſent to Infant-Baptiſm.
3. Farther; he ſuppoſeth the Confeſſion to be made at that juncture when they ſent Morel to Oeclampadius for Reſolution, whether they might not be preſent with their bodies at Maſs, ſo they kept their hearts right with God? This is not to the puroſe, for we gathere hence no more than this, that God's own People are Subject to ſinful fears, and are ſometimes tempted to ſin rather than to ſuffer, and that the fear of Man worketh a ſnare: all which you may obſerve from the excellent Letter ſent them by Oecolampadius, p. 67, 68. of the 2d Part of our Anſwer. But all this while, what is this to take us off from believing that they were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, which they ſay had been owned and practiſed amongſt them for ſome hundred years. This they ſcrupled not, nor ſent for any Reſolutin in the caſe; nor did they Baptize their Children out of fear of the Papiſts, who accuſed them that they were againſt it, becauſe they had in deteſtation their humane Inventions added to the Sacrament, and for that reaſon delayed the Baptizing their Children until their own Paſtors came home, which were often and long abroad in Propagating the Goſpel.
4. He ſaith, Oecolampadius ſharply rebuking them [in his Letter] they thereupon promiſed to ſuit themſelves to the Documents they received from him. What they are, ſee in the aforeſaid Letter, I am ſure there is nothing of Baptiſm in it, but only good counſel to ſtand faſt in the Truth, and keep themſelves from Idolatry: and there was a good effect of it, as appeared by their conſtant ſuffering, for perſecution came ſuddenly upon it.
He ſaith, In conformity to thoſe Documents they received from him, it appears there is little or no difference between the French, and German-Proteſtants, eſpecially thoſe that own Calvin's way, being moſt ſhrunk up into little more than a bare form.
But why doth he talk in this manner, when all the Documents they then received was to endear Chriſt, and his Truth to them, and to fortify them againſt ſuffering? And what an extravagancy is it in the Author to take occaſion from this Circumſtance to ſlur the French, and German Proteſtants, many of whom doubtleſs have aſmuch of the power of Godlineſs as himſelf, or as any of the Mennoniſts, or Anabaptiſts at this day in Holland, whoſe Religion we underſtand by ſome friends of theirs, is pittifully ſhrunk up to little more than the Form of Dipping, & which is worſe, they ſay they be very Erroneous in more conſiderable points.
6. Yet more againſt them: he accuſeth them to have little of the old purity left amongſt them. And what need hath the Author to vilify them at this rate, and how impertinent is it to the Province he hath undertaken. The Lord enable us to ſearch our own hearts, and we ſhall ſee cauſe enough to judg our ſelves, and not be forward in Cenſuring others: and it is to be feared the Author condemns them the more, as having little of purity becauſe they are for Infant-Baptiſm, his Zeal is ſo much carried out about the little things of Religion.
7. But this, ſaith he, cannot at all weaken or enervate their old Confeſſion, Practice, and Witneſs, confirmed with ſo great authority, and for ſo many Ages together. The words are good, but being applyed to a cypher, a non-entity, they become a piece of Ridicule; for there is no ſuch Confeſſion to be found, unleſs it be in Ʋtopia: Nay there is nothing looks like a Confeſſion that excludes Infants from Baptiſm, as appears after all their endeavours to prodace it. See this, p. 46, 47, 48. of the 2d Part of our Anſwer.
8. He Profeſſeth ingenuouſly amongſt all his ſearch, that except thoſe two paſſages, (1) the Confeſſion preſented to Laodiſlaus, the 12th Article of which is for Infant-Baptiſm, and that in the Spiritual Almanack [which declares the Baptizing of their Children] he can find none. Very good: however he hath not gained much advantage to his cauſe; having found two Confeſſions for Infant-Baptiſm, but never one againſt it; for he muſt reckon the lying accuſations of the Papiſts, that they were againſt Baptizing Children, when they only abhorred their filthy Ceremonies, and purged themſelves from the calumany, by putting forth their Confeſſions in which they Profeſs their judgment for it.
9. Laſtly, In may little ſearch I have found another Cnfeſſion, and ſuch a one as may ſhame the Author for his prevarication, and that is it which we have before mentioned in the 2d part of our Anſwer p. 65. The Confeſſion made at Angrongne; where the Heads of every Family, with the Paſtors ſigned ſeveral Articles, and the 17th is for Infant-Baptiſm as before.