Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism, Postscript
A POSTSCRIPT by H. D.
FOR the Readers better and more full ſatisfaction (after the great cry againſt me for Forgery and prevarication by my Antagoniſts) I have here given you together, this brief account of all the miſtakes of moment that I have met with from any hand. And which the Reader is deſired to correct in the Treatiſe as he meets with them; which are as followeth, viz.
1. Of my own or Friends diſcovery, p. 55, 56. for Eaſtern r. Weſtern, p. 139. for Eraſmus r. Beza, p. 124. dele what is produced from Lanafrank about Beringarius, and p. 68. and 115. and Index, dele the Canon of the Council of Conſtant. as ſpurious.
2. Of Mr. Baxters finding out, p. 223. for 3 & 4 book againſt the Donatiſts r. 4 book, p. 286. 294. for Cochleus r. Walden.
3. Of Mr. Wills's, p. 75. for Aquinas r. Albertus, p. 116. dele Deodans, and for Hincmarus r. Sericius, p. 117. r. Magdeburgs for Zonaras, p. 155. for work no ſuch cauſe r. be no ſuch cauſe, p. 287. dele Pelagius and Vincentius Victor.
Theſe being all the errors of any weight I have yet met with from any: The judicious Reader will be more able to diſcern;
1. Whether here be any Forgery or Prevarication, or any wilful abuſe, or miſleading the Reader, (as with ſo much virulence ſuggeſted) or any other over-ſight or miſtakes, then ſuch as uſually attend other writings; and therefore whether all the clamour and out-cry of my Antagoniſts, diſcovers not more of malice then matter, and is the reſult rather of prejudice and paſſion, then a zeal for the candid inveſtigation of truth.*To lead from the main queſtion to things not to the purpoſe, and make a heavy ſtir about them, is the right Method of Cavillers; and which my Oppoſites take with me in this controverſie.
2. Whether ſince the Exceptions appear to be ſo inſignificant and immaterial to the great point contended about, and no weightyer objections made good after ſo ſevere a ſcrutiny, and troubling the World with the duſt and pudder made about them, the Queſtion in debate be not fully given up, viz. That it is now clearly manifeſt, that there is no Primitive Antiquity for Infants Baptiſm, nor no Record to make it appear that it was practiced as Chriſts Ordinance for the firſt 300 years; The truth whereof having not only been evinced by unanſwered Arguments and Demonſtration; but from their own Pens, being conſtrained at laſt to acknowledge, That except in caſe of danger of Death, there is no Record in the Hiſtory of the Church for the neceſſity thereof in thoſe firſt times.
Therefore the Reader is deſired to take notice what ground we get herein, and how far this conſideration tends to juſtifie our practice, viz.
1. That the Baptizing of Believers, after profeſſion of Faith, is not only evidenced by expreſs precept and example from the Scripture; (the true and only way whereby Chriſts Ordinances are eſtabliſht to Proteſtants) but by the univerſal conſent of all Ages; our very Enemies being Judges.
2. That the Baptizing of Infants is neither to be made good by any expreſs precept or practice from Scripture; nor as an Apoſtolical Tradition for theſe firſt and pureſt times; as our Adverſaries alſo acknowledge; though they would inſinuate as if they could conſequentially deduce it; whereas no natural nor un-forc'd conſequence can be inferr'd in its favour from Scripture or primitive Antiquity, but abſurd and illogical non-ſequiturs, proving nothing ſo much as the weakneſs of the cauſe they endeavour to ſupport.
So that it neceſſarily and undeniably follows, That though Papiſts and ſome Proteſtants may plead Antiquity ſince the 5th. Century, and no higher (the Milevitan Synod that firſt impoſed it, being in the year 416.) for the neceſſity of Baptizing of Children to take away Original ſin, regenerate and ſave their Souls, with the Concomitants of Chryſm, Exorciſm, Goſſips, &c. Yet the Proteſtants with whom we have to do (owning this to be a poyſonous Antichriſtian Doctrine) cannot pretend higher for their Chriſtning Children upon the account of foederal *Which novel Argument of foederal right is excellently refuted by Mr. Ed. Hutchinſon.right then the 15th. or 16th. Century. And that therefore (they rejecting the grounds of the Ancients) their Infants Baptiſm upon this new Medium is a very novelty. So that I hope we ſhall hear no more of Antiquity for Infants Baptiſm of any ſort.
And 3ly, that it yet undeniably appears, that a famous Witneſs has been born for Believers and againſt Infants Baptiſm in the ſucceſſive Ages ſince Chriſt.
And as a further ratification of the truth of theſe things pleaded for betwixt us in this conteſt, it may not be unneceſſary to mind the Reader the ſenſe that ſome ſtanders by have given by their ſuffrages, both as to the manner and matter pleaded for, which you have exemplified in the learned and jud…us diſquiſitions of Mr. Hutchinſon in his late Reflections and Animadverſions upon Mr. Baxter, Mr. Wills, and Whiſton's Writings. The Letter of Mr. T. B. to Mr. Wills, the Epiſtle of Mr. Tho. DeLaune before Mr. Hutchinſon's; all of them ſo great ſtrangers to me, that I neither ever ſaw any of their Faces, or ſo much as heard of their names that I know of, before their ſaid works.
And to which I may preſume to add a Let…er ſent to me upon this occaſion, by a perſon of Quality, a ſearcher into this Controverſie, and one of known worth, ability, and moderation; which you may take as followeth.
SIR,
As to Mr. Baxters Piece (which ſo ſoon as I heard of, I forthwith ſent for) I have curſorily run over, eſpecially that part thereof, which more immediately concerns your ſelf, and am ſorry to ſee ſo much Rancor and Malice in the writings of one who hath had ſo great a Name for Religion and Piety: But whither will not Pride, Paſſion, and an Over-weening Opinion of a mans ſelf carry thoſe who are over come by them?
When I firſt read your Treatiſe of Baptiſm, I hoped it would have occaſioned a ſerious and full Diſquiſition of that point; but whether through the unhappy temper of your Opponents, or what elſe I know not, I have been hitherto diſappointed in my expectation, meeting in their writings with more of heat, paſſion, and perſonal reflections, then of Reaſon or a ſober Inquiſition after Truth.
I am not ſo well vers'd in Antiquity, as to ſay when Infant Baptiſm firſt came in uſe amongſt Chriſtians; but admire a matter of fact only, as that is, ſhould be ſo difficult to be determined: But if it were not in all, or at leaſt the firſt and pureſt Ages of Chriſtianity, (as ſome learned Paedobaptiſts ſeem to grant it was not) it cannot be ſaid to be of Apoſtolical Tradition; the beſt plea, if true, I have yet heard for it; and therefore I could wiſh that Point had been ſoberly and calmly debated. I muſt confeſs, I know not of any difference amongſt Profeſsors of more unhappy and pernicious Conſequence than this of Baptiſm, in regard of that ſeparation and Diviſion it cauſes amongſt Learned, ſincere, and truly Pious Chriſtians; for ſuch I no ways doubt but there are of both perſwaſions. But 'tis matter of greateſt trouble and ſorrow to me, to ſee with what uncharitable and unchriſtian Spirits ſome men manage this Controverſie, even to the reproach and ſcandal of Religion, and this too in a day, when our common ſufferings ought in prudence, if not for Piety-ſake to unite us; at leaſt in Brotherly love, and a Chriſtian Walking together ſo far as we have attained, and in other things to a Patient waiting for the Revelation of the mind of God, to them that differ; who in his good timewill, I doubt not, Ʋnite our Affections, Heal our Breaches, and make us all but one Sheep-fold, under the great Shepherd of the Sheep Chriſt Jeſus, to whoſe guidance and protection I moſt heartily recommend you, and for the preſent remain, &c.
And laſtly, I hope the Baptiſts anſwer to Mr. Wills his Appeal againſt me, will have no ſmall tendency to iſsue this Controverſie, whoſe diligent ſearch (by thoſe learned Men they appointed thereto) into the Authors quoted by me, and excepted againſt by him, will be a ſufficient vindication (I doubt not) of my integrity in my Quotations, as well as the truth aſſerted thereby; and a due Reproof to Mr. Wills for his great Temerity, being himſelf ſo eminently found guilty by them in ſo many things he ſo injuriouſly charges upon me, inſomuch that they (as he deſires, in caſe my innocency appears to them) as you ſee, have thought juſt to acquit me, and reflect the blame of the Charge upon himſelf: All which is again ſubmitted to his Conſcience, the Impartial Readers, and the bleſſing of the Almighty. By
H. D.
End of the text · Henry Danvers, Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism (1675)