INNOCENCY and TRUTH VINDICATED: OR, A Sober REPLY to Mr WILL's ANSWER to a Late TREATISE of BAPTISME.

Wherein the Authorities and Antiquities for Believers, and against Infants Baptism, are Defended, and the mis-representations and Forgeries he boasts of, all returned upon himself.

With a brief Answer to Mr Blinmans Essay.

By Henry Danvers.

Ʋt ex lapidum attritu ignis elicitur, sic saepe veritas ex alternantium imo & altercantium sermonum conflictu. Lipsius.
Prov. 18.17. He that is first in his own Cause, seemeth just, but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1675.

THE PREFACE.

IT is an Ancient and well approved Maxim among the Learned, that the more truth is winnowed and sifted, the more opposed and contended against, the more transpa­rent and illustrious it appears. Veritas ventilata plus rutilat & impugnata magis elucesit.

A further confirmation whereof you may meet with, from the late opposition Mr. Will's hath made against the truth, in his late Book called Infants Baptisme attested and vin­dicated by Scripture and Antiquity, in an Answer to a treatise, by Mr. H.D. &c.

Wherein notwithstanding the dilligent search, he tells us, he has made in the Ʋniversity Library at Oxford, the utmost assistance that all the learned writers Mr. Marshall, Baxter, Cobbet, Cotten, Holmes, &c. can give him to disprove and weaken the Authorities urged from Scripture and Antiquity for Believers against Infants Baptisme, ye [...] you'l finde they serve but so much the more to illustrate that truth he pretends to foil, giving only an opportunity for further confirmation and ratification, and to create more full satisfaction or conviction to any that have been in sus­pence, as to the truth of any of those Authorities urged by me. Wherein notwithstanding his great flourish and noyse you'l finde he is not able to reprove the truth so much as of [Page] one of those many Authorities in the Historical part, and excepting that one in the Doctrinal part, viz. Calvin for Eckius, not another that is considerable in the whole Book.

Therefore all that I have to ask of the Candid Reader (at whose Barr the matter is now br [...]ught betwixt Mr. Will's and me) is only to do themselves and the truth in Question so much right as to afford the Common Justice of an open Ear; that having heard the Recrimination, they will also attend to what is said herein for vindication.

Wherein y u have his Arguments duely weighed, and refuted, his caviling exceptions answer'd; his pretended forgeries, and falshoods, disproved; the Antiquities of Believers Baptisme defended; the innovation, groundless Tradition, and novelty of Infants Baptisme confirmed. The witness against it by eminent men and famous Churches for many Ages maintained; his injurious Calumnyes and reproaches (that he not only designes to load the Professors of believers Baptisme with, but the Profession it self also) detected and reproved, The groundless custome of sprinkling instead of Dipping further evinced.

As for his undue and uncomly reflections, the haughty, bitter wrathfull, frothy and provoking spirit, he appears in, through the whole Book, s [...] unbecoming Christian candor, his holy Profession, or the nature of the ordinance treated of, I shall the beast concern my self ab [...]ut, but leave it to him that can convince and will certainly reck [...]n for such hard speeches for his names sake; and rather so farr as concerns my self with Job, to binde it about me for a Crown, Job. 31.36. And as exhorted Mat. 5. To rejoyce to be accounted wor­thy to suffer contempt & reproach for the truth sake, &c. then to render Railing for Railing. It being also ever judged the signe of a bad cause, for persons to betake them­selves to such courses, and thereby to supply the want of mat­ter [Page] and sound Argument with rage, clamour and noyse.

The Scripture arguments 'tis true I have little medled with, and that for these following reasons.

First, because the Historical part upon which so much stress hath been laid (though the leanest part of the controver­sy) was the principal new thing added by me (it being as Mr. Will's observes, next to an impossibility to offer any new Scripture, or almost any new Argument that hath not been before urged in the controversy;) and is mainly there­fore by him opposed.

Secondly, Because he has ingeniously confess'd, that there is no express Scripture f [...]r the same; And so many of themselves with one Mouth have owned, the necessity of express Scripture to warrant and justify the practise of every part of Gods worship, and that to practise any thing in the worship of God without express warranty from the Word, is superstition and false worship. And that such a Principle ought to be held fast as the great Prote­stant Bulwark to secure us against all Popish Innovati­ons and Traditions: and which is a sufficient answer out of their own Mouthes against any thing they urge from pre­tended inferences and farr-fetch't Consequences, being all that can possibly be said for it.

Thirdly, because M. Tombes hath now given a particular Answer to him and Mr. Blinman therein, who being none of those rigid Anabaptists that Mr. Will's expresseth so much enmity against, his Arguments may be more acceptable to him.

And 4ly. because I intend to do it more particularly here­after, (if God please) by it self, having yet much to reckon with Mr. Will's for his further abuses, and grand mistakes in the Doctrinal part.

In the next place, it is very observable, and I desire the Rea­der to take special notice of it, that the things he would so [Page] injuriously Father upon me he is himself found fouly guilty of; making good Prov. 26.27. and of which I shall point you to a few instances, viz.

First, that the forgeries and prevarications he charges up­on me, do all return upon himself; and not one of them made good against me, as appears from l. 1. to p. 29.

Secondly, that the several falshoods he lays to my charge are all of them of his own making and not one of them to be proved against me, as is particularly evidenced from p. 29. to p. 62.

Thirdly, the notorious abuse he has put upon Authors by forgery, curtilations▪ mis-quotation, mis-translation, and which fully appears by the following instances, viz.

1. by making an Auth [...]rity of his own for Infants Bapti­sme, and fathering it upon Basil in the 4. Cent. in his Book contra Eunom, and asserting it to be the very next lines to what I had repeated from him, thence reproving me for unfaithfullness, in leaving it out, and to be duely suspected in all my Quotations, when not one sillable of any such thing is to be found in him as demonstrated p. 43. to 49.

2. For mis-translating, mis-representing, abusing and curtailing Greg. Nazien. as appears, p. 8. and 9. and p. 47. and 48.

3. For his curtailing and abusing the old confession of the Waldenses, leaving out a considerable part thereof, and then making flourishes and inferences upon it, as p. 110.

4. By abusing his Reader with a supposititious Testimony, of Athanasius, when the Author from whom he brings it owns it to be forged, p. 37, 38, 39. &c.

5. His egregious unfaithfullness in that notorious abuse he puts upon Osiander, pretending that he certifies several things out of Peter Clumacenses, against Peter Bruis, be­l [...]nging to the 12. Cent. when he knew them to be the Lying slanders of the Monks inquisitors against the Albegois, in [Page] the 13. Cent. and of which he picks only 5. particulars out of 20. as p. 118. to 123.

6. His abusing, and mistranslating, a passage out of Cas­sander quite contrary to what he expresseth; falsly thereby, accusing the Minis's for the very crime therein he acquits them, p. 160. to 163.

7. His abusing Erasmus, telling us that he testifyes in his Censure before Origens Homelyes on the Romans, that it was Jeroms Version, and not Ruffinus's; and that Jeroms Preface was prefixed thereto; Whereas Erasmus saith the quite contrary in both, viz. First, that it did ap­pear to be Ruffinus's and not Jeroms, and 2ly, that the said Preface was a cheat of the Book sellers, and none of Je­roms, as p. 86.

8. His abusing his Reader by a Quotation from Vice­comes, as though he testify'd, that till Luthers time none deny'd Infants Baptism, when he doth the quite contrary in the same place, giving an Account of so many before Lu­ther that did it, viz. Vincentius, Victor, Hinemarus, the Henrici, and Apostolici, Wickliff, Strabo, Vives, &c. as p. 127.

9. By further abusing the Reader in telling him, that Rainarius in his Catalogue of the Waldensian errors, gives not in their denying of Infants Baptism as a great Argu­ment they were for it being one of the Monks inquisitors im­ployed to that end; when he doth it expresly in Totidem verbis, as p. 125.

10. His double dealing about Dr. Taylors Arguments against Infants Baptism in his Liberty of Prophecy, sug­gesting as though Dr. Taylor himself and Dr. Hammond had refuted them, whereas they suppose most of them to re­main good against those common pleas for Infants Baptism; but do not undertake to answer them because many of those [Page] Arguments usually brought by Paedobaptists are not good in themselves. p. 52.

Fourthly, Fearful ositanacy or heedlesness, repeating my words truly in one place, and yet afterwards Fathering the quite contrary upon me; as p. 32.

Fifthly, Notoriously partial in his Answers all the Book through, replying to some things he judges weak, and lea­ving others unanswered, and yet vaunting over the whole: as for instance, in the 4. Cent. I give the sayings of 10 Fathers for adult Baptisme, he replys only to 4. of them, saith not a word to the rest, and yet concludes against them all, as p. 6. &c. So in like manner as to the 10. Instances given from the most eminent men not baptized till aged, though the children of Christian Parents, replys only to 4. and not a word to the other 6. and yet concludes against them all, as though he had particularly answered to them, as p. 11. to 15. (though his reply as you'l finde, is as insignificant in both as his silence.) And further I produce 3. Councils in the 4. Cent. for the same, to which he weakly replyes, he can produce 3 times ten Councells for Infants Baptism, viz. in after centuryes when by Popish Counclls it was injoind and imposed as p. 10. And again I quote Spanhaemius and Osiander to prove a thing, he takes notice only of Spanhaemius that speaks to part, but not to Osiander that speaks to the whole; and yet, reproves me for my mistake as p. 148. &c.

And further he allows but two witnesses for Beleevers Baptism only, viz Boemus and Srabo, and yet leaves mul­titudes of them unexcepted against; & unreplyd to, as p. 2. &c. In like manner excepts against but 6. of above 40. particular witnesses against Infants Baptisme, and yet allows but 2. viz. Hinc [...]arus and Adrianus, as p. 104, 105. And again, I quote eleven several Churches denying Infants Baptism, he exceps only against 3 saith nothing to all the rest, yet owns none of them. p. 17.

Sixthly, the inveteracy of spirit testified all along both a­gainst the professors and profession it self of Beleivers Bap­tism only, especially in his railing and false accusations, from p. 145. to 171.

As for my Epitomizing and repeating some of Mr Tombes s Arguments, and not alwayes mentioning his name, which he calls Plaigiarisme, I do confess in that my colle­ction, I have not so punctually mentioned all our own par­ty from Book to book, wherein (except in the Histo­rical part) I do little more then bring to remembrance, in a new Method (for the benefit of the present age) what has heretofore in large Treatises been writ upon this subject, which I think is usual in Polemical writings, & if I mistake not, Mr Sydnham doth the same thing without mentioning of names, from whom the arguments are brought (which may be endless;) And if I have been thereby injurious to any I beg their pardon; I am sure I have not been so to the truth; But herein I conceive Mr Will's hath not dealt fair­ly, 1st to reprove me for the same thing he doth himself, for I could draw paralells too upon him if I would be troublesome and impertinent; and 2ly to avoid answering the force of the Arguments, upon pretence they are anothers not my own, which I conceive savours little of ingenuity and will scarse go for current pay.

It is true, it must be owned that Mr Tombes how much soever slighted by M. Will's (though in some things very dif­ferent from most that own this way) hath done very worthily in this controversy, & was an eminent instrument that God rai­sed up amongst the learned to plead and defend that despised truth, & whose learned labours and unanswered Books do wit­ness for him in the gate, though M. Will's is pleased so igno­rantly to vaunt it, & tell us in his Epistle, that the Arguments for believers against Infants Baptisme are a parcel of Trite [Page] overworn things, a nauseous crambe or repitition of old routed Arguments, that had been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again, though his Anti-paedobaptism in 3 parts, containing neer as I judge 1500. pages in quarto, replying to what had been written by above 20 several persons are all of them, if I am not misinformed unreplied to to this day

And further, I must inform the Reader that had any modest endeavours prevailed, these things had more privately (with­out this troubleing the world) been rectifyd between Mr Will's and me, But he having as he tells us received from the learned his Album calculum, or approbation, would not by any means be stopt in his career for the supposed victory and glory; And how far he has merrited that high Encomium gi­ven by his Imprimatur, M. B. in his Epistle Recommendatory is to be considered, who tells us, that much thanks is due to him the reverend Author from the Church for answer­ing my Arguments satisfactorily, and by searching into, & so fully confuting all my pretended antiquities, thereby defending (as he saith) Gods truth & the Churches right, whilst other of his bretheren by ignorance and sloth, trea­cherous silence or silly unsatisfactory. Arguings, have betrayd the cause.

But whether instead of the Churches thanks they ought not both (in Mr B's own language) to have the Church told of them, for pestering the world with such impertinencyes, one for his heedless writing of them, and the other for his rash and careless Commendation, is submitted to judgment.

And lastly, Whether it is not now demonstrably evident to all men that will impartially consider, that notwithstanding the confident vain-glorious boast of these great undertakers, that till better proof be manifested there as yet appears as little Antiquity for Infants Sprinkling in the first Ages, as (they themselves acknowledge) express scripture for the same.

THE WITNESSES FOR Believers Baptisme Freed from Forgery and Prevarica­tion.

CHAP. I. The Baptisme of Believers, with the Authorities urged for the necessity of Confession of Faith be­fore it; is defended and the Quotations out of the Magdeburg's, vindicated from Mr. Wills's charge of Prev [...]rication and Falshood.

THe Method I shall observe he e­in, shall be to give you a briefe account of the Antiqui­ties, and Authorities brought by me, to prove the necessity of Faith before Baptisme; and then his Exception against them, and my Reply thereto: whereby the Reader may be able to make an easie, and speedy judgement, at whose door the Prevarications and Falshoods lye.

Having, as you'l find, in the 6. first Chapters by 6. Arguments from posi [...]ve scripture proved: That Believers upon Profession of Faith, [Page 2] are the only Subjects of Baptesme; did in my 7. Chapter (by way of Illustration only) confirm the same, from the eminent Testimony that had been born thereto, throughout all ages. Firmly witnessing, That Confession and Profession of Faith. with frée choice, was necessary be­fore Baptisme; And which evidence, as I have given it you, through all the Centuries, you may gather up under 2. Heads:All the Authori­ties under 2. Heads. First, What hath been said thereto by the Ancients themselves, in the first four Centuries, before Infants Baptisme was en­joyn'd (and how confirm'd by our moderne Writers); And secondly, what witness of that kind hath been born thereto, after Infants Baptisme was imposed, as well by those that deny'd Infants Bap­tisme, as those that own'd, and practised it; not only of the Romish Church, but others through all the rest of the Centuries.

Mr. Wills charge for Prevarica­tion and Falshood.To which Testimonies Mr. Wills makes his Ex­ceptions, charging me with Prevarication, in re­lating somethings partially, others falsly, and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers; and to that degree, that except only two: viz. Boemus and Strabo. That I have per­verted the sayings of all the Authors throughout the Centuries.

But how he makes this charge appear, is now to be the Question. And therefore in order to the due Examination thereof, we shall join issue with him, and put it to the tryall, how and in what particulars he will make good, either the Prevarications, or falshoods, suggested by him.

First as to the Prevarications.

The Prevarications he mentions, must appear,1. Preva­rications. either in the Authorities produced before▪ or since Infants Baptisme was enjoyn'd.

First, as to those produced by me, before In­fants Baptisme was imposed: viz. from the four first Centuries, It is manifest, that as to all the Testimonies I bring in the three first Centu­ries, so positively affirming, that Profession of Faith was to procede Baptisme: He gives no ma­teriall Exception, only saith this of Tertulian, pag. 6. second part: That the Magdeburgs tell us indeed, that Tertullian in this age, opposed himself to some that Asserted Infants Baptisme, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects. But how weakly he doth it, may be seen afterwards, when we come to examine the witness [...]s, of which Tertu­lian is the Van.

So that I hope, it will be acknowledged,None in the 3. first Cent. that here is no Prevarication, or perverting evidence, in these my first Testimonies in the three first Cen­turies; and where you will find there is more then seven times two. Boemus and Strabo being none of their number, so that if we should go no further, my first Proposition stands firme, that Be­leevers Baptisme was the only Baptisme for near 300. years.)

But to proceed, I perceive his great cry against me, is for the Authorities I produce out of the fourth Century; but how justly, will speedily ap­pear.

I do indeed say, that it is manifest to me, [Page 4] from the Evidence the Magdeburg's give us here­in:That A­dult Bap­tisme only practised in the 4. Cent. ap­pears. That it was the approved and universall practice of this Age, as well in the Eastern, as Western Churches, to Baptise upon Profession of Faith.

And which is made good by a threefold evi­dence. 1. From the say­ings of the Fathers. First, from the sayings of the Fathers, and greatest men of this Century, both in Africa, Asia▪ and Europa.

2. Decrees of Coun­cels.Secondly, from the positive Decrees of three Eminent Councells in this Age.

Thirdly, from th [...] pregnant instances of ten of the most eminent Men, 3. From the Chil­dren of Christians not Bap­tised till aged. that were not Baptised till aged, though the Children of Christian Pa­rents, in this Century.

First, from the sayings of the Fathers, both in the East and West.

First, that it doth not appear, that any other then Adult Baptisme was practised in the Church­es of Africa, Affrica. 1. Athana­sius. is manifest by the sayings of Atha­nasius, and Arnobius, 2. Arno­bius. two of the most eminent in those Parts, in this Age: Who do positively af­firm, as appears by their saying, at large p. 55, 56. That Teaching, Faith, and Desire should, accord­ing to Christ's Commission, precede Baptisme. And to which we may add, what we have from Op­tatus Milevitanus 3. Optatus Milev. an othe [...] Person of great Name in this Church, in this Age; who tell us in his 4. Book, as say the Magdeburg's, Century 4. pag. 237. That none denyes; but that every Man by nature, though born of Christian Parents, is un­clean, and that without the Spirit he is not cleansed, and that there is a necessity of the Spirits cleasing be­fore [Page 5] Baptisme: So that the house must be trim'd, and fitted for the Lord (viz as he saith, the Soul of the Believer is) that God may enter and dwell in it; ac­cording to the saying of the Apostle: You are the Temple of God, and he dwells in you.

Secondly, that is was the Faith, and Practice of the Churches of Asia, Asia. appears by the like say­ings, of Bazil. Greg. Nazienzen, Ephrim. Syrus, Epiphanius, &c. as at large you have them p. 55, 56, 57.

Thirdly, that it was the universal practice in the Western, or European Europ. Churches, appears also from what is witnessed hereto, by Hilary, Am­brose, Jerom, and Marius Victorinus, in the fore­said Pages. And therefore do the Magdeburg's, upon Hilary's testimony, say, that the Western Churches did so observe it. And from Jerom's testimony, do also tell us, that it doth appear till his time, that the Western Churches did so continue, to Baptise the Adult upon Profession. (The Reader being desir'd, in both those Testi­monies p. 55, 56. to put Western for Eastern.

Secondly, the truth of this further,2. Three Councels. appears from those Decrees of the three Councels: viz. The Carthagenian Councel in Affrica; And the Laodicean, and Neocesarean Councels, in Asia; so positively decreeing: That Teaching, Confes­sion, Faith▪ and free Choice, ought to preceed Bap­tisme, which you have in pag. 89.

Thirdly, a third Argument,3. Ch [...]ldren of Christ­ians not Bap ised. that Adult Baptis­me was the only approved Baptisme of this Age, I demonstrated from those ten Remarkable In­stances, of the most eminent men in this Century: [Page 6] that were not Baptised, though the Children of Christian Parents, till they were able to make Profession of their Faith, viz. Constantin, Bazil, Greg. Nazienzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerom, Augustin, Nectarius, Valentinian, and Theodosius.

Four of the 10 ex­cepted against.To the first ten Testimonies, of the sayings of the Fathers, Mr. Wills except only against four, viz. Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, and Nazienzen, be­cause he saith, they are all of them express for Infants Baptisme; and which are therefore per­verted by me, because I bring them for Believers Baptisme only, who were for Infants Baptisme also.

To which I say, that if but four of the ten be excepted against, then we have six more stand good for us, besides the former (viz. 15. not ex­cepted against) as perverted▪ But

The four Wit. vin­dicated. Viz. Basil.Secondly, it cannot be denyed, but these four are very full in their Testimonies, for Adult Bap­tisme; only for Basile saith expresly, Faith must needs precede, and that none else were to be Baptised, and what can be more full. Athanasius Athan. as express also as he, for Teaching, and Faith from Christs Commission before Baptisme. And Nazianzen Naz. as positive as either, That they neither Baptised any of Old without Profession, and that it was dangerous then so to do, and therefore advised, that Infants Baptisme should be deferred, till they were capable to make some Confession. And Ambrose Ambrose. as full also, That the Baptised should not only make Confession, but desire the same. Therefore if any of them should contrary hereto say, Infants should be Baptised, it would not only contradict the acknowledged Rule, the general confessed practice of the Age, but them­selves [Page 7] also in the aforesaid Testimony born by them.

But thirdly, neither doth it appear upon a due search, for ought I can yet find, that these four did so contradict themselves, in asserting Infants Baptisme, as affirmed. For

First,Athan not for Infants Baptisme, Athanasius is much injured in Fathering those Questions to Antiochus upon him, in the 114, and 124. whereof Infants Baptisme is as­serted, it being a forged, and spurious thing, and none of his, as I shall make manifest presently by undenyable proof.

Secondly, neither will it appear, that Basil. Nor Basil. has any where asserted Infants Baptisme, as I shall fully demonstrate in it's place also, and Mr. Wills his egregious mistake about it.

Thirdly, As for the Testimony that he produ­ceth, that Ambrose was for Infants Baptisme,Nor Am­brose. from that saying of his, lib. 2. de Ab. cap. 11. Be­cause every age is obnexious to sin, therefore every age first is fit for the Sacrament, is no proof for the same; 1. Because Circumcision is there only meant. 2. If Baptised, then those of every age, that are fit for that Sacrament, must be supposed (as he before tells us) viz. those only that are capable to confess Faith and desire Baptisme; other­wise (by this testimony as he would carry it) not only all Children, but all Men, and Women in the World, the Bad as well as the Good▪ the Ʋnbe­lievers as well as the Believer, being all obnoxious to sin, are therefore esteemed the fit subjects of Baptisme. But suppose Ambrose was positive for Infants Baptisme, it is but the opinion of one Doctor, that contradicts himself too, and that [Page 8] against the judgement, and practise of the Age.

Fourthly, As for the testimony he urges from Greg. Nazienzen, which has the most in it, we shall duely Examine; He tells us pag. 11. that Greg. Nazienzens words are express in the case, and makes manifest that he was absolutely for In­fants Baptisme, in his 40. Oration, viz. Hast thou a young Child let it be early consecrated, yea [...] from its Infancy (as Mr. Wills renders the word) and therefore as in his 3. Oration they Baptised all ages, as he said.

Nazian. not abso­lutely for Infants Baptisme.To which I answer, that from his translating the word [...] Infants, to conclude him abso­lutely for Infants Baptisme, is to impose a falacy upon his Reader, when he knows the word sig­gnifies a state of Childhood also, that is capable of understanding, as it is taken 2 Tim 3 15. And that from a Child thou hast known the Scripture; the word is, [...], and therefore Nazienzen must be understood by his early Con­sicration, to mean not in the Cradle, but as he explains himse [...]f, so soon as they are capable to know Mysteries except only in the case of dan­ger of death; and which is to Baptise not so much a Child as a dying Person. And that he means not the Infants state is manifest, because in the same 40. Oration he hath these words (speaking of those who decease without Baptisme:) viz. Neither can they Re [...]eive Baptisme, either p [...]rhaps by Reason of Infancy▪ or some altogether involentary, chance by which it is that even they who would obtained not the gift. Whereby it is manifest, that in his time I [...]fancy was one of the Obstacles that hindred Bap­tisme, [Page 9] and whereby Persons deceased without it. And therefore by that passage, in his third Ora­tion, of all ages Receiving Baptisme, is to be un­de [...]stood, such only that are capable of Instruction in the Faith, and the Mysteries of that Ordi­nance, whether young Men, old Men, or Fathers, having before declared, is so dangerous to come unprepared to it. Therefore Gregories testimony, so much lean'd upon, to prove Infants Baptisme in this Century, signifies nothing. And Doctor Barlow tells us that as Tertullian in the former Age condemn'd it, as an unwarrentable, and irrationall Custom, so did Nazienzen (as he saith) dislike it too, and would not have them brought to Baptisme, till they were of some age, and able to answer for themselves, in his Oration [...].

Objection. But 'tis said, is it not manifest that in case of danger of death, he would have an Infant Bap a sea? Answer. It is true, but that was not qua Infant, but [...]s a dying Person; and which was through a su­perstitious conceit, that Baptisme might save them; as some give the Eucharist, and Extream unction, when they are just departing; In like manner there was also in this Age an opinion, that some had to Baptise Children, Sick Per­sons Bap­tised for cure. to cure them of their Bea [...]ly diseases, Magd. Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 423. As they were grown Persons also in the next Age to cure them, Aug. to. 7. col. 89. c. But what are either of these to that Ordinance of Baptisme? Tertullian that, as Doctor Barlow tells us, was so great an opposer of Infants Baptisme, as irrational, and unwarrent­able, yet had this fancy of Baptizing a dying Child, to save it; which signifies just nothing to the thing [Page 10] pleaded for, and that Persons may as well bring Protogenes for an Authority, that pretended to Baptize the sick Children of this Age, to cure their deceases; as Gregorie, and Tertulian for Baptiz [...]ng of dying Children, to save their Souls.

So that all our instances from the sayings of our Eminent Men, stands as yet firme for us, not­withstanding what Mr. Wills has said to the con­trary.

Secondly, as to the Decrees of the three Coun­cels, he saith this: That if it must go by the num­ber of Councels, they shall carry it; for if I name three, that must be supposed to be against Infants Baptisme, he thinks he should not exceed, if he said, he could name ten times three for it. Besides he con­ceives, that these three Councels mentioned by me, had respect only to Pagans, in those their Decrees, from what Mr. Marshall had said in answer to that of Neocaesaria.

His excep­tions a­gainst the Councels very fri­volous.To his first answer, I say, It is granted I think (as I have made it ready to his hand;) he may quote the Canons of thirty Councels, for Infants Baptisme, in the following ages (and a stout ar­gument, no doubt for it.) But what are such De­crees to this fourth Century, wherein I produce three for Believers Baptisme, upon Profession and free choice; and he not one in this time (as indeed it is impossible he should) there being none found to ordain any such thing, till after this Century.

And as to his conception, that the Neocaesarian Councel means only Pagans, and not the Children of Christian Women, as he saith. Mr. Marshal hath made appear; and therefore in his usuall civility tells [Page 11] me, how impudent it is in me to trouble us with this silly Ridiculous story.

He must therefore know, that he and Mr. Marshal, both do miss the Case, the stress of the Decree lyes not about the Parent, but for the Exclusion of all Children, whether of Pagan, or Christian Parents; because confession, and free choice is required in that Sacrament. And there­fore saith Grotius from the Glossers, That an In­fant cannot be Baptised, because it hath no power to confess, or choose the Divine Baptisme. And which speaks reason, saith Doctor Tayler, and intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church, of interrogating the Catechumens, concerning the Ar­ticles of their Creed, which is one Argument saith he, that either they did not admit Infants to Baptis­me, or that they did praevaricate egregiously, in asking Questions of them, who themselves know, were uncapable of giving answers.

So that we have as little prevaricated in our Councels, as in our Fathers.

Thirdly, the next exception he makes,Excepts against 4. of the 10. not Baptis­ed in their Infancy. is a­gainst the Instances of those eminent Men not Baptised till aged, and of the ten before men­tioned, he gives in exceptions only against four, viz Constantin, Nazienzen, Chrysostome, and Austin.

By which we have gained, six other unpervert­ed Authorities more; and surely it is of much weight, that if six such eminent Persons, the Children of Christian Parents were not Baptised, till they could make a Confession of their Faith; it is a substantial Argument, that Believers Bap­tisme [Page 12] was the Baptisme generally owned in this Age, and that Infants Baptisme was not yet re­ceived as an Apostolical Tradition, and ordinance of Christ, whilst so many Renowned worthyes of this Age, the Parents of these great Men, should neglect to Baptize them in their Infancy; for the Argument lyes there, and not as Mr. Wills so weakly reasons, from some misapprehensions in the parties themselves, as in p. 17.

Constant. the Son of Christians Parents, asBut as to the Exceptions themselves: First, as to Constantin, if he, and Mr. Marshal doubt whe­ther Constantin had Godly Parents at his birth: As good Historians, as they do not. As Grotius and Dailly Dailly. witnessing, to Helana's Christianity before his birth, as p. 60. & 62. And the Magdeburgs Magd. to that of his Father, Cent. 4. p. 61. Out of Eusebius in these words, Constantinus Constantii Imperatoris Filii, bonus a bono, pius a pio. Constantine the son of Constantius, a good man from a good, a holy man from a holy one.

Nazian. the Son of Christians Parents, as Magd.As to that of Nazienzen, I wonder Mr. Wills should cavil about him, seeing he knows the Magd [...]burgs, in the Account they give of his life, tell us from such undeniable Authority: That his Father Gregorius was a pious Bishop, and his Mo­ther Nonna a gracious holy Woman before his Birth, and that she by prayer obtained this her son of God; and how from his youth he did patrizare & matri­statim a puero Paternis moribus imbutus est, Mag. Cent. 4. pag. 9 [...]4, &c. Besides in confirma [...]ion thereof, Doctor Hall Dr. Halls. (as Mr. Tombes tell us) in his Honour to his married Clergy, 2 Book 8. Sect. saith: That Nazienzen was begotten of his Father [Page 13] being a Bishop, and to prove it, brings his Fathers words, speaking to him to perswade him to helpe him in his charge, which he translates out of the Greek: viz. The years of thy age, are not so many as of my Priesthood, confirming what was said a­bove out of the Magdeburgs.

As for Chrysostome he saith: Mr. Marshal saith,Chrisost. Christian Parents, as it is uncertain, whether Father and Mother were Christians at his birth. But as for that we will let it rest upon Grotius's testimony, Grotius. as you have it p. 61. whom none can think a partiall Author in this Case, being so firmly for Infants Baptisme, and without dispute so well read in Antiquity.

And as for Austin I will recommend you to two instances, to make it good,Austin Christian Parents, as and clear Mr. Wills doubts: Th [...] one is Doctor Tayler; Dr. Tay­ler. not in his Liberty of Prophecy (which is excepted against by Mr. Wills, but how warrentably we shall here­after examine) but in one of his last pieces, viz. in his Deswasive against Popery, printed 1667. where you have him in Sect. 3. p. 117. thus expressing himself: viz. That there is no pretence of Tradition, that the Church in all ages did Baptize all the In­fants of Christian Parents: it is more certain that th [...]y did not do it, then that they did: in the first Age St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, and St. Austin, were born of Christian Parents, and yet not Baptised until t [...]eful age of a man: and more that the Apostles did Baptize any Children, is not at all reported by any c [...]edible Tradition.

The other is Mr. Bazter, Mr. Bax­ter. an evidence that in this Case is not to be rejected, who is pleased to tell us in a very late piece, viz. his Principles of Love p 7.

That he knew that in the days of Tertullian, Na­zienzen▪ and Austin, men had liberty to be Baptised, or to bring their Children, when and at what age they pleased, and that none were forced to go against their consciences therein. And that he knew not that our Rule or Religion is changed, or that we are grown any wiser or better then they. And again Christian Direct. p. 827. Thus

That ancient Christians had liberty to let their Children stay till age, as they thought best. And that Austin, and many Children of Christian Parents were Baptised at age.

And upon the whole, we may add what Doctor Barlow Dr. Bar­low. saith to this purpose, pag. 64. I am sure that in the Primative times they were Catechumeni, then illuminati or Baptizati; and that not only Pa­gans, and Children of Pagans converted, but Chil­dren of Christian Parents also.

Thus we have gone through our first four Cen­turies, and the proofs urged to this point of Hi­story from them; and therein I hope the Rea­der will fully acquit me, from that charge of Pre­varication, in perverting the Authorities brought by me to witness, that in these times Confession, and Profession of Faith, was held necessary to pre­cede Baptisme.

That only the Adult Baptised in the first ages con­firmed by Divert.And that I am not mistaken, nor alone in my apprehension herein, I shall repeat a few, both of the Ancient and Modern Writers, that have so fully confirmed the truth hereof, affirming with much positiveness, that [only] the Adult, upon Confession of Faith, were the Subjects of Baptisme in these first times.

Walafrid Strabo Strabo. in Rebus Eccles. p. 26. That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given, to them Only, who were come to that inte­grity of mind and body, that they could know and understand, what profit was to begotten by Baptisme; what was to be confessed, and believed; and lastly, what was to be observed by them that are new born in Christ.

Beatus Rhenanus Rhenanus. in Anotat. sup. Tertull. saith: That the old custom was, that those that were come to their full growth, were Baptised with the Bath of Regeneration; which custom he said continued for some of the first Ages.

Rupertus Rupertus. in his 4. Book of Divine Offices cap. 18. saith: That in former times the custom of the primative Churches was, that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration, but Only, to the Chatecumens, who were instructed in the Rules of Faith, Rehearsing the same.

Jo. Boemus Boemus. Lib. 2. de Gent. Mor. It was in times past, saith he, the Custom to administer Bap­tisme, Only, to those that were instructed in the Faith, &c.

Doctor Hamond Dr. Ha­mond. in his Cat. lib. 1. c. 3. p. 23. saith, That All Men were instructed in the Funda­mentals of Faith anciently, before they were permit­ted to be Baptised.

Mr. Baxter Mr. Bax­ter. in his Saints Rest. part. 1. cap. 8. Sect. 5. saith: That Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, who lived in the 2. and 3. Centuries, do all of them affirm, that in the primative times None were Baptized, without an express cove­nanting, wherein they renounced the World, Flesh, [Page 16] and Divel; and ingaged themselves, and promised to obey him.

The Testi­monies for Adult Baptisme, after In­fants Bap­tisme was enjoined. 1. From particular Persons, 1. that de­nyed In­fants Bap­tisme.In the next place, for further confirmation of this truth, I gave you in some Testimony that was born thereto, after Infants Baptisme was esta­blished, in the fifth Century; and that not only from those that denyed Infants Baptisme, but from those that owned and practised it, Papists and others, through the rest of the Centuries.

Of the first I produced several Eminent men, as p [...]rticular witnesses, some of which I shall mention, viz

Crescon. Cresconius pag. 230. who said that there was no true Baptisme, but such as was administred after Faith.

Faustus. Faustus Regienses, pag. 230. That personal and actual desire was requisite, in every one that was to be Baptised.

Albanus. Albanus, who was put to death for his witness here­to, p. 230.

These eminent People, called Swermers,The Swermers in the sixth Century: That from Christ Example of Bap­tisme reproved, the evil custom of Infants Baptisme, p. 231,

Bishop of Apamen, The Bishop of Apamen, and Zoroaras, who did defend the Baptisme of Believers to be the only Bap­tisme, pag. 231.

Adrianus. Adrianus Bishop of Corinth in the 7. Century, who did stoutly defend Believers Baptisme, not permit­ting an Infant to be Baptised in his Diocese, page 231.

Hinemar. Hinemarus, Bishop of Laudum, refusing Infants Baptised, only Believers, 235.

The Egyptian Divines,Egyptian Divines. in the seventh Century, taught Fa [...]th before Baptisme, in opposition to the Romish Baptisme; p. 232.

Carolus,Carolus. Bishop of Maylant, taught that only such as were instructed and confessed Faith, and ma­nifested a holy life, were to be baptised.

Jacob de Roor,Jacob de Roor. owned only, that Baptisme that Christ commanded after teaching and believing; and which the Apostles did also practise; and which, saith he, must needs be after believing, b [...]cause it is for the burying of sin, the Bath of Regeneration, the Covenant of a Christian li [...]e, and the puting on the Body of Christ, and planti [...]g into the true Olive-tree Jesus Christ, and for the right entrance into the Spiritual Ark &c.

Besides many others I forbear to mention, but refer you to the Book it self; And which I sup­pose are all f [...]ll p [...]oper, and pertinent witnesses in the case, and against none of which he makes any excep [...]ion, and which I hope you will add to all the rest, besides the two he will please to allow me.

I do also bring into this evidence,2. The Churches that de­nyed In­fants Bap­tisme, wit­nessing for [...]lievers o [...]. besides many particular Persons, an Account of several Churches, that have in their Principles, and Practises, confirmed this of Believers Baptisme, after profession of Faith, and which are as fol­loweth.

The Donatists1. D [...]na­tists. that taught that none should be baptised, but those that believed, and desired the same, p. 222.

The Waldenses2. [...] dense that taught, that by Baptisme the Believers we [...]e Received into the holy Congrega­tion, [Page 18] there protesting, and declaring openly their Faith, and amendment of life, p. 239.

3. Ger­mans. The Churches of Christ in Germany owned, and contended for this Faith, and practise; and many sealed the same with their blood, p. 157.

4. Helve­tians. The Churches in Helvetia asserted the same, and many suffred Bonds, and Martyrdom from Protestant Brethren, for the profession thereof, p. 260.

5. Thessa­lonians. The Churches in Thessalonica of the same Faith, and practise, p. 76.

6. Fle­mings. The Churches of Christ in Flanders asserting the same, and multitude of Martyrs that witnessed there­to by blood, p. 267, &c.

7. Bohe­mians. The Churches in Bohemia witnessing to this truth, and their great sufferings for the same, pag. 271.

8. Hunga­rians. The Churches of Hungaria of the same practice, p. 274.

9. Poles. The Churches in Poland of like Faith, and pra­ctise, p. 274.

10. Tran­silvanians. The Churches in Transylvania of the same pra­ctice, 274.

11. Eng­lish. The Churches in this Nation owning the same Principle, and practise; viz.

First, In the time of the ancient Britains, p. 226.

Secondly, Ʋnder the name of Lollards from the Waldensian Barbe of that Name, pag. 278. p. 203, 204.

Thirdly, Ʋnder the name Wickliffians, who asserted also that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptisme, p. 283.

And Lastly, Since Henry the Eight's time, un­der the name of Anabaptists, p. 306.

Against which latter testimony, from these respective Churches in these several Regions, he only excepts against the Donatists, Waldenses, and ancient Britains, denying that they were of this Faith and practise, which you have particu­lerly replyed to in the third Chapter, where the witnesses against Infants Baptisme are defended.

But in the mean time it must be remembred, that the rest stand good, as not excepted against.

Secondly, you have the Testimony, 2. The wit­ness born to Baptis­me after Faith, by those that own­ed Infants Baptisme. born to this truth by many Eminent Men, and Churches, that have owned, and practised Infants Baptisme, since the imposing thereof; some of whom are these that follow, as you find them in the respe­ctive Centuries; viz Chrysostom, Austin, Gre­gory, Cassiodorus, Haimo, Rabanus, Anselm, Al­gerus, Rupertus, Lumbard, Albertus, Belarmine, Grotius▪ Luther, Calvin, Hamond, Dailly, Tayler, Baxter, Church of England. All or most of them, affirming with the Church of England, that Faith and Repentance is required in all those that are to be Baptised, viz. Repentance whereby they forsake sin, and Faith whereby they steadfastly be­lieve the Promises.

To all which Testimony Mr. Wills especially quar­rels me, for perverting, as he saith,Mr. Wills excepti­ons against this part for the Testimo­ny. their say­ings, against there intended sences, by improving what they say for Adult Baptisme (wherein they meant only Strangers, and Pagans converted to the Faith) against Infants Baptisme, which is in an other way, and upon an other Account, And for being so notoriously contradictious to my self, in saying they are for Believers Baptisme in one [Page 20] part of the History, and yet the same Men, and Councels, for Infants Baptisme in an other.

Replyed to. To which I say, that by Quoting their say­ings, that are so expresly for us, though it may be not intended so; I have done no injury.

1. Not quot­ed for A­nab [...]ptist.First, because I do not quote them as Ana­baptists, or to prove that Believers Baptisme was the only B [...]ptisme of those Centuries (that would have been madness, and contradiction with a witness, and which he seems to father upon me.

2. But Argu­m [...]nt. ad homineur.Secondly, because nothing is more fair or fre­quent then to improve mens own sayings against themselves, for their better conviction and clear­ing the truth; as Mr. Tombes has brought Mr. Baxters 20. Arguments against himself, and there­fore called his Book Felo de se; and no more in­jury done thereby, then Mr. Tombes saith, was done by Bishop Morton, in alledging the Roma­nists words in there writings, as an Advocate for the Protestants against themselves, but right done thereby, as he saith, to the Church of God. So that what they say respecting the Commission, for the necessity of teaching, profession, and confession, and so as their w rds necessarely exclude any other but such c [...]pable Subjects, what injury to im­prove it for the truth (and to which I have spoken, much to prevent Cavils of this kind, as you'l find it p. 85, 86, and in the Praeface)

Austin so for Adult Baptisme, in w [...]rds as to ex­c [...]e [...]n­tan [...]s.For instance, If Austin tells us in one place, That [...] put due Examination, both to Doctrine and Conversation▪ ought to be Baptised▪ and that no ig [...]orant or scandelous P [...]rson, without due in­struction, and fruits of Repentance, are to be admit­ted [Page 21] to Baptisme, what can be spoken more agreeable to truth, and more indeed to assert Believers Bap­tisme; to be the only B [...]ptisme, and to exclude any other that are no [...] capable to act Faith, or testefy fruits, for if no other, as he saith, then not Infants.

Yet the same Austin in contradiction hereto saith,How weakly & contra­d [...]ctiously Austin as­serts In­fants Bap­tisme. Let Infants be baptised by the Faith of an­other, to take away Original sin, without which they can neither be Regenerated or save [...] Now, compare these two together, what sound Christian will not say, that Austin before spoke the mind of Christ, in wholesome sound word? and herein his own words, if not corrupt and here­tical; For as one well observes that such Doctrine as this, was the greatest poyson, that ever the Fa­ther of Lyes powred into the hearts of Sinners; to make People think, that sprinkling a little wa­ter on the face could Regenerate, take away sin, and save the Soul, and beget grace ex opero ope­rato by the work done.

Calvin in one place tells us, 2. Calvin for Believers Baptisme by Rule. the due and right or­der of Baptisme from the Commission, saying thus viz. That Men may rightly offer themselves, to Baptisme [...] Confession of sins is required▪ otherwise the whole action would be nothing else but sp [...]rt.

Yet in another place in contradiction hereto saith: Let the Children of Believers be baptised, Calvin for Infants Bap [...]isme, in contra­dict [...]on hereto, wi [...]hout Rule. be­cause God having taken their Parents into Covenant, they themselves a [...] also to be imbrac [...]d in the same Co­venant; Neither is Baptisme hereby separated from Faith and teaching, because though Children have not yet Faith, nor are capable of teaching, yet their Parents have both

But by what Rule or Reason this latter is urged, and how possibly to be Reconciled with the for­mer, so agreeable to both, is the knot to be untyed.

3. Mr. Baxter for Believ­ers Baptis­me, by precept & Example.So also Mr. Baxter upon Christ Commission, Matth. 28.20. This saith he, sheweth the Disci­ples their several works in their several Orders; viz. First, to make Disciples, which Mark calls Believers. Secondly, is to Baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of Salvation. Thirdly, to teach them all other things, which are after to be learned in the School of Christ: And that to contemn this order, is to contemn all Rules of Order; professing his con­science is fully satisfied from this Text, that it is one sort of Faith even saying, that must go before Bap­tisme, the Profession whereof the Minister must ex­pect, as pag. 3. And again, if there can be no Example given in Scripture, of any one that was baptised without the Profession of saving Faith, nor any precept for so doing, then we must not baptize any without it. But the Antecedent is true, saith he, from the practice of all baptised in Scripture, which he particularly enumerates, and then saith, so is the consiquence.

What can be said more consonant to truth, more agreable to the Scriptures, and what more in justification to the Baptisme of Believers, and to the Excluding all others uncapable of Pro­fession.Mr. Baxter for Infants Baptisme, without Precept or Example.

And yet the same Mr. Baxter tells us, that an Infant is to be Baptised: but by what Rule? Why, s ith he, upon the Account of his Parents Faith? But where is that to be found in the Pre­cept? [Page 23] Is it baptize the believing Parent and his Child? is that found in the order of the Commis­sion, or is a Child to be found in all the pregnant Examples, in the New Testament, that he hath given us?

When Mr. Baxter, or any one in his behalf, can reconcile Mr. Baxter to Mr. Baxter; Austin to Austin, Calvin to Calvin, I shall own my mistake herein, till then must believe, that it is good ser­vice, to improve their contradictions to themselves, and for the service of that truth, that they so vi­gourously oppose.

But thirdly,3. Reply. No injury done them from their own ex­positions of their sayings. there is no injury done to them in the sence, that most of the Doctors, both Papists and Protestants, have given us them­selves; respecting those expressions, about the ne­cessity of Repentance and Faith, before Baptisme; and how they reconcile them to Infants Baptisme: And which we have so fully done to our hand, in the English Liturgy, that will put it out of doubt. You know it is there expresly told us, that Faith and Repentance is required, in all that are to be baptised, [good and sound Doctrine.] But then the Question, you know, is put: How do Infants, who by reason of their tender age cannot per­form them? v [...]z. can neither Repent nor Believe, [sound Doctrine still.] To which they answer, Yes; they do perform them by their sureties; So that we are to understand, that though Infants cannot Repent nor Believe, which yet is so ne­cessarly required in every one that is to be bap­tised, yet that others may undertake for them, answer the Commission for them, Repent, Believe, [Page 24] Confess for them, and declare a willingness in their name to be baptised; and this is actually don [...] by the sureties, as our English Liturgy directs (and every dayes experience tells us in the [...]hristning of Children) which interpretes to us, the an­cient way of Interrogating Sponcers, and which is performed after this manner:How by Sureties Infants do confess & profess Faith and Repen­tance, and so capable of Baptis­me. viz. The Priest saith to the surety, Doest thou forsake the Devil, and all his works, &c. Then the surety must ans­wer, I forsake them all. Priest, Then, Doest thou believe in God the Father, rehearsing the Creed? S. To which he is to answer, All this I stead­fastly believe. P. then, Will thou be baptised into this Faith? Yes, saith the Surety in the name of the Child, that is my desire. This was the Cu­stom of old, and with Infants Baptisme establish­ed, (though it is true they had Sureties, or Wit­nesses, for grown Persons, before Infants Baptisme was enjoyned.) Yet now because the Commission required Faith and Repentance, therefore was this invention found out to answer it. And there­fore saith Lud. Vives in his Comment. l. 1. c. 27. That none were baptised of old, but those of age, who did not only understand what the water meant, but desired the same

Lud. Vives why sure­ties in­vented for Infants. The perfect Image wh [...]reof, saith he, we have yet in our Infants Baptisme; for it is askt of the Infant, will thou be baptised? f [...]r whom the Sureties answer I will; And so saith Strabo pag 60. and Jo. Boemus p 73.

Mag [...]ebu [...]g Century 5. p. 516. Infantes aliena Fice baptisari: Infants are to be baptised by the Faith of another,

Therefore called Fidejussors, or Sureties, that plight Faith for them; and Sponsors, that answer for them; Susceptors, that undertake Promise, Vow, and Renownce for them.

So that this appears, to be the untying the knot, the Reconciling or the seeming difficulty, of the necessity of Confession, consent, and desire with In­fants Baptisme, so making the Commission but one general Rule, to baptise both Adult and Infants, the Adult by his own Mouth and Faith, the In­fant by the Mouth and Faith of another. There­fore all these sayings of these latter Doctors, and learned Men, speaking to the nature of Baptis­me; wherein Confession and Profession is required, is to be understood, not as Mr. Wills would have it, to intend only Adult Persons, Pagans, and Heathens, but to intend Infants also; otherwise it would be to make two Baptismes, and neces­sitate two Commissions: one for the Adult, and the other for Infants. But in as much, as none is to be found for the latter, they include and in­volue all in the former.

The [...]efore by my producing, these proofs from all the Paedobaptists, as the true sence of the Commission, and a general Rule to baptise upon, it will be manifest, that I do not bring them con­trary to the mind of the Writers, being urged to confirm and establish Believers Baptisme, accord­ing to Christs Commission. The Lutherans are po­sitive, that Children have actual Faith, and in Baptisme hear the Word, use Reason, &c. And all the rest, that others Repent, Believe, Profess, Confess, desire for them, viz. either the Surety, or the Parent.

Objection. But 'tis said, you carry it further, and improve their general Rule for Believers Baptisme, against Infants Baptisme, contrary to their intention, because they intend Infants not otherwise to be baptised, but as professed Believers in this way.

Answer. To which I say, that it truly serves the Inten­tion, wherefore it is brought under this Head, where we do not so immediately concern our selves against Infants, which is an other part, but for Believers only; though I grant consequentia­ly it doth so, for if a personal Professing of Faith, be only intended in the Commission, and that no such thing as a surety is to be found in that Text, or any other, to profess or confess, for an other, so as to warrant, the party confess'd for, to be a proper subject of Baptisme.

Then it will follow, that all those sayings, make only for Believers in their own Persons, to the ex­cluding all that are uncapable of Personal Confes­sion and Profession: When any such thing as a su­rety in Baptisme, to believe, repent, and confess for an other is made out from Scripture, they may have Reason to complain, but till then, no injury is done, so to clear the truth, from their own grants and sayings. But that there is no such thing in the Scripture, take the acknowledge­ment of some of their own party.

Magd. a­gainst su­reties.The Magdeburgs Century 1. p. 497. Do tell us, that God-Fathers, or Fidejussors for Infants, or others, they find nothing of in the Scriptures; that in the second of the Acts they offred themselves to Baptisme, & that it would be very ridiculous, to think the Apostles would baptise none without Sureties.

And Doctor Tayler pag. 84. I know, saith he, Dr. Taylor against su­reties, and his Rea­sons. God might if he would have appointed God-Fathers, to give answer in the behalf of Children, and to be Fidejussors for them, but we cannot find any Au­thority or Ground, that he hath; and if he had, that it is to be supposed he would have given them Com­mission, to have transacted the solemnity with bet­ter circumstances, and have given answers with more truth; for the Question is askt of Believing in the present, and if the God-Father answer, in the name of the Child, I do believe, it is notorious, they speak false and ridiculous, for the Infant is not capable of Believing, and if it were, he were also capable of dissenting, and how then do they know his mind? and therefore, saith he, Tertullian and Gregory Na­zienzen gave advice, that the Baptisme of Infants shall be deferred, till they could give an account of their own Faith. If you would be further satis­fied about these Sureties or Gossips, why and for what use, viz. for Bells and Churches, and grown Persons as Infants, read pag. 84. 100. 128, 129, and 141.

Object. 2 But if you will not admit of God-Fathers, what do you say to Fathers? why may not they Re­pent, and Believe for the Child, and so answer the Commission, especially being a believing Parent, and in Covenant, according to what Mr. Wills repeates from Mr. Calvin? p.

Answer. To which I say, that if you betake to that, you quit all your Antient Authorities, that de­pend upon sureties, where the Parent is ex­presly forbidden that Rite, none being permitted to undertake for his Child, neither Father nor [Page 28] Mother, as Vicecomes tells us at large, from the Decrees of the Councels, ch. 33. p. 92. Mr. Bax­ter owning it against the Canon-Law also. Nei­ther will you find one syllabe in all the New Testa­ment, to relieve you; and therefore must either find out a New Commission, for baptizing Per [...]ons without personal Repentance, & Faith, or renownce, the practice of sprinkling Infants, that are so un­capable to do any thing thereof. And which case you have very fully, and honestly put by Master Baxter, in his Christian Directory pag. 817. And how well resolved you have it remarkt, pag. 217. and worthy of your perusal, upon this point especially; it being brought herein, into such a narrow compass, for if no Scripture ground to baptize an Infant, by a Gossio or Parents Faith and Confession, then Infants Baptisme is certainly a nullity, and out of doors by their own grants. And therefore till Mr. Baxter, or some Body else, give us a better solution in that case of Conscience, we may say in his own words: That for Persons to be baptised without a profess'd Contract [...] is a Baptisme not of Christs appointment, and that being done without Repentance and Faith, is a prophanation saith Mr. Baxter, and ridiculous saith Calvin.

Now, therefore upon the whole, let the Rea­der judge, whether my severall proofs are not full, proper, and pertinent; And whether Mr. Wills upon the closing of his seventh Chapter, respect­ing my proofs upon the Centuries, hath spoken like a judicious, sober, considerate Person; in saying:

That besides Jo. Boemus and Strabo, he may truly say, that from the beginning of the Century to the end, this Vnfaithful Man hath perverted the sayings of all Authors, which he hath quoted, and upon consideration of his carriage herein, I am confident of those two things:

First, that never any Writer did more prevari­cate, and shew more Falshood then he hath done.

Secondly, that he would certainly have forborn, if he had thought, any man would have been at the trouble, to examine and search whether he saith truth or no.

I say, it is referred to judgement, My Appeal upon the proofs and the Preva­rication charged. whether any sober man can judge, Mr. Wills has read the Book he so contems, vehemently asperses, and inveighs against; Or secondly, if he hath, whether he did consider what was either writen by the Author, or by himself in answer? And thirdly, If so, whe­ther he ought not to be esteemed a Person extream­ly void of Reason or Conscience, and that preju­dice did more prevail with him then impartial judgement?

Secondly, concerning the Falshoods he charges me with.2. The Falshoods.

BUt in the next place▪ if it be supposed, the Authorities aforesaid are full and proper, and that I am acquit of the Prevaricatione? yet what do I say to so many Falshoods charged upon me, in the egregious abuse put upon so many Authors, in leaving out, and curtailing some of their sayings, and adding to ot [...]ers; pretending they [Page 30] say, that which they do not, and so making Autho­rities of my own, the chapter and page being so pun­ctually given in against me.

Answer 1 To which I say, First, it seems to carry much weight in it, and the rather, because it proceeds from one that professes himself, a solid grave Person, a Minister of the Gospel, and Master of Arts, and a learned man; and one that besides hath spent so much time lately, as he tells us, in the Ʋniversity Library at Oxford, to trace these Quotations and to detect their errors, & deliver'd them with so much certainty, that nothing (as in that confident boast he expresseth it) but an In­dex Expurgatorius can Relieve me, and which is not to be had in England.

Answer 2 And secondly, I must needs grant, that if I ac­quit not my self herein, I may very well be esteem­ed, the unworthy Person that he would indeed render me to be, that is guilty of so much Preva­rication, Forgery, and Falshood.

Answer 3 But then thirdly, I hope it will be granted on the other hand, that if all these proove forgeries of his own, and no truth in any one of them, that then such a Stratagem bespeaks no less malignity to my Person, then to the truth witnessed by me, and that he hath justly contracted to himself, the Odium, and infamy he would Reflect upon me▪ according to the equal decision, given us in the Case, Deut. 19.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Prov. 19.15.

Therefore to the Examination of the charge, I freely joyn issue with him, in order to the sp [...]edy trial, at whose door the Falshoods lye; for one [Page 31] of us (it must be agreed on all hands) is noto­riously guilty, and so we shall proceed to the par­ticulars, as we find them in order.

The first whereof he thus begins with,1. Fals­hood charged. in his Preface, &c. He hath much injured the famous Hi­story of the Magdeburgenses, in very many places, by misrepresenting what they say: As that they tell us, that in the first Century the Apostles Bap­tised only the aged, which (saith he) is false, for he himself added the word Only, as is shewn (he saith) ch. 7. part 1. p. 2.3. Fals­hood charged. Where he again re­peates it, saying, that the Magdeburgs in Century 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. do not say, that the Apost­les Baptised only the Adult. And again in his pag. 38. mentioning my Repetition of that afore­said saying, of the Magdeburgs gives the following return.

Very good Sir, Now you have learned to set down things right, but why did you say in the 56. (of the first Impressions) that the Magdeburg as to the Subjects of Baptisme tell us [That in this age they only Baptised the Adult] was this, saith he, Lapsus calami aut mentis: The slip of the tongue, or the mind.

Answer∣ed. 1 To which I say, that it is most manifest, that this injurious man doth charge a Falshood, of his own making, upon me three several times; for he can find no such words in my Book. My words are expresly thus: viz. ‘As to the Subjects of Baptisme they, viz. the Magdeburgs tell us: That in this Age [they finde] they baptised only the A­dult, or Aged, &c.’ I do not say, that they tell us, that in this Age they [baptised only the [Page 32] Adult] these are his words. But that they tell us, they find they baptised only the Adult, for so they tell us, they find Examples for the one, not for the other. And if I have not guessed right, let any sober Man in his sences judge, they tell us in these words: Bapt zatos esse Adultos, tum Judaeos, tum Ge [...]t [...]s exempla p [...]obunt, Act. 2.8, 10, 16, 19. De Infantibus Baptizatis quidem ano­tata nom leguntur: That Examples testify (from the aforesaid Scriptures) that the Adult, both Jews, and Gentiles were baptised; But of the bap­tizing of Infants, they read not of one Example upon Record. So that if they find many Exam­ples for the one, and none for the other, well it may be said, they find Examples, only for the one, viz. for the Adult [...]: Answer∣ed. 2 For they are not my Translation of the words (and therefore I add not the word [Only] to them, as he fa [...]sly sug­gested) but my fence upon those their words, and no other then I presume every one will give. And wherein his shameful (Oscitancy, as he calls it, or) heedlessness is the more to be re­mark'd, for he himself in his first words of the 7. chap. 1. part. doth repeat my words, as I ex­press them; viz. [that they find only the Adult or Aged, whether Jews or Gentiles, baptised in that Century.] And afterwards charges me three times over with the saying an other thing, inculcating it with many agrivating circumstances, and as worthy of the greatest observation, puts it in the Van of the Falshoods. And it was one of the first things that I met with, from a Friend that was in his Book-sellers Shop, where some Mi­nisters [Page 33] were heard to say, upon the reading there­of, that I wanted morallity, in so dealing with Authors; Though truly if I had said the word, I do no know where such a hainous crime had lain. So that this is plain to you, that first I neither said those words; Nor secondly, did I add the word only to the Author.

In the next place, in his Preface he tells us, of two other misrepresentations; viz. That I say, the Magdeburgs tell us, that the Custom of dipping the whole Body in water, was changed into sprinkling a little water in the face, in the first Century. Whereas there is not (as he saith) the least hint of this matter in this Century, nor the following; but the contrary, for they tell us, as pag. 4. part. 1. the word [...], signifies abluo, luo: viz. to wash; and that the Christian Baptisme, was taken from the Jewish washings, of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9, 10. divers Baptismes. And so saith he, the Au­thor fathers that upon the Century Writers, which they speaks not.

Wherein these two Falshoods are charged upon me: First, in bringing the Mag [...]eburgs, 3. Fals­hood charged. to assert the Ceremony of Baptisme to be by dipping, which they do not, but the contrary.

Secondly, In affirmi [...]g that they say,4. Fals­hood charged. the rite was changed in that Century, from dipping to sprinkling, when there is not the least hint, either in this or the following Century, of any such thing.

Answer∣ed. 3 To the first (that I am not mistaken, when I tell you) that they do assert the Rite of Bap­tizing to be by dipping, let their own words determine (the substance whereof I before gave [Page 34] you) who having told us, viz. the Magdeburgs Century 1. chap. 6. p. 148. That as to the place of Baptisme, it was, as occasion was offred, in Rivers and Fountains, &c. And that the manner of it, was by dipping in these words: viz. Ministrum Baptis­mi in aquam baptizandos immersisse, seu lavasse, in nomine Patri, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, pro­bat verbum [...], quod immersionem in aquam significat, & quod Paulus immersionem illam alle­gorice de mortificatione & resurrectione exponit, Rom. 6. Col. 2. Et Phrases ille quibus Baptis­mus Lavacrum dicitur, Eph. 5 & Titus 3. Et quod Ananias jubet Paulum abluere peccatum, Act. 22. &c.

That the word [...], signifying an Immersion, (or dipping) in water, proves that the Minister of Baptisme did dip, or immerge the Baptised, washing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spi­rit; and that Paul did expound this immersion, by the Alligorical Death and Resurrection, Rom. 6. and Col. 2. And therefore Baptisme is called, the Lavar, or washing of Regeneration, Ephes. 5. and Tit. 3. And that Ananias commanded Paul to wash away his sins.

The truth hereof Master Wills could not but know, and no other then I did before in substance declare, and therefore for him to say, that they do not say this, but the con­trary, is to me wonderful strange. Neither do they mention any thing of all those ten Lines, of his, said to be in this place, as though they took the word to signifie Washing, in oppositi­on to Dipping; and if in any other part of the [Page 35] Book they do say so, it will but discover a con­tradiction to themselves, but especially to the truth, that with so much evidence, they have here demonstrated, therefore what apparent injury this is let all men judge.

Answer∣ed. 4 And as to the other, it is as Notorious as this; for I do not say, That the Magdeburgs tell us, that the custom of dipping the whole Body, was changed into sprinkling, &c. This Century as he fathers upon me.

All that I say is this, (and they are my own words, not theirs, after I had mentioned their under­standing, of that Rite and Ceremony, from the nature of the word, and usage thereof in Scrip­ture) viz.

Which said custom of dipping the whole Body in water, was changed into sprinkling a little water in the face; And not as Mr, Wills perverts my words, That I say, [they tell us so] I neither express'd, nor intended any such thing, much less that they should tell us, of any such change that Century. Whereas as he says well, that there is not the least hint of the matter of sprink­ling in this or the following Century. And which I do also afterwards take notice of, in thee words:

‘That until the third Century we find not any, that upon any consideration did admit of sprinkling: The first we meet with, is in Cyprians Epist. to Magnus, about Clynical Baptisme, which might sufficiently have satisfied Mr. Wills, that I did neither express, or could intend the words as he carryes them I did also in my seco [...]d Impression,’ (which I presume he could not, but see waiting [Page 36] so many months for its coming forth, before he would put his, into the Press, as his Printer and Stationer both informed me) make some better distinction, by putting the foregoing words into a different carracter, least these latter words should be supposed not to be my own, and which might have been further light to him, if prejudice had not blinded the eye, discovering that his business was, that if he could not find a hole, he would make one. And that the Antients for these four first Centuries, used, and asserted Dipping, Mr. Wills that reads the Centuries, cannot be a Stran­ger to, as testified by so many of the Fathers.

5. Fals­hoods charged.An other Falshood he would father upon me, is that, I should say p. 113. of the former which is pag. 101. of the last, that they tell us: That the custom of dipping the whole Body into water, was changed into sprinkling in the third Century, and that cites the Magdeburgs Century 3. p. 125, 126. Where he saith, they say no such thing, but the contrary.

Answer∣ed. 5 Wherein he doth me manifest injury, for all that I say to that point, as you'l find, is this; viz. ‘Many were the corruptions about Baptisme, that in this Age were creeping in, some whereof, I men­tio [...]ed, and amongst the rest, Altering the form from dipping to sprinkling:’ But I do not quote pag. 125, 126. for that, but for the superstitious Rites, but did only thereby intend (as after I express'd it p. 204.) that pass [...]ge in Cyprians Letter to Magnus, admitting sprinkling to a sick Person; I do not therefore say, it was charged, but that is was a­mongst those corruptions that were creeping in. [Page 37] And withall do in the same place say, That they do not find by an [...] Authentick Testimony, that any one Person was actualy baptised in this manner this Age. And p. 204. That we find not any, upon any conside­ration, that did admit of springling till Cyprians Letter, &c.’ Which afterwards was brought into use for sick Children, and then for all Children.

And yet this unfaithful Man, notwithstanding all these my expressions to the contrary, is not ashamed to say, That I say, the custom of dip­ping the whole Man, was changed into sprinkling, in the third Century, and that I quote for it Cent. 3. p. 125, 126. when I neither do the one nor the other. And concerning this rite of dipping, you will hear more of me to this point, in a following Chapter; whereby you will understand, that not­withstanding this Notion of Cyprians, about sprinkling the sick, yet that dipping was the uni­versal custom, which was observed for the first four Centuries, and some Ages after, as I shall manifest from approved Authors.

In the next place, he charges me with father­ing several things upon the Magdeburgs, respect­ing the fourth Century, whereof one word is not to be found in them, as his pag 10. 1. part 7. chapter.

As first,6. Fals­hood charged. That it was the universal practice of this Age, to baptise the Adult, upon Profession of Faith, Whereas they say the quite contrary, proving, saith he, that in the Churches of Affrica they baptised In­fants in this Age by Athanasius 114, and 124 Que­stions to Antiochus. And that they baptised In­fants in the Churches of Asia, by Gregory Nazien­zens [Page 38] absolute determinations to Baptize Infants.

Answer∣ed. 6 To which I reply, That I do not say, that the Magdeburgs do say in so many words, that it was the universal practise of this Age, to Bap­tize the Adult upon Profession of Faith, as he would insinuate: But as you'l find my words to be, as pag. 55. That from the several Authori­ties they give us, out of the learned Fathers and Councels, they tell us so; viz. by the instances they do produce, and which I have before at large demonstrated, so that at least wise I judge, I have cause to think so.’

And as to the two instances he gives, to detect my forgery, they signify nothing: As to that of Gregory Nazienzens, we have said enough al­ready, to which we refer you, and which will substantialy acquit me from this charge.

And secondly, as to that of Athanasius Que­stions to Antiochus, prooving that they Baptised Infants in the Affrican Church, particularly the 124. Question, which he mentions pag. 10. ch. 7.1. part: I shall shew you presently it was a meer piece of forgery, and no truth at all in it, and which Mr. Wills could not well be ignorant of, though he would thus abuse the World with this Story. But he should have done well, to have told you, what that 124. Question was, that he so much brags of; which I perceive he was un­willing to do upon another score, least his instance might do him more hurt, then good, though the 114, he mentions at large; The thing expressed therein, as the Magdeburgs tell us, is this: Quod Infantem ait ter in aq [...]am immergemus, & ter edu­cimus [Page 39] mortem, & triduanum Resurrectionem fignifi­camus Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 419.

That we dip the Infant, saith he, three times in the water, and three times bring it out again, sig­nifying the death, and three days Resurrection of Christ. So that you see the Reason, why he was ashamed of his instance, because he was affraid, with the proving his Infants Baptisme, he should have offred some thing for the rite of dipping, which is so loathsame to him, and so loose more, then he should get by the bargain.

It is true the Inventer of this lye, must tell some thing that was true, as to the season he intends it, which was the trine immersion, that from Ter­tullians time, till after this Age, was so much used, as Jerom, Ambrose, Bazil, yea all of them with one mouth do declare; as the learned Vossius to this point sheweth, Thes. 6. pag. 32, to 42. concluding after the recital of most of the Fathers, and Ancients to prove it. Haec satis ostendunt ter immersisse Veteres, & mystici quid in eo constituisse. These (Authorities) enough shew, that the An­cients did use the threefold immersion, and the mystery designed, and contained therein. And which is not mentioned, that a three fold dip­ping is approved, or that there was any ground for it (but a perfect invention, wherein these Fa­thers did so much abound) only that sprinkling was not the rite, and that dipping was owned to be the custome in these first times, which Mr. Wills will not admit.

Secondly,7. Fals­hood charged. he charges me to pervert the say­ing of Athanasius, as when speaking for Adult [Page 40] Baptisme, he might not be for Infants Baptisme also. Whereas he meant by the former only Pa­gans, and Infidels who according to Christs Com­mission must first be taught, then baptised. Atha­nasius (saith he) was for Infants Baptisme, and it was practised in his dayes, as appears by the 114 Que­stion to Antiochus, Where he resolves a doubt that might arise from the death of Infants, whether they go to Heaven or no? Seeing, the Lord saith, suffer little Children to come to me, for of such is the King­dom of Heaven? And the Apostle saith, Now your Children are holy, it is manifest that the In­fants of Believers, which are baptised do as unspot­ted, and faithful enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Where, saith he, mark again how unworthly An­tipaedobatists abuse the Fathers, in saying their strongest Argument for Childrens Baptisme, is from Tradition, which they fly too, for want of Scripture. Implying here are two Scriptures for Infants Bap­tisme, improved by this Father, one Mat. 19.14 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; and the other be­cause the Infants of Believers are baptised, they are therefore holy, alluring to holiness of Children, mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 as though that was obtained by Baptisme, and which was the opinion of some of the Ancients also.

Answer∣ed. 7 To which I say & is not this excellently remark'd from this famous instance? and Anabaptists un­worthyness too? in taking no more regard, how well they proved Infants Baptisme of old from the Scripture?

But now this Book of Questions fathered upon Athanasius, proving such▪ an other Fable, as [Page 41] that goodly piece that was fathered upon Diony­sius: It will only serve further, to discover what inventions, the Father of Lyes had (by the work­ing of the Mystery of Iniquity) not only to beget and usher in, but to nurish and strengthen this Illegetimate Birth, but the artifice, also he had to time the several forgeries; viz Dionysius for the first; the Popes Decretals, and Justin Mar­tyrs Responses, for the second; Origen's Storyes, for the third; these Questions of Athanasius, for the fourth Age. And how ready and willing Per­sons are to this very time, to catch up any of these lying Fables, to strengthen themselves in deceits; Nay, there is good ground to believe, that they know them so to be, that so abuse the World therewith. For how can Mr. Wills, that is so well read in the Magdeburgs, be ignorant, how notably they have detected this Cheat, and the reasons and grounds they give of its Spurious­ness? and therefore it must needs be so much worse in him, to impose this falacy a fresh, and so to improve it too, as though it was a piece of Gospel.

Know therefore, besides what Merningus, and Montanus say of its forgery, of which I gave you a hint pag. 57. (whereof Mr. Wills would take no notice:) And what Scultetus (as Mr. Tombes tells us) in his Medul. Pat. p. 2. l. 1. c. 42. saith of it also. The Magdeburgs do give us this account, which I presume Mr. Wills can tell you, as well as my self, being so considerable a Remark in the History of Athanasius his life, as you have it Century 4. cap. 10. p. 1032 in these [Page 42] words, speaking of his works: Quartus tom [...] quaedam habet a diversis translata interpretibus, ut Libellum de variis Quaestionibus Sacrae Scripturae ad Antiochum Principem, interprete Valentino Am­pelandio quem Librum Athanasii non esse indeliquet, quod ab ejus Authore Athanasius citatur Quaestion vigesima tertia hoc modo, & haec quidem multum valens in Divina Scriptura Magnus Athanasius, nos vero qui ab ipso sumus illuminati, &c. Ac­cidit huc quod multos videre est in eo scripto, nav [...]s atque opiniones ab Athanasio alienas.

The fourth Tome hath some things translated by diverse Interpreters, as for instance the Book of va­rious Questions of the holy Scriptures to Prince An­tiochus (Valentinus Ampelandius being the In-Interpreter) which Book that it is not Athanasius's, is thence manifested, because Athanasius is cited by the Author thereof in the 23. Question, in this manner: And these things indeed saith the great A­thanasius, who was mighty in the Scriptures; b [...] we who are inlightned by him, &c.

And hereto it may be added (say they) that one may see in that Writer many errors and opinions, that are far from Athanasius's.

By which you may see, the design of this wicked cheat, by fathering this false thing upon this ma [...] of name, to wit to bring some Reputation upon Infants Baptisme, as though owned and practised by the great Athanasius in this Age, and which our Antagonist falls in with, and improves to the utmost: First, in the severe check he is pleased to give me, for perverting, as he calls it, the Testi­mony given by him for Adult, against his judge­ment, [Page 43] and practice of Infants Baptisme, as ap­pears by these two Questions urged. Secondly, for our so little regarding what the Fathers say, when they urge Scripture, as well as Tradition for Infants Baptisme, witness those two pertinent Scriptures, urged by this eminent Father.

Thirdly, for drawing the injurious conclusion, that Infants Baptisme was not practised in Affrica in this Age, from his Testimony for Adult Bap­tisme, when the contrary so manifestly appears from those Questions.

But now this goodly story, proving a lye, doth not the contrary to all these, naturally Re­vert upon himself? And fully discover, that till we have better evidence to the contrary, that how­ever Athanasius plaid the Bishop, and baptised his School-fellow, when a Boy in sport, that when he came to better understanding, he gave continuance to no other Baptisme, then to that of the Adult only, according to Christs Com­mission.

The next piece of fraud and injustice he char­ges upon me,8. Fals­hood charged. is the curtailing and leaving out part of a Sentence, quoted out of Bazil pag. 65. mentioned by him chap. 7. 1. part. pag. 13. and hinted at also in his Preface: The Quotation is to prove, as he Remarks, that Adult Baptisme was then only practised in the Eastern Churches, which are two sayings out of Bazil: One out of his 3. Book against Eunomius, viz. must the faithful be sealed with Baptisme, Faith must needs precede, and go before. And in his Exhortation to Baptisme, that none were to be baptised but the Catechumens, and [Page 44] those that were duly instructed in the Faith. Upon which he saith, Now this is sufficient to impose a fallacy upon any Reader, that hath no Aquain­tance with that Father, and understand not in what sence he speaks, who would not think that this Ancient Doctor was against Infants Baptisme, and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his dayes? [very true, and so one would indeed, for if Faith must go before, and Children have no Faith, then only professed Believers were the Subjects.] And again, if None but the Catechu­mens, and those instructed in the Faith were to be Baptised, then surely no Children were to be Baptised, who were so uncapable, both of the one, and the other; Therefore by the way it must be granted, that this was a proper proof, to evi­dence, that the Eastern Church in his time ad­mitted only of Adult Baptisme, which he is pleas­ed to say, is so abominably false.

And to evince my Forgery and Falshood, from the good acquaintance he would have, you think, he had with this Father, that the same Au­thor, viz. Bazil in the very next lines, to which I had above cited, speak thus, as he confi­dently affirms: What then say you of Infants, which neither know good nor evil, may we baptise them? Yea saith [...]e, for so we are taught by the Circum­cising of Children, And therefore, saith he, hence-forward have a care, Reader, how ye trust the Au­thors Quotations, for the palpable abuse done to this Father.

Answer∣ed. 8 To which I say, but if the abuse prove his own, what then? And that it is so, the Reader [Page 45] will presently understand. Know therefore, that the Quotations out of Bazil's Exhortation to Baptisme, you'l find in the Magdeburgs Century 4. cap. 6. p. 416. in these words, Bazilius non alios quam Catechumenos Baptizatos esse scribit: Basil, say they, writes that none other but the Cate­chumens were baptised: And then in the next lines immediately following, nothing intervening say, Qui in Paschale convocabantur in Exhortatione ad Baptismum: Who are called together at Easter to be exhorted in order to their Baptisme. There be­ing no such syllable, nor any thing like it, either in the forgoing or following words, I have also searched. all that the Magdeburgs say of that Fa­ther, and all Bazils works themselves, and par­ticularly the third Book against Eunomius; but can find nothing like it. I have also Examined the great Dutch Book of Martyrs, that recites most of the principal pass [...]ges that Bazil speaks of Baptisme; and who from Mirningus and Mon­tanus, their great Century Writers, do testify, that he was altogether for Adult, and wholy against Infants Baptisme. He used to say, Sic­ut enim credimus in Patrem, & Filium, & Spiri­tum Sanctum, sic & Baptizamur in nomine Pa­tris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti: As we do be­lieve in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, so we may be baptised in their names, Cent. 4. p. 235. And in the definition he gives of Baptisme, he calls it: Sigillum Fidei, Tessera Christiani Mili­ [...]is, similitudo mertis sepulturae, ac resurrectionis nortuorum: The Seal of Faith, the Badge of the Christian Soldier, and the Symbole of death, burial, [Page 46] & Resurrection from the dead. And again very fully, Quicunque baptizatur, sive Judaeus, sive Graecus, sive Masculus, sive Foemina, quacunque generit differentia nominatus, exutus in sanguine Christi veterem hominem, cum actibus suis, & per doctri­nam ipsius novum in Spiritu Sancto indutus, qui se­cundum Deum conditus est in justitia, & sanctitate veritatis, ac renovatur ad ignitionem, secundum imaginem ejus qui condidit ipsum, &c.

That who ever is baptised, whether Jew or Greek, male or female, &c. have put off (by the Blood of Christ) the old Man with his deeds, and by his Doctrine have put on the new Man by the holy Spi­rit, who according to God is built up in the Righte­ousness and holyness of the truth, and renewed in knowledge, according to the Image of him that created him, &c. And therefore in his Book of Baptisme, doth largely treate of the necessity of partaking of the Lords Supper, that other Ordinance of Christ, immediately after Baptisme.

Regenerati vero, & in nomine Filii baptisati su­mus, & Filii Dei declarati opus itaque deinceps, & nutriamur cibo vitae aeternae: Those of us that are Re­generate, and have made declaration of the Son of God, and are Baptised in his name, it is meet that we should immediately be nurished with the food of Eternal life, viz. the Bread of God in that Or­dinance.

And whether all this is not agreeable, to what before was said of this Doctor, is left to the Rea­der to judge, being also one of those (say the Magdeburgs) that made that former Decree in the Councel of Neocaesaria. But you'l say, how [Page 47] came Mr. Wills by this saying, it is to be sup­posed, he did not make it? which will be with him to declare, and how he came to father it up­on Bazil, that no man could ever find in him be­fore. It is true, the words I find exactly to be the words of Gregory Nazienzen, but not of Ba­zil, as Cent. 4. cap. 4. p. 234. Oratione in san­ctum Lavacrum tertia: Quid de Infantibus ais qui neque gratia, quid ne sit paena cognorunt, nam & illos baptizemus? Maxime quidem [si pericu­lum aliquod imminet, melius est enim nondum ra­tionis compotes sanctificari quam non signatos & ini­tiatos vita excedere] all which Mr. Wills leaves out, then adds, Idque nobis designat post octavum diem Circumcisio illa, quae figurale fuit signaculum. What will you say of Children, which are neither sen­sible of good or evil? shall we Baptisme them, yes by all means [in Case of urgent danger, for it is better to be sanctified without their knowledge, then to dye without it] for so it hapned to the Children of Israel in Circumcision.

But suppose there had been such a Sentence, as Mr. Wills saith followeth, I had cited enough of the Father, to confirm the truth of what I asserted, viz. that instruction and Faith, according to Christs Commission, was necessary to precede Baptisme; And that none but the Adult, that made Profes­sion of Faith, were to be baptised: And if he should have contradicted himself, as some others had done, it would have been their parts that should avouch him, in the behalf of Infants Bap­tisme, to have reconciled such a contradiction, to those his former assertions.

But to put the matter more out of doubt, I procured a Friend to write to Master Wills, to know where that passage was to be found in Ba­zil; To which he made this following return, viz. As to that passage of Bazil,Mr. Wills Letter to his Friend about the Quotation of Bazil. I do not charge Master D. with misquoting, but partially quoting, and misapplying him, and upon Examination of my Papers, cannot find any Page, to which that passage of mine, concerning that Father, doth refer: But when I go to Oxford, where I made my Collection, I may be able to give better satisfaction.

Therefore upon the whole, respecting this passage, I appeal to the Reader, whether Mr. Wills is not found tardy and justly reprovable in the following particulars; viz.

Mr. Wills guilty of much fals­hood herein.First, for the several Falshoods (that it is to be feared, he knowingly imposed upon the Reader) in affirming so positively: 1. That these were the very next Lines, to what I had above recited. Secondly, that Bazil was herein an Eminent wit­ness for Infants Baptisme, in the fourth Century p. 136. Thirdly, from the great acquaintance he had with this Father and his sence herein (a false and vain glorious boast) affirmes these words to be his, in his third Book contra Eunomium pag 13. comp. pag. 136. Fourthly, For his deceitful leaving out part of Nazienzens words, which should dis­cover them to be his (a great Demonstration it was, not lapsus calami, but mentis; not a sin of ignorance, or a meer mistake but a willful abuse.

2 False Accusati­on.Secondly, for false accusing of me: First, for curtailing, partially quoting, and misapplying; this Father stoping, where I should have gone on. [Page 49] Secondly, For imposing a fallacy, and Falshood up­on the Reader, to say he was only for Adult Bap­tisme, when the contra [...]y was so manifest. Third­ly, For so palpably [...]busi [...]g th [...]t Father, that I was not to be trusted in my Quotations, for time to come.

Therefore, is it not very considerable, and to be remark'd, that whilest he would pretend to reprov [...], and render me odious for Prevarica­cation, Forgery and Falsh [...]od, that he himself shou [...]d be so left, to do the same things, in a far worse manner? fulfilling Rom. 2.21, 22.

Another Lye and Falshood, declaring,9. Fals­hood charged. as he saith, wa [...]t of honesty a [...]d conscience in me, p. 44. Is the bringing, the Waldenses as Witnesses against Infants Baptisme; and amongst other evidence for the same, to produce their Co [...]essions of Faith; Whereas there is not a w rd of th [...]t impor [...]ance in them, but th [...]ir Confessions of Faith quite otherwise, viz. for Infants Baptisme.

To which I answer, Answer. that it is a very hairous charge, but what truth there is in it, and who most guilty of lying, and forgery, th [...]rein, he, or I, you will easely discer [...], when you come to the Ex­amination of that matter, in the third Chapter, to which I refer you.

Again, there are two other instances of For­gery, and Falshood, he charges upon me, in abu­sing, and deceitfully perverting the sayings of two of our moderne Authors, Mr. Baxter, and Dr. Ta [...]ler, which I shall add hereto, and be accomp­table for in this place.

And first, he is pleased to say,10. For Falshood, & unwor­thy deal­ing with Mr. Bax­ter. That I have [Page 50] as an unworthy Person dealt craftely, and sinisterly with Mr. Baxter, pag. 12, 13. and disingeniously perverted, and traduced, the sayings of that worthy Man, to countinuance my Errours; Quoting di­vers of his Arguments to Mr. Blake, as though he had been only for Believers Baptisme, when he had so fully explained himself to mean Adult, not Infants Baptisme, which he particularly excepted therein.

Answer. In answer hereto, (overlooking his uncivil, and unchristian Language) I say, that in my producing those Arguments of Mr. Baxter, from Mr. Tom­bes. I have again, and again, given the Rea­sons he produceth, for the same, and that induced me to insert them; which Mr. Wills had done well, to have taken some notice of: For if Mr. Bax­ter hath contradicted himself, he hath no more injuiry done him, to take notice of it, and im­prove it for the truth; then as Mr. Tombes tells him, the Papists had by Bishop Mortons im­proving, their contradictions, for the benefit of the Protestant Cause. And if Mr. Baxter, or any Body for him, can reconcile those seeming contradictions. I have only put an advantage into his hand, to do him [...]e [...]f, and the cause he pleades right, and concerning which all judgements must be suspended, till Mr. Baxter be heard to speak for himself therein, which he has promised to do. And I presume, since Mr. Wills has not thought good, to answer Mr. Tombes his Argu­ments, or my Apology, for prod [...]cing those Argu­ments, he had much better have forborne his uncivil Revilings upon it, which only for the most part bespeaks, either an evil Cause, or an evil Na­ture, [Page 51] and which neither reproves, or convinceth any.

And after the same manner, he deals with me upon Mr. Baxters account, for the repetition of some passages out of his Christian Directory (which were so greiving, and offensive to most Protestant ears) charging me most severly, viz. That as being possess'd with a malevelant Spirit, Mr. Wills his ca­lumny. and filled with envy against him, and glad of an oc­casion to wound his Reputation, who had so wounded our Cause, I came forth therein with a seeming zeal for truth, but he feared with greater enmity to his Person therein.

Answer. In answer to this slanderous reproach, I can truly say, I am so far from bearing enmity to his Person, more especially for what he has said in that Book (what wonders soever (as he boasts in his Ep.) he has done thereby, in Exorcising, or con­juring down the unquiet Spirit (as he maliciously calls it) of Anabaptisme) wherein, as Dr. Barlo so well observes, he has said so much, to so little purpose, there being nothing therein like an Argument against us, and therefore no cause to envy him for the same; That I have hath an honourable regard to his Person, and a due value to his Labours, especially where he has laid out himself to promote practical Holynes [...] (and where­in, as I have judged, his greatest Excellency lyes) supposing had he let Controversies alone, and adicted himself thereto, he would much more have furthered the Peace, and Union, he pretends to promote. It having been, as I have heard, a judg [...]ment that Bishop Ʋssher made of him, [Page 52] that if he persisted in Polemical Writings, that he was like to prove a Troubler, rather then a Promoter of Peace.

As for those passages, collected and Epito­mized out of his [...]hris [...]ian Directory, they we e no less astonishi g, then greiving to many, that un­der pretence to general Reconciliation. he should endeavour to R [...]co [...]cile us to so much, both of the Doctrine, and discipline of the Church of R [...]me. And surely if Conscience had not i g [...]ed me, pru­dence had all together forbid, to have provok'd so potent and Adversary, and who useth with so much severity to treat his Opposites: But the Cause is Gods, with whom I le [...]ve it, who can ple [...]d his own truth in his Con [...]cience, and out of the Mou [...]hs of Babes can perfect his own praise, because of Enemyes, and Avengers.

11. Fa [...]s­hood, or delusi­on. re­specting Dr. T [...]y­lers work [...].An other hainous thing he layes to my charge, is for my de [...]usion, as he calls it, in Doctor Tay­lers Case, by im [...]roving his s [...]vings, in his Li­berty of P [...]ophecy, as t [...]ough he was wholy for us. when what he saith therein, was but to re­present present our f [...]laci us Re [...]ning, and not to speak his own j [...]gem [...]t ther [...]i [...]: And the better to con­vince the World her of, and stop the Mouths of those that were ready to take a [...]vantage thereat, he had since put forth, an Excellent piece called, A Consideration of the Practise of the Church, in Baptizing Infants of Believi [...]g Parents. And with­all that though h msel [...] had not an [...]wered those Argu­ments, in his Libert [...] of Pr [...]p [...]e [...]y, which some thought stood in need of an wering; Yet D cto [...] Ha­mond h [...]d effectually done the same, in his Letter of [Page 53] Resolution to six Q [...]eryes, pag. 35, 36, &c.

To which I reply: Answ. That as to those Argu­ments of D [...]ctor Taylers, I have already in the Pr [...]face of both my Books said to this purpose. That what ever was his ju gement, or end, in writ­ing those things, yet it was meet to remark them to the World, that the Wisdom, and Power of God might more appear, if an E [...]emy, to bring [...]orth such convincing A [...]guments, and Rea [...]ons, from his own mouth, to witness to his dispised reproached truth.’

Yet truly,Reasons why the p [...]ea for A­nabaptists was Dr. Taylers own sence. 1. Reason. for what as yet appears to the con­trary▪ the Doctor seems to have spoken therein his own, as well as ur apprehension, in the great­est part of those Arguments, and that for these following Demonstrations:

First, Because the Doctor having spoken to all the usual Arguments: brought by the Prote­sta [...]ts for Infants Baptisme, and answered them distinctly, doth in the conclusion (speaking his own words, say these two things very considerable. First, that through the weakness of the Paedobap­tists Arguments▪ which are n [...]t good in th [...]mselves, those other Arg [...]ments in plea for the A [...]abaptists, are good in [...]pposing them, and so they are acciden­tally strenght ed (in their errour, as he calls it) by the we [...]ness, and co [...]fi [...]ence of weak opp [...]sition. And it is to be observed, th [...]t those Arguments, which he so reproves as weak, and with so much Demonstration hath Baffled. are these that f [...]llow (summed up bre sl [...] in his own words,Paedobap­ti [...]s Argu­me [...]t [...] by [...] [...]ayl [...]r. Liberty of Prophecy p. 228) First, t [...]e A [...]gume [...]ts pleaded from the inst [...]tio [...] of the Type, viz. Circumcisi [...]n [Page 54] Gen. 17. Secondly, From the action of Christ, calling little Children to come to him, to bless them, Matth. 19.14. Thirdly, From the Title Infants have to Heaven, Fourthly, From the Gospel, In­struction, and Precept, Joh. 3, 5. Fifthly, From the energy of the promise, Acts 2.38, 39. Sixthly, From the Reasonableness of the thing, 1 Cor. 7. Seventhly, From the infinite necessity on the Chil­drens part. Eightly, From the Apostolical pra­ctice, who having Commission to teach all Nations, baptizing them, did Baptize whole Housholds, In­fants being part of Nations, and Housholds. Tenth­ly, From the universal practise of the Church, and Gossips, to answer for them, to supply incapacity, made good by Tradition.

The Ans­wer he gives here­to.These are the Arguments, that he answers di­stinctly, which first in the Anabaptists plea he saith, pretend fairly, and signify nothing, some of these Alligaeions being false, some impertinent, and all the rest insufficient. And all which (agreeable hereto) in his own words, after he had replyed to every one of them, he was pleased to pro­nounce weak, and insuffiicient, and which had therefore given so much strength, and confirma­tion to the Anabaptists way.

2. Reason.And Secondly, concludes all with these words, That there is much more truth, then evi­dence o [...] their side; and giving no better, or other Argument, to aemonstrate that truth was with them.

Now I appeal to all Men of understanding, whether any but a Person, that disponded the goodness of his Cause, and designed wholy to [Page 55] give it up, could say, that the evidence, demon­stration, or proof, was on his Adversaries side, all his own pleas brought forth; being removed, and taken away, himself being Judge.

But 'tis said, Objection. That though he mentioned no other Arguments then, yet he afterwards did, in that, which Mr. Wills calls, his Excellent piece for Infants Baptisme, Wills p. 36.

It is true, Answer. about six years after he had writen his Liberty of Prophecy (that being writ 1647.) he did Anno 1653. (being much laid at, by many of his Friends, and having given such general offence to his whole party thereby) take him­self; concerned to say something,Being a 3. Reason. to perswade the World he was of an other mind, though when he had said it, it amounts to just nothing to any considering Person, and which may ap­pear to you from these Reasons following.

First, Because he undertakes not to answer,1. D. Tayler Answers none of those Ar­guments. or invalidate one of those Arguments, whereby he had on the Anabaptists behalf, overthrown all those weak Arguments, before mentioned; and that though some judged they stood in need of answering, and that he had thoughts to have done it, yet he forbore it upon some considera­tions, which Master Wills repeates from him, p. 36.

Secondly,2. Repeats only some of the old Baffled Ar­guments. Because what he saith in that Trea­tise (which Mr. Wills so boasts off) is not any new thing, but some of the very same Arguments, he had before ju [...]ged so weak, and insuffiicient, and had so substantially answered, and baffled. As first, that from Circumcisio [...]. Secondly, From [Page 56] Children right to the Kingdom of Heaven. Thirdly, To adopt them into the Coverant. Fourthly, From Apostolical tradition; Only adds two or three more savoring, more grosly of Popery, viz. from the use, and necessity of Baptisme to pardon thiir sin, Rege­nerate, and save them.

3. Because in oth [...]r Books he confirmed the truth of them.And Thirdly, it also appears, that he spoke his own mind and sense therein, because in those two Books he wrote so many years after, viz. in his Di [...]wasive against Popery second part; and in his Rule of Conscience, he hath spoken so much agreeable hereto, as before hath been observed to you: viz. That there was no Apostol [...]cal Tra­dition for Infants Bapti [...]me. That it was n [...]t pra­ctised fill the third, nor judged necessary till the fourth Century. That there was no Scriptural proof for Infants B [...]ptisme. That the Children of Chri­stian Parents were not B [...]ptisme, till they came to un­derstanding, for the first Ages. And that dipping, and not sprinkling was the usage of Christ, and his Apostles, and constant Doctrine, and pract [...]e of the the Ancients for ma [...]y hundred years. And which I conceive are substantial Arguments, to prove the Doctor s [...]o [...]e his owns, as well as our judge­ment therein, and which I must stand by, till I see better Reason to the contrary.

O [...]jection.But 'tis said one Reason Doctor Tayler gives, why he did not answer those Argu [...]ents, was be­cause his worthy Fr [...]end Doctor Hamond, had in charity, and humility descended to answer that Col­lecti [...]n.

Answer. It is true indeed, Doctor Hamond in that piece, called his Letter of R [...]solutoin to six Queries; [Page 57] Bound up now in his first volume in Folio, p. 481 doth therein pretend to reply thereto; as being, as he confesseth, the most diligent Collection that he ever met with, wherein the Arguments of the Adver­saries are so inforced, that he knew not where to fur­nish himself with so exact a scheame. But how far he hath performed that Task, and answered those Arguments, let the impartial Reader judge; Who instead of answering hath rath [...]r inforced, Dr. Ha­mond ra­ther con­firms then answers those Ar­guments, and why. and subscribed to the truth of so many of them, and reproved rather the weakness, and insuffi­ciency of so many of the chiefest Arguments, brought by the Paedobaptists, concluding his Di [...]course with Doctor Taylers own words, to that purpose, viz. I consent to the truth of the Doctors observation: That the Anabaptists have be [...]n encouraged in their error, more by the accidental advantages given them, by the weakness of those Ar­guments, that have be [...]n brought against them, then by a [...]y truth of their Cause, or Excellency of their wit, &c.

And therefore doth he in that Discourse ac­knowledge these following things:

First, The weak argui gs from Circumcision ei­ther to its typicalness, ide [...]tity; Reason of diffe­rence, or invalidity of paralel with Baptisme, so as to found Infants Baptisme upon them, pag. 482, &c. comp. 474. sect. 20.

Secondly, The inconcludent Argument from Act. 2.39. Children their, as he fully grants, being really their Posterity, not particularly the Infants of the Jews, p. 490. sect. 81.

Thirdly, That to infer Infants Baptisme from [Page 58] Christs Precept to baptize all Nations, is one of the blind and lame, that is of more use to betray and loose, then to defend and secure the Fort, p. 494. sect. 96,

Fourthly, That to conclude Infants were bap­tised, because Housholds are so mentioned to be, is unconvincing, and without demonstration, it being so uncertain whether there was any Child in the Fa­milies, p. 471. sect. 21.

Fifthly, That Argumentt from Matth. 19.14. are imperfect ways of Probation, p. 474. sect. 23.

The other Argu­ments Dr. Hamond urgeth for Infants Baptisme.It is true the Doctor useth other Mediums, to confirm and establish Infants Baptisme by, which are not usually urged by the Paedobaptists, and which because the Doctor layes so much stress upon, and Mr. Wills seems also much to glory in, we shall give you some account of them.

1. From the Jewish Baptisme [...].The first is, because Christs Institution of Bap­tisme, doth not exclude Infants from Baptisme, there being nothing in Christs Commission, that is against it, pag. 475. fect. 75. And Mr. Wills pag. 131, 132. To which you have an answer in the next Chapter, by an other hand, to whom I must refer you.

The Second, and chief of the Doctors Argu­ments, and upon which he seems to lay the great­test stress, to found and inforce Infants Baptis­me, is from the Custom of Baptizing amongst the Jews of old, from the first giving of the Law, from whom Christ, as he saith, took the usage, and made it a Sacrament: And who did bap­tise, as he tells us, not only the Native Jews, upon their admission into the Covenant, but the Prosolytes, [Page 59] both Men, and Women, and their Children also; And which he pretends to make good, out of the Jews Talmud, by Maimonides, Proved out of the Talmud. a great Jewish Doctor; Rabi Joshua, another; and the Ge­mara Baby [...], Tit. Chirithoth, and particularly concerning their Infants, that they were baptised upon the knowledge of the House of judgement; viz. on their desire and behalf of the Children, and their promise to let them know, what they have undertaken for them, as saith the Doctor, and that thereby Gossips, or Susceptors are also waranted; so agree­able to what Saint Austin saith, Our Mother the Church lends the little ones, other Mens feet, ears, and tongue, that they may come, believe, and confess, and so be capable of Baptisme, pag. 470. to. 474. and which Mr. Wills takes in for Gospel too. pag. 141.

Now, if this be a good and substantial basis, and foundation for Infants Baptisme, and well proved, let all Men judge?

In answer to which new and strange Doctrine, I shall refer the Reader to the Reply, that (I suppose) was made hereto, by that judicious, and learned Gentleman Sir Norton Knatchbull, Sr. Norton Knatch­bull's ans­wer here­to. in his A­nimadversiones in Lib. Novi Testamenti, pag. 315. Accum videam summi judicii Viros in his tempori­bus, & Rabbinis fundamenta petere veritatis, &c. But when I see in these times, some Men of the greatest judgement, to fetch the foundation of truth from the Rabbins, I cannot but stick at it, for whence was the Talmud sent to us (they are the words, (saith he) of Buxtorf, in his Synagoga Judi­cia) that we should give so much credit thereto, [Page 60] that we should believe that the Mosaick Law, either may or ou [...]ht to be understood therefrom? Much less the Gospel, to which they are professed Enemyes: The Talmud is called a L [...]byrinth of errors, and the Foundation of Jewish Fab [...]es: It was perfected, and acknowledged for authentick, five hundred years after Christ: And out of it, Maimonides drew his Doctrine, as also the rest of them; th [...]refore we can­not acquiesce in such testimony.

And again upon the d [...]fference he takes notice of, that was betwixt two of their greatest Rab­bi's, upon that point (who were cotempora­ries) viz. Eliazer, that affirmed that the Proso­lytes were Circumcised, and not Baptised; And Joshua, who a [...]tested the qui e contrary, that th [...]y were Baptised and not Circumcise [...], saith: Ʋ [...]ri ve [...]o potius assentia? Eliezero qui affirmat quo [...] Scriptu­ra, an Joshua qui affirmat quod nusquam Scrip [...]ura docet: To which of them must we [...]ear, to Eliezor that affirms what the Scriptures te [...]ch or to Joshua that asse [...]ts what the Scripture no where te [...]cheth? Though (saith he) the Rabbins too did cle [...]ve to the latter, &c. Magistri vero (quid mirum?) sla­bant pro Rabbi Joshua, faci [...]bat [...]nim in rem su [...]m, in honorem Relig [...]ni [...] Juda [...]ae &c

Now th [...]t the blind Rabbins should establish their vain Customs, by such Jewish Fables, is no wonder, being so left by God to blindness of eye, and hardness of heart. But that any pro [...]essing Christianity, should be so left o [...] God, to assert and establish Gospel Ordina [...]ces from the Fabu­lous Talmud, and their lying Rabbies, so di­rectly contrary to the Sc [...]ipture, is mat [...]er of the greatest admiration.

A thrid Argument is from Antiquity, endea­vouring to p [...]v [...] the succession thereof from the Apostles, and to make it out to be an Apostolical Tradition, from the following Authorities, viz. Justin M [...]rtyrs Respon [...]es, Irenaeus, [...] [...]ginus, Origen, Cyprian, the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierachy, St. Augustin, and the Milevi [...]an Coun­cel. 479, to 482. The fo [...]ce of all which you'l have tryed in the next following Ch [...]pter, to wh [...]ch I refer you. And so you have the sub­stance of Doctor Hamonds strong Arguments, wherein I have been the larger, because you may be sufficiently informed, that he rather confirmed, then answered, most of the [...]nabaptists plea, be­fore mentioned. And th [...]t the strength of those his st [...]ong Arguments (having slighted and can­ciled so many of the old, as weak and insufficient) may appear to you.

And that upon the whole you may have your satisfaction, wh ther I had not substantial ground, to quote Doctor Tayl [...]rs Arguments, he gives in his Liberty of Pr [...]p [...]ecy, in the behalf of Believers, and ag [...]inst Infants Baptisme, and whether Mr. Will, had reason to charge me with delusion, for producing of them; which as yet stand unanswered for the most part, and I be­lieve ever will do.

CHAP. II. That Infants Baptisme hath neither Foundation in Scripture, or Antiquity, is made good, against Mr. Wills his pretences to both.

Section. 1 AS in the former Chapter, so in this, I shall sum up what I have said, to justify the truth of the assertion, what Mr. Wills grants there­of, wherein the force of his Objections lye, and my Reply thereto.

That no Precept or Practise for Infants Baptisme. ‘The first thing I did herein, was to make good the Scriptures total silence, either as to Precept, or Practise, for Infnnts Baptisme, and that by the full grant, and acknowledgement of so many of themselves; viz. the Magdeburgs, Luther, Eras­mus, Calvin, Bucer, Staphilus, Choelens, Me­lancton, Zwinglius, Rogers, Baxter, pag. 89. to 93

‘As also the necessity of Scripture Precept, or Example, to warrant every Ordinance, by the say­ings of Tertullian, Austin, Theophilact, Luther, Calvin, Ball, 6. Art. of the Church of England, pag. 93, to 97.

Mr. Wills Answer, & grant.All which our Antagonist, fully grants, with our foresaid Authorities, viz. That there is nei­ther Precept, or Example for the Baptizing of In­fants, that is to say, Expresly, Literally, and Sil­labically, p. 35, 36, 32. And that Scripture Au­thority is necessary to warrant every Ordinance; But withall saith these two things, viz.

First, 1. No Scrip­ture for­bidding. that as there is no Scripture expresly com­manding so, neither is there any Scripture, exclud­ing, Infants from Baptisme, nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptised, pag. 36, 38, 101, 131, 132.

Secondly, 2. Good con­siquence for it. Though a thing may not expresly the commanded, as Thus saith the Lord Iesus, Baptise your Children, for they believe; yet that it may be commanded Implicitly, and by Consiquence, though not expresly injoyned in so many words: (And so was the Resurrection by Consiquential Reasoning proved, Act. 22.31, 32. Act. 13.33, 34.) And what was thus commanded, is as valid, and obliging as if it was in so many Letters, and Syllables; and thus we affirm Infants Baptisme is commanded, p. 36. And we affirm against their practise of plunging over head, and ears, that there is no express command for the same, nor Example to plunge them as they do, with their Cloathes on, pag. 101. And there­fore in Mr. Baxters words tells us (in his usual Ci­vility) what ignorant Wretches we are, to call for express words of Scripture, when we have the evi­dent consequence, or sence, and is Scripture Reason (saith he) no Scripture with you?

To both which I reply, First,Reply to the first. to his first Ar­gument, that Infants Baptisme may be lawful, be­cause not forbidden in the Scripture, nor no where told where it was no done; May also prove the Law­fulness of Baptizing Bells, and Church Walls, of Chrysme, Exorcisme, Communicating Infants, and a hundred other inventions, that were pra­ctised of old, and still are in use amongst the Papists; neither is it any where told us, in Ex­press [Page 64] terms, that such things were not practised.

What not com­manded in worship, is forbidden.But this we have clear in the Scripture, and and which is to be a Rule to us, in all such Cases, that that worship, which in express terms is not com­man [...]e [...], is expresly forbidden; and for which take the following Scriptures, viz.

Col. 2.20, 21, 22. If you be dead with Christ, from the ru [...]iments of the World, why as though living in the World, are you subject to Ordinances, (touch not, tast not, handle not) after the Comman­dements of Men.

Matth. 15.9. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the Command [...]ments of Men.

Deut. 4.2. You shall not add unto the Word, wh [...]ch I command you, neither shall you demtnish ought from it, that you may keep the Commande­ments of the Lord your God, which I commanded you. 12.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor di­minish therefrom.

Jer. 7.31. And they have built the High places, &c. which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart.

Jos. 1.7. Observe to do, according to all the Law, which Moses my Servant commanded, you shall not turn from it, to the right hand, or to the left.

Which great truth, is well asserted, and de­fended, by Doctor Owin in his Book, called In­nocency, and truth vindicated, in reply to Doctor Parker, Dr. Parke. who having in his Ecclesiasticall Policy, p. 189. said (with Mr. Wills) that what t [...]e Scrip­ture forbids not, it allows, and what it allows, is not [Page 65] unlawful, and what is not unlawful, may lawfully be done. Doctor Owin Dr. Owin. thus answers him, p. 345. This tale I confess we have been told by many, and ma­ny a time, but it hath been as often answered, that the whole of it, as to any thing of reason, is cap­tious, and Sophistical: For if, because they are not forbidden, they may lawfully be introduced, into Divine Worship, then ten thousand things may be made lawful; But the truth is, although a parti­culer prohibition be needful, to render a thing evil in it self: A general prohibition, is enough to render any thing unlawful in the worship of God, so we grant that what is not forbidden, is lawful; but with all say that every thing is forbidden (that should be esteemed as any part of Divine worship) that is not commanded. (And therefore very excellently, and undenyable proves, pag. 339.) That no part of Gods worship, either in the Old, or New Testament, was lawful, but what had some express warrant, from his Word for the same: And that all Additions, and Traditions of Men therein, God reproved, and rejected as vaine worship.

Secondly, as to his second Argument,Reply to second, viz. That express not Consi­quential Scripture for every part of worship. Mr. Col­lings. that is so much a Kin to the former, viz. That impli­cite; and consiquential Commands, are as valide, and obliging as if expresly enjoyned, and commanded: I shall refer him, and the Reader to some eminent Men of his own, for an Answer.

Mr. Collings before his Vindic. Minist. Evang. tells us: That in things relating to the worship of God, it is a general Rule in which our Brethren, and we have long since agreed, That nothing ought to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel.

Mr. Ru­therford. Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbytries, pag. 364. doth also tell us: What the Apostles com­manded not, in Gods worship, that the Churches must not do.

Dr. Owin.But especially Doctor Owin in his Communion with God, pag. 169, 170, &c. saith thus, The main of the Churches chast, and choice affections to Christ lyes in their keeping his Institutions, and his worship according to his appointment, the breach of this he calls Adultery, and Whoredom, every where, He is a jealous God, and gives himself the Title only, in respect of his Institutions; And the whole Apo­stacy of the Christian Church, is called Fornication, Rev. 17.5. And the Church that leades the other into false worship, the Mother of Harlots: This then they that hold Communion with Christ, are care­ful of, they will admit of nothing, in the worship of God, private, or publick, but what they have his warrent for, unless it comes in his Name, with Thus saith the Lord Iesus, they will not hear an Angel from Heaven, they know the Apostles them­selves were to teach the Saints, only, what Christ commanded them, Math. 28.20.

Only plain Scripture for Gods worship.So that what ever ventures, Persons may make in drawing Consiquences, and Inferrences from the Scripture, for any supposed truths (wherein great care, and caution is to be used) yet is it a known agreed Rule amongst Prote­stants: That in the Worship of God, (wherein so much Sophestry hath been used to introduce, and impose, not only Ceremonies about worship, but worship it self, from Old Testament Rites, and Observations;) Nothing therein as worship is [Page 67] to be admitted, without some plain, and express word, by precept, or practise, to warrent the same, out of the New Testament. And therefore when Doctor Parker in the aforesaid Book falls so foul, upon this Principle (with intention to raze this great Protestant Bulwork, and tells us p. 171. That the very Mystery of Puratinisme, lyes in this very assertion, viz. That nothing ought to be established, in the worship of God, but what is expresly commanded, in the Word of God, and that it is a vile, novel, and unreason­able Principle, that takes away all possibility of settle­ment in the Church, and the main pretence to all pious villanies, &c. You have Doctor Owin pag. 303. most worthely defending the same, adding only this hereto [viz. as part of worship.] And which he maintains, by the Authority of Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity▪ as well as from the te­stimony of the most learned Protestant writers.

Doctor HamondDr. Ha­monds. himself tells us (as Mr. Tom­bes in his Review hath it pag. 827.) viz. That it is highly unreasonable, that an Institution of Christ, such as each Sacrament is, should be judged of, by any other Rule, whether the fancys, or Reasons of Men, but either the word, wherein the Institu­tion is set down, or the Records of the practise of Christ, or his Apostles in Scripture.

So that by all this evidence it appears,Mr. Wills his unrea­sonable­ness. that Mr. Wills is so Hetradox, in both his positions, that he has neither Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, or the learned Protestant Writers, to stand by him therein. And wherein, if he persist, he gives up not only the Independent, but whole Prote­stant [Page 68] Cause, and all our Reformation at once; For what inventions in worship are their? that Men can impose, with any presence to Decency, and Order, or Analogy to any of the Legal Rites, that may not be introduced, and given way too. And Doctor Owin adds: That all the Superstitions, and Idolatryes; yea all the Confusion, Blood, and Persecution; yea all the Wars, that for so long a season have spread themselves over the face of the Christian World, have come in at this door.

Resurecti­on proved by plain Scripture.As to the two instances he gives, to justify him­self herein, we say first, as to the Doctrine of the Resurrection, what is in more plain, and ex­press termes delivered to us in the Scripture? and therefore we may the better admit of Consiquen­tial Reasoning, in such truths, that are also plain­ly delivered to us, in express termes else where.

Baptizing is Dipping in English.And as for a plain word, to dip over head, and ears, the word it self doth it, because Dipping, or Emerging▪ as I make appear against Mr. Wills's Sophistry, signifies nothing else, but so puting the thing under water, as to cover it all over; and that not only by the most Eminent Criticks, but the constant usage of the word, both in the Old, and New Testament.

And as for the Baptizing with Cloathes on, as no Scripture mentions the putting them off, so the light of Nature teacheth there should be some on. And that the Cloathes are dipt matters not, so long as the Person is dipt, as all that expe­rience it must needs acknowledge.

Consi­quences from Cir­cumcision proved not Infants Baptisme.Though as to plain Consiquences, and Scrip­ture [Page 69] Reasoning, we admit, as well as they, provided we have all the parts of worship kept to express words, and Gospel Ordinances as­serted by Gospel Institutions. And therefore we deny the inferences usually drawn, from Cir­cumcision, under the Law, for Baptisme, un­der the Gospel, to be either plain, proper, or true.

And because Children were Circumcised, un­der the Law, by an express positive command, therefore that they may be Baptised, without any Precept, or command, under the Gospel, holds not by any means. For though in some things Circumcision, may have some analogy with Baptisme, viz. in heart Circumcision, or Mortification, must it therefore be good in all? it holds not. For though the Ark, as Doctor Tayler well observes, in some thing holds Ana­logy with Baptisme, therefore to draw in all the Circumstances, of the one, to the other, would make Baptisme a Prodegy, not a rite; and therefore, saith he, Types, and Figures prove nothing, except some Command accompanyes. Had we as Express a command to Baptize Chil­dren, under the Gospel, as they to Circumcise them, under the Law, it would end the Con­troversy; But as we have neither Command nor Example, as granted, so neither can there be any Analogy, either in subject, qualification, or end, as so largely proved: Not in subject, one being to be Males only in Israel; the other Males, and Females in all the World; Not in qualification, one to be the Natural Seed of A­braham, [Page 70] without respect to Faith, and Repen­tance; the other the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, with respect to Faith, and Repentance; for that is required in all Persons that are to be Baptised, as so fully granted. Neither in the ends, the one to enter visibly into the National Church thereby; the other into the Spiritual Church, and to par­take of Spiritual Ordinances, so entring also into Covenant, and acting Faith in the Promises, and sharing of Priviledges, in the very act of entrance, that no Child, under the Law, or Gospel, could be capable of.

In the next place, as to the An [...]iquity of en­joining Infants Baptisme, with all its impious Concomitants, of Salt, Oyl, Spittle, Chrysme, Exorcisme, &c. He grants it was not till above four hundred years after Christ in the Milevitan, and Carthagenian Councels; But withal saith, the Reason why it was not enjoined sooner, was because the Lawfulness of it was rarely, if it all questioned before.

A good grant from Mr. Wills for the witnesses against In­fants Bap­tisme.To which I say, then if it be so, that the Ca­nons in the respective Councels enjoining, and in­forcing Infants Baptisme, [whereof, he saith, he hath above thirty to produce] were only made up­on the occasion of those that denyed, or opposed it: We have then our Witnesses throughout all Ages, confirmed by himself; yet with all I must re­member him, presently, that though these first Canons, and those in other Centuries, were made against those that denyed Infants Baptisme, to curse, and Excommunicate, and destroy them, [Page 71] yet it was denyed long before any Canons were made to impose it.

And further he affirms. That though Infants Baptisme was not imposed, before the fifth Century, yet that it was practised in the former Centuryes, from the Testimonyes of Justin Martyr, and Irae­neus, Origen, and Cyprian.

To which I say,No proof that In­fants Bap­tisme was practised in the 3. Century. that as to the validity of our Authors testimonies, as to the practise of Infants Baptisme in the first times, we shall presently Examine; though I deny not, but that it was discoursed before the third Century, and which appears, as I have owned, by Tertullians Rea­soning against it; but the thing I affirm, is that it is not manifest by any Authentick Authority, that it was practised as an Ordinance of Christ be­fore; As Doctor Barlow so well observes, viz. that he doth believe it came in, in the second Cen­tury, (viz. in the Notion) and in the third, and fourth began to be practised, and defended to be law­ful, by the Text grosly misunderstood Jo. 3.5.

And as to the Magdeburgs themselves, though they tell us, that from what they find from Origen, and Cyprian, concerning it, they conclude it was practised; and that many Superstitious Rites in Baptisme were also spoken of, in those first Cen­turies: Yet do tell us withal in express words, Century 3. ch. 6. p. 125. Nec de susceptione, de Baptismo, explicari quidquam inveniat, in omni­bus hujus saeculi, veris & probatis Scriptoribus: Neither can one find any thing spoken of, the Suscep­tion of Baptisme, in all the true, and approved Wri­ters of this Ag [...]. They tell us indeed, of o [...]e [Page 72] only instance, mentioned by Vincentius, who wrote of the affairs of the Gallican Churches, mentioning a Family, that was Baptized, in the time of Aure­lianus the Emperor, in which there was a Godly young man, by name Symphorianus, who was Bap­tised by Benignus the Presbyter; but with all they say of this Vincentius, Author non ita satis probatus: An Author not so well approved of.

Therefore till any instance be produced, of any Child that was Baptised as an Ordinance of Christ, within the first three hundred years, or towards the Conclusion of it, I am yet unreprovable in that my assertion; For if it should be taken for granted, that those four before mentioned had spoken of it, yet if they do not speak of the practice of it, which is all that I assert, I am very safe in what I have said.

Tradition the principal Ground, that hath been urged for Infants Baptisme.

Section. 2 Tradition the prin­cipal Ground upon which In­fants Bap­tisme was 1. foundedTHe next thing to be enquired into, is the principal Ground, upon which Infants Bap­tisme was first imposed, and afterwards established, which I have made appear to be humane, or Un­written Tradition, by divers Authorities, both Antient, and Moderne, p. 133.

Austin. Austin saith, That Infants Baptisme is not to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition, &c.

Bellarmin. Bellarmin tells us, That it is an Apostolical Tradition not written, because (saith he) it is not written in any Apostolical B oks, though in the Books of almost all the Antients, &c.

Doctor Field, Dr. Field. That Infants Baptisme is there­fore called a Tradition, because it is not delivered in the Scriptures, that the Apostles did Baptize In­fants, or that they spould do so.

Convocation at Oxford, That without the con­sentaneous ju [...]gement, and practise of the Ʋniver­sal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infants Baptisme. With divers others asserting the same, from pag. 133. to the 137.

To which Mr. Wills saith pag. 115. 122. That it is a false suggestion, and exceeding all modesty, for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition herein, making it equal with the Scrip­ture; yet that the Antient Fathers do plead, that it comes in the room of Circumcision, and that In­fants have right thereto, from the right that the Jews Infants had to Circumcision; And that the Protestants, when they use the word Tradition, do it as the Fathers before them, in sensu sano: in a whole­some sense, quite different from the corrupt sense of the Church of Rome.

To which I say, though Mr. Wills affirms,Agree­ment be­twixt Pa­pist, & Pro­testant a­bout the Tradition of Infants Baptisme. there is such a vast difference betwixt the Church of Rome, and them, in the point of Tradition, about Infants Baptisme, wherein he ownes them too corrupt; yet for my part I see not, as Mr. Wills represents, the Protestant sentiments about it, where the vast difference lyes, and what rea­son he hath to conclude, they themselves, that hold with the Fathers herein, are so Orthodox; and the Papists so corrupt, and Heterodox.

For do the Church of Rome [...]old,1. Papist a Tradition not writ­ten. that it is an [Page 74] Apostolical Tradition not writen; there being nothing written of it in any Apostolical Book, but only found in the custom, and practise of the Church, Treat. Bap. p. 134.

Protestant an unwrit­en Tradi­tion.So doth Mr. Wills in behalf of the Protestants also affirm; viz. That Infants Baptisme is there­fore called a Tradition, because it is not expresly delivered in the Scripture, that the Apostles did baptize Infants, nor any express Precept they should do so: And that Tradition is the practise of such things, as are neither contained in Scripture ex­presly, nor the Examples of such practises expresly there delivered, Mr. Wills p. 108.

2. Papists a Tradition gathered from the Scripture.Do the Papists affirm: That notwithstanding 'tis a Tradition, or Custom of the Church, yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures; viz. from Circumcision, Bellarm. Tom. 3. L. 1. de Sacr. c. 8.

Protestant a Traditi­on gather­ed from the Scrip­ture.So doth Mr. Wills for the Protestants, say, That notwithstanding, there is neither pr [...]cept, nor practise, expresly written in the Scripture; yet it is gathered thence by good consequence, as coming in the Room of Circumcision; and therefore that In­fants have a right to Baptisme, from the right that the Infants had to Circumcision, Mr. Wills p. 105.

3. Papists that it is of equal Authority with Scrip­ture.Thirdly, Do the Papists maintain, that the Ec­clesiastical Tradition of Infants Baptisme (as it is gathered from the Scripture, and appointed by the Church) is of equal authority with the Scripture it self, and to be observed with the like holy reverence, Treat. Bapt. p. 132.

Protestant of equal Authority in Scrip­ture.So doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant doctrine, That the Tradition of Infants Baptisme, proved by [Page 75] Consequential Arguments from the Scripture, ought to be esteemed as firm, and good as the Scripture it self, p. 117.

Do the Papists teach,4. Papists that the Church the sub­ject, not Author. that Infants Baptisme was the appointment of Christ himself; and practise of the Apostles; though no mention, when it was given forth, nor when, and where practised, Treat. Bap. 134.

So doth also Mr. Wills in the name of the Prote­stants affirm, Protestant that the Church the sub­ject, not the Author that Infants Baptisme was an Apo­stolical practise, and Ordinance, not that the pri­mitive Church was the Author, but subject thereof, Christ himself having appointed it, and approved thereof; (though no where written) p. 119.

Fifthly, Do the Papists maintain,5. Papists Testefied by the Ancients. That the Truth of this Ecclesiastical Custom, of Infants Bap­tisme, is handed down to us, to be an Apostolical Tradition, by the writings of almost all the Antients, Treat. Bap. p. 133.

So do also the Protestant Paedobaptists defend,Protestant witnessed by all the Ancients. That the holy Ordinance of Infants, Baptisme, hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church; for there is no ancient Writer, that doth not aknow­ledge its Original from the Apostles, Master Wills pag. 102.

So that by this Parallel we cannot find, where the great difference lyes, betwixt Papists, and Protestants: But if the Papists are corrupt in the point of Tradition about it, so are the Prote­stants also, being in so great an harmony there­in together.

That the Papists, and many of the Protestants, do much accord in the point of Tradition about [Page 76] it, is fully owned by Mr Baxter, in his Princ [...] of Love as before.)

And that Mr. Wills, and other Protestants of his mind, do so too is manifest

For all do harmoniously acknowledge, that it is not delivered in the Scripture, that the Apostles did Baptize Infants, or that there is any express precept there found, they should do so, and therefore an Unwritten Tradition: Though the Ground, and Reason thereof (they say) is [...]airly to be gather­ed by Consequence, p. 507. which therefore must needs be the principal Ground, the Ground of the Ground; so that if the Ʋnwritten Tradition prove a mistake, the pretended Scripture Ground, to ju­stify it,Communi­cating In­fants is said to be an A­postolical Tradition as well as Infants Baptisme. must needs be a mistake also: As for in­stance, the giving of the Sacrament to Infants, was asserted by the sayings of the Antients, to be an Apostolical unwritten Tradition, and so practised for many Ages, and this not without a pretended Scripture ground, to justify the said practise to be good, as Doctor Barlow observes from John 6 53. Which you have also urged by Austi [...] himself, with great vehemency, as neces­sary to Salvation.

Now this being since disowned, to be an Apo­stolical Tradition, which was the principal Ground, the Scripture urged to prove, and ju­stify it, doth necessarely prove a mistake. And therefore (saith Doctor Barlow) upon the like gross mistake, they did defend Infants Baptisme, from John 5.3. and he affirms, they may do one, as well as the other.

Therefore let all Men judge, whether Mr. [Page 77] Wills himself hath not justified, that he calls a false suggestion, and exceeding all modesty, to assert that Tradition, has been owned to be the prin­cipal Ground of Infants Baptisme: For take away the Ʋnwritten Tradition, then the pre­tended Scriptures, to justify that, avail nothing.

It is true the Papists are larger,The Pa­p [...]sts are larger in point of Tradition then the Prote­stants. in the business of Tradition then the Protestants, and affirm a larger power, through their Infallibility to de­termine about it, then the Protestants can owne; who cannot only by their infallibility tell, what our Saviour said to John▪ lying in his bosom, but also what he told the Disciples in the Mount, not mentioned in the Scripture; And by the large trust committed to them, can impose those their conclusions as Oracles, and of like Autority with the Scriptures: As for instance, their Chrysme, Exorcisme, Salt, Oyl, Spittle (very antient Tra­ditions, if not more ancient then Infants Baptis­me it se [...]f) as Appendixes, if not essentials to Baptisme: And so Altars, Copes, holy Water, Temples, Holy dayes, with a vast number more of like kind, gathered also from Scripture A­nalogy, from Old Testament rites, as Infants Baptisme from Circumcision. And therefore do they reprove the Protestants, for not receiving all the rest, as well as Infants Baptisme, being all upon one bottom, viz. Apostolical Tradition, gathered from Scripture's Consequence.

The Fathers also herein,The Fa­thers lar­ger in point of Tradition then the Prote­stants. do seem to exceed the Protestants too (though Mr. Wills saith, they do so agree with them, in the point of Tradi­tion, as holding it more soundly then the Pa­pists) [Page 78] viz. Cyprian, Austin, and others of the Antients, hold Chrysme, Exorcisme, Infants righ [...] to the Supper, &c. to be Apostolical Traditions and to be made good from Scripture proof, and Analogy; And seem to be as large herein, as the Papists have since been: For instance, Austi [...] Austin. in his 118. Epist. ad Johan. saith: Illa quae n [...] scripta, tradita custodimus, dantur vel Apostolis, vel plenariis Consiliis, &c. The unwritten Traditions, which we keep, are given by the Apostle [...] themselves, or general Councels, &c.

And amongst other things (with Infants Bap­tisme) he mentioneth the Solemnity of good Friday, Easter-day, holy Thursday, and Wednesday; And adds, if any other thing hath occurred, which i [...] kept by the whole Church, where ever it spreads it self. This length our Paedobaptists cannot go, with the Fathers, and Papists in other Traditions, though they hold fast that of Infants Baptisme with them, which was the main Argument for it till Luthers time, as Mr. Tombes tells Mr. Bax­ter in his third part of the Review, pag. 767. Nor do I think Mr. Baxter can shew me one Au­thor, till Luthers day, who made Infants Baptis­me, any other then an unwritten Tradition, al­though they produce many of them Scripture, for the Necessity, Reasonableness, and Lawfulness, [...] the Church to use it, to whose authority they ascrib [...] too much, in the appointing such rites, and inter­preting Scriptures to that end; I do not find tha [...] the engaged Papists cited by me, did set Traditio [...] above Scripture, but that they make it equal wit [...] it. I grant, &c.

Therefore since (by substantial Argument) Tradition, appears to be the principal Ground, and with so much confidence asserted, both by Papists, and Protestants, to be made good from the writings of all the Ancients (as saith Calvin) and Bellarmine (more modestly) by the writ­ings of almost all the Antients; Let us therefore, in the next place, particularly examine the re­spective Authorities from Antiquity, avouched for the same; for if they fail, the whole Fabrick tumbles down. Here also:

The Antiquities urged by Mr. Wills, to prove Infants Baptisme an Apostolical Tradition, disproved.

Section. 3 THere are five Authorities, 5. Autho­rities to prove In­fants Bap­tisme Tra­ditional. that have been usually brought to prove, Infants Baptis­me an Apostolical Tradition, and the universal practice of the Church, which we have exami­ned distinctly, and given an Account of the in­sufficiency, and weakness, if not the wickedness, of most of them, and which appearing falfe, all the rest depending upon them, necessarely fall to the Ground.

The first three of them, viz. 3. of them owned to be spuri­ous. Dionysius the Areopagite, in the first Century; the Decretals of the first Popes, or Roman Bishops, with Justin Martyrs Responses, in the second Century, are all of them owned by Mr. Wills to be spurious, and supposititious; though to this day leaned upon, by most of the Popish, and many Protestant Writers also; whereby the Mystery of Iniquity [Page 80] early discover it self, not only to usher in, but to support this Innovation, by Lyes, and For­geries.

But Mr. Wills tells us, that though these are forgeries,Justin Martyr to Triphon examined. yet Justin Martyrs Dialogue to Tri­phon, is genuine, who therein saith, that it was lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision, [viz. Baptisme] whereby it may well be inferred, saith Mr. Wills from Mr. Baxter, that if all may receive it, then Infants, who were the Subjects of Legal Circumcision, for they must be part of all, and not excluded, Wills 128.

Which I say, is a meer impertinency, and no­thing to the purpose.

For first, here is not one word of Infants, nor of Infants Baptisme, or its Apostolicalness.

Secondly, it is very absurd (the better to hook in Children) to interprete the word [all] to be all Men; for if all Men, then it must com­prehend wicked, as well as good; Believers, as well as Unbelievers; and which (as confined to Baptisme, by Master Wills) is to contradict Christs Commission, and the Apostles practise, who limited it only to those, that repented of their Sins, and believed the Gospel. And though it is true, the Gospel was to be preached to all, and all of all Nations, in distinction to the Na­tion of the Jews, who only were concerned in the first Commission; yet only they taught Be­lievers amongst them, were to be Baptised; not the ignorant, and prophane; And if the word All, be so to be understood, it is a witness for us, not them, for Infants thereby are excluded, who [Page 81] are neither capable of Instruction, Repentance, or Faith. And that it is so to be understood, let Justin himself be the Interpreter, who not only in his Apology, before mentioned, tells us,Justin himself contra­dicts Mr. Wills sense that they Only, who were instructed in the Faith, and believed, were brought to Baptisme, to have their new Birth perfected. But in this uery Dialogue to Tryphon, tells us, that by the Word, and Baptis­me, Regeneration was perfected, in all man kind, (viz. in all that did hear, and receive the word, and were capable to come to Baptisme.) And again, that by the grace of God, and the Baptisme of Repentance, sins were expiated, as Magdeburgs Cent. 2. pag. 4. 7. which sufficiently declares, that this is nothing to the purpose, except it be to confirm Believers Baptisme only.

And to which saith Mr. Tombes, Mr. Bax­ters singu­lar Notion. This testimony for Antiquity of Infants Baptisme, I remember not alledged by any before Mr. Baxter, and therefore, besides the impertinency of the words, as he himself alledgeth them, I see no need to search further into it, Review 2. part p. 71.

In the next place Mr. Wills tells us of an other Antiquity, to prove Infants Baptisme Apostolical, Iraeneus testimony examined. viz. Iraeneus, who in Lib. 2. c. 39. Advers. Hae­res. tells us, that Christ did sanctifie every age, by his own susception of it, and similitude to it. All I say, who by him are born again to God: Whereby (saith Mr. Wills) we infer, that being born again to God, signifying Baptisme, as the An­tients for the most part took it, then were the Infants baptised in his day, Wills p. 129.

To which I reply, that if this be any more to [Page 82] the purpose then the former, let all Men judge; and whether it be not far fetch'd, and unnatu­raly screwed, without either Reason, or truth?

Very im­pertinent.For first, here is not one word of Infants Bap­tisme, or its Apostolicalness, and nothing but an impertinent begging Question upon Question, to make up an inference.

Secondly, The Interpretation upon which it is founded, is wholy falacious, for neither the Scrip­tures, nor Justin Martyr, do call Baptisme Re­generation absolutely, but only as it is the Sym­bole of Regeneration, already wrought by the word, and so Justins words b [...]fore import, and that only respecting the Adult, that were capa­ble thereof: For if this be true Doctrine, then must all Hypocrits, and wicked Men, that either now, or ever were Baptised, be actually thereby Regenerated, and so consequently saved; which is so absurd, and Ridiculous, as nothing can be more. To which Mr. Tombes has so well answered Mr. Baxter in his third Review, pag. 79. (And which was never yet replyed to) that we need say no more to it, viz.

Mr. Tom­bes.But Christ was not in his Age, an Example of every age by his Baptisme, as if he did by it sanctify every age, for then he should have been baptised in every age; but in respect to the holyness of his hu­mane Nature, which did remain in each age, and so exemplarily sanctify every age to God, so as that no age but was capable of holiness, by conformity to his Example. Now if the meaning were, that Christ came to save all that were baptised by him, on by his appointment, then he came to save Simon [Page 83] Magus, and who ever are, and have been baptised rightly, Judas himself. Therefore such a sense is most palpably false, and therefore is this wrested by the Paedobaptists, against its meaning, to prove In­fants Baptisme in his time.

So that I hope it will be manifest, that these Authorities are as little to the purpose, as the three former, and all though these are not Sup­posititions, yet wholy insignificant, and nothing to the purpose.

Whereby it is manifest, that for the first two hundred years we have not the least proof, by any Authentick Au hor, that Infants Baptisme was an Apostolical Tradition, or that it was once pra­ctised within that compass of time. And there­fore saith Doctor Barlow, Dr. Bar­low. I believe, and know that there is, neither precept, nor practise in Scrip­ture for Paedobaptisme; nor any just evidence for it, for above two hundred years after Christ. And may it not be very well concluded, in Mr. Bax­ters words about Confirmation, That it was very su­spicious, to find in Justin Martyrs Description of the Christian Churches practise, no mention of it, p. 128. So neither to find in Justin Martyr, nor, as Mr. Tombes well observes, the least of it in Eusebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, or Epiphanius, is very good ground to conclude a­gainst it, and reproof to Mr. Calvin, who saith, Mr. Calvin and Mr. Marshal justly re­proved. that there is no Antient Writer, that doth not acknow­ledge, the Original of the holy Ordinance of Infants Baptisme, even from the Apostles. And to Mr. Marshal also, who saith that the Church hath been in possession of Infants Baptisme this fiveteen hundred [Page 84] years, and that no one Authority can be found wit­nessing thereto, for two hundred years after Christ.

Origen's testimony tryed.But in the next place, with greater confidence, saith Mr. Wills, we adhear to Origen, notwith­standing the frivelous cavils of the Author. It is true, Origen is the Authority especially gloried in, as being so positive, and express for its Apo­stolicalness, as it is mentioned L. 5. ad Rom. c. 6. and confirmed in Lev. l. 8. Hom. 8. and in Luke Hom. 14. In these words, the Church hath re­ceived a Tradition from the Apostles, to give Bap­tisme to Children (who had the secret Mystery of Divine things committed to them) because they be­ing defiled with the pollution of sin, ought to be washed, or cleansed by the water, and Spirit, &c.

To which we have said these three things, viz.

Reason gi­ven before agaidst it in Treat. of Baptis­me. First, that Origen is but one single testimony, (as Doctor Tayler observes) and that against so much authentick testimonie to the contrary, that none but the Adult are found in the Apostles times, and the next Century after them, to be baptised.’

Secondly, that his writings are so notorious corrupt, and erronious, and particulerly in the point of Baptisme.’

Thirdly, that many of his Works, and par­ticulerly these that treat of Baptisme, fell into such ill hands.’

Mr. Wills answer to the first.To which Mr. Wills answers, First, that Ori­gen was not a single testimony, because, saith he, we have the testimony of Irenaeus also. But what I [...]enaeus Testimony signifies you have heard; and therefore that neither Irenaeus, or any other but [Page 85] Origens Testimony was in the Case, you have Doctor Tayler in his Deswasive against Popery, 2. part pag. 118. printed 1667, one of his last pieces, saying thus:Dr. Tayler that Ori­gen was but a sin­gle Testi­mony. That there is Tradition to baptise Infants, relyes but upon two witnesses, O­rigen, and Austin, and the latter having received it from the former, it relyes wholy upon a single Te­stimony, which is but a pittiful Argument, to prove a Tradition Apostolical; he is the first that spoke it: but Tertullian, that was before him, seems to speak against it, which he would not have done, if it had been a Tradition Apostolical. And that it was not so, is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludov. Vives, saying, that anciently none were baptised, but persons of riper age.

And herein the Doctor, it must be granted, speaks his own sense, not playing the Anabap­tist, as 'tis said he did in his Liberty of Pro­phecy.

To the Second, he ownes his corruptions, Mr. Wills grants the 2. and great errors, but saith to ballance him, that Ter­tullian did not come much short of him, in er­ror, and corruption; that is one of my wit­nesses.

To which I say, let them then go together, only I sh [...]ll have thereby the better bargain for Mr. Wills, in parting with Origen parts with all, but I have many more to witness for me be­sides.

To the Third, that his Homelies on the Romans, Mr. Wills to the 3. chargeth me with mistake. were all translated by Ruffinus, is my mistake, for though Ruffinus might abuse some part of Origens works, yet that Jerom did translate his Romans, [Page 86] and Luks also; and which he saith, appeareth by Jeroms Preface, affixed to them as Erasmus, (he tells us) confesseth, and therefore, though Ruf­finus hath no credit with me, he hopes Jerom may, they being Jeroms Version, and which upon Erasmus testimony puts it beyond all doubt.

Reply to t [...]e charge [...]herein Mr. Wills [...]ppears to be gr [...]sly [...]staken.To which I say, first, that what ever good thoughts Mr. Wills hath of the Translation of the Romans, yet Mr. Perkins is pleased, as I told him, to put it amongst his spurious works.

Secondly, that Erasmus (what ever Mr. Wills so fa sly tells us) is so far from asserting the Ro­mans to be Jeroms, and not Ruffinus that he saith just the contrary, in his Censure before O [...]igens works, in these words: At qui l [...]git ennar rationem Epistolae (ad incertus) Romanos est utrum legit Orige­nem, aut Ruffinum: And he that reads his Commentaires upon the Epistle to the Romans, is uncertain whether he reads Origen, or Ruffinus.

But is not Jeroms Preface before the Epistle? and doth not Erasmus tell us so, to put us beyond all doubt? It is true, Mr. Wills indeed tell us so; but what credit is to be given to him, let all Men judge, when Erasmus, and Grynaeus also, tell us the quite contrary? Erasmus his words are these:Erasmus [...] [...]ct. [...] cheat. Hic L [...]brarii magnifice perfricuere frontem, & in Praefatione, & in per Oratione pro Ruffino, Hieronymum supponentes, hoc est vitrum pro Gemma Lectori obtrudere conantes, & hactenus sane fefellerunt incautos, nam Praefatio poterat ut­cunque videri Hieronymi, sed in per Oratione quasi Sori [...]es suo se produnt indicio: Herein the Booksellers h [...]ve been very impudent, both in the Preface, and [Page 87] conclusion also, putting Jerom instead of Ruffinus, that is to say, endeavouring to obtrude upon the Reader. Glass instead of a Jewel, and hitherto in­deed they have deceived the unwary: For however, the Preface may seem Jeroms, yet in the per-oration (or conclusion) the Rats do as it were betray them­selves by their own discovery. In like manner (as saith the same Author) Quod idem factum est in Symbolo: Eum enim librum in Cypriani nomen transtulerunt, sed ita multis commutatis, ut ipsa res clamitet non casu, sed de inaustria factum esse: The same thing is done in the Symbolum: For they transferred that Book on the name of Cyprian, but many things being so changed, that the matter it self manifests sufficiently, that it was done not by chance, but of design.

But then saith Mr. Wills,Origen up­on Luke examined. what do you say to Luke? For it is to be noted, that neither the Au­thor, nor any one else, hath any thing to say against his Hom [...]lies on Luke (what ever they have to say, on that on the Levit. and the Romans) where Ori­gen expresseth the same thing, concerning Infants Baptisme, and Mr. Perkins himself lets this pass without the Censure of being spurious, p. 132.

To which I answer, First,1. No Ori­ginal Co­py of i [...]. then it is not de­nyed, but that Leviticus, wherein is the same thing asserted, is so spoiled by Ruffinus, that it may be justly censured, for Mr. Wills saith no­thing to it, and if he did, it is all one, for Erasmus is as positive for that, as for the other.

And as for that of Luke, Mr. Tombes Tombes. observes in his third Review, pag. That Erasmus saith on Luke 1.3. Sic enim visus est sentire, quis is fuit, [Page 88] cujus extant in Lucam Commentarii Adamantii ti­tulo: For so he seems to think whosoever he was, whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke, under the title of Adamantius which shews (saith he) that Erasmus took them not to be Origens, or at least doubted thereof.

Vossius.And Vossius Disputatio 14. Sect. 8. p. 181. saith thus (having cited Origens whole testimony out of Luke, &c.) Sed de Origene minus laborabimus, quia quae citabimus Graece non extant: But we care the less for Origens, because the things we cited, are not extant in the Greek.

And Scultetus Scultetus. in his Medul. Pat. L. 6. c 2. Cum Graeca Originis Opera non extant hodie, & quibus Latina versio corrigi possit, & emendari: That Origens works in Greek were not at present extant, by which the Latin v [...]rsion might be cor­rected, and amended.

And Erasmus:Erasmus. Atque utinam extarent Graeca Originis monument [...], quo Ruffinicas artes posse­mus deprehen [...]ere: And I wish that the Greek Co­pies of Origen were extant, that so we might there­by discover the cheats of Ruffinus.

3. Origen was more a Pelagian t [...]n to as­sert Origi­nal sin.But Serondly, there is good Reason to que­stion, that those things about Infants Baptisme, were not Origens, from the Reasons that is add­ed to them, viz. to take away Original Sin; whereas it is so well known, that Origen was not only a great Arian, but the very Fountain, and head of them, as Jerom, and Epiphanius, calls him Magdeb. Century 3. p. 261. &c. But notoriously did deny Original sin, as pag. 265. And there­fore doth Doctor Owin, in his display of Aria­nisme [Page 89] ch. 12. say Nor did Origen Pelaginise a little only, but is supposed first to have brought Pelagi­nisme into the Church.

And therefore doth Vossius in his History of Pe­laginisme L. 4. Th. 6. pag. 153. So much Que­stion, whether those passages in his works, mention­ing Infants Baptisme, could be his, upon the account of Pelaginisme.

By all which I doubt not, but that the judi­cious Reader will conclude, there is a good Ground, to judge this Testimony of Origens, upon all these Accounts, to be as invallid, and insignificant, as the former; and that as yet we have not the least evidence, to prove this our unwriten Tradition to be Apostolicall.

The Last, and chiefest,Cyprians testimony examined. that is pretended to warrant this an Apostolick Tradition, is that of Cyprian, in his, and his 66. Bishops Epistle to Fidus, (who is placed by Ʋsher in the middle of the third Century, 250.) wherein it is said to this purpose, viz.

That it seemed good, not only to himself, An Epito­my of his Epistle. but a whole Councel, that Infants might be baptised before the eight day; & the Reasons to inforce it are these that Follow. First, Because the Baptisme was sim­pely necessary to Salvation. Secondly, That it washes away Original Sin, so as it is never to be im­puted more. Thirdly, Because the Grace of God is tendered to all, therefore all Children should be bap­tised. Fourthly, Because Children have lesser sins then others, and so they need less pardon then Men of grown years, therefore less hindrance in them, to come to Gods grace. Fifthly, Because in their first [Page 90] birth they do nothing, but pray by their crying, and weeping. Sixthly, Because the Soul, that is not baptised, is lost, Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 8.

Against which I gave in three Exceptions.

Former Excep­tions. First, Because Infants Baptisme is not hereby urged, for an Apostolical Tradition, nor upon any Authority of Scripture, but upon his own, and Bishops Arguments (as said) such as they are to inforce it, though if he should have said, it was an Apostolical Tradition, his word would no more have been taken, then when he tells us, Chrysme, and other inventions were so too.’

Secondly, Because there is ground to Que­stion, whether there was any such Councel: First, Because there is no place mentioned, where such a Councel was kept. Secondly, the grounds are so weak, and erroneous. Third­ly, Because it was a doctrine so much contra­dicted by his great Master Tertullian. Fourth­ly, Because there were many things fathered upon him, not his.’

Thirdly, That if it did truly appear to be his, yet there was as little ground to receive it upon his word, as the rest of his corrupt, erro­neous, and Antichristian doctrines, vented by him, whereof you have some account from the Magdeburgs in his Naevi.’

Mr. Wills answer to the first. To the first he says, though he did not say, it was an Apostolical Tradition, it follows not that he did not so own it, the Magdeburgs say that he did so affirm it.

Reply. To which I say, that in proof [...] of Apostolical Tradition, it is necessary to bring such only, [Page 91] that upon warrantable ground are positive in it: For this at the best can be urged, but as a cons [...] ­quential proof, and far fetcht too; viz. Because Cyprian in his time gave his opinion for it, there­fore it was practised in that age, and because it was practised, two hundred & fifty years after Christs time, therefore it was the practice of the Apostles, which if allowed, would be excellent authority, for all the Superstitious observations of Chrysme, Ex­orcisme, and an hundred more of those knacks.

But he tells us, the Magdeburgs say, that Cy­prian affirmed, it was so. And that is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm, except some an­tient, and authentick authority be produced for the same; and it is not yet evidenced, out of his writings, that he any where saith so.

‘But as to what I say,Mr. Wills Answer to the 2. part of the first that if Cyprian had any where upon his own word told us, it had been an Apostolical Tradition, yet it would have signified as little, as his telling us, that Chrys­me was so.’ He replyed:

And doth not the same exception lye against Ter­tullian, who as the Magdeburgs tell us, was the inventer of Chrysme, and therefore (says he) is such inflexibleness, stifness, and partiality, fair, and equal?

To which I say, Reply. If Tertullian, his Master▪ was the inventer of Chrysme, which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition, what credit then is to be given to his testimony, that dares to avouch so fearfull a lye so knowingly.

Secondly, If he should tell us, upon his own word, two hundred years after, that both were [Page 92] Apostolical, we have great reason to distrust, that of Infants Baptisme, when we know the other is a manifest Falshood.

Neither is there the like reason, to reject Ter­tullians Testimony against Infants Baptisme: First, because it is only urged as matter of Fact, that Infants Baptisme was denyed by him, to be an Ordinance of Christ, the verity whereof (I think) never any doubted, with the Reasons he gives for the same, in his Book de Baptism [...], as Doctor Barlow, and Doctor Tayler, so fully acknowledge: Had he indeed told us, that two hundred years before him (without any proof, but his own say so) some of the Apostles had denyed it, and at the same time told us, a manifest lye of them also, there had been, the like cause to have questioned his evidence: And as to Tertul­lians testimony, so much contemned by Mr. Wills, you shall hear more of it in the next Chapter, where my witnesses are vindicated, against his Cavils.

Mr. Wills to the 2.To the second Exception, as to the three Grounds I urge, why no such Councel? He first answers with a scoff (And that is strange for one that hath launcht out, as he hath done, into the vast Ocean of Antiquity) then gives the reason, why he judges there was such a Councel, because so many (in the Fourth, & fifth Century) of the Fathers, (some of whom he mentions from Doctor Ha­mona) had such a venerable esteem for it. But what then?

That is no Argument, it was a Decree of such a Councel, because so many had a good esteem [Page 93] of it: For all the same Fathers, he mentions, esteemed very well of Chrysme, and Exorcisme, &c. asserted by Cyprian; Doth it therefore fol­low they were appointed by him in Councel, and to be received therefore by them, and all others, without further dispute. But that Cyprians Di­ctates were not so authentick among the Antients, may appear by their universally rejecting, his Doctrine of Rebaptisation, though determined in an undoubted Councel, at Carthage in Affrica, under Gallus, mentioned in his Epistle to Jaba­janus, and in all his Epistles, Magdeb. Century 3.Magdeb Cent. 3. p. 194. pag. 194. And that novel opinion of his, about sprinkling also, in his Epistle to Magnus, L. 4. Ep. 7. which all of them declined for so many Ages.

As to the other three Arguments,Reply no­thing to the third. against the Council, he saith nothing at all; Neither doth he say one word against those childish, erroneous, and ridiculous grounds, the (supposed) learned Councel gives for that their opinion, which I urge in the third Reason: Onely he Cavils with me for the Argument I urge from Austins Confession against this Councel, viz. that it had not been determined in any Councel, saying, that it is a pitiful mistake, and misunderstanding of Austins words; who saith: Who had not its first institution from some Counc [...]l. To which I say, the words are: Nec Consiliis institutum: Neither instituted, or decreed in Councels. There is no first: So that he did certainly, by thes [...] words, conclude a­gainst any [...]nstitution, or Determinaiton, in this, as well as any other Councel; and this to be sure, [Page 94] if it be not in this supposed Councel, of Cyprian d [...] termined, and instituted, he finds it no where else (this being the first Councel, that ever is pre­tended to mention it, and excepting Origen he par­ticularizeth, no authority higher. Austins words run thus: That which the Church (viz. in his time) held, and which had neither been institute [...]) in Cyprians, nor) in other Councel (so conclu­ding against all Councels) and which was alwayes held (yet gives no higher account, to prove that universal Tenet then Origen) m [...]st therefore be an A­postolical Tradition. A notable convincing Argu­ment no doubt, and so far from being next to a Demonstration, as Mr. Wills fondly asserts, that it is next to nothing, and just as good, and authen­tick, as Austins assertion, that the giving the Sa­crament to Children, was Apostolical, and necessary to Salvation.

And then in Mr. Philpots words he tells us, be­cause we deny this of Cyprian, to be good proof: That the verity of Antiquity is with them, and that the Anabaptists have nothing, but lyes for them, and their new imaginations, which feign that Bap­tisme of Children is the Popes commandement.

To which I say that what ever Mr. Philpot (that worthy Martyr) might heretofore in ignorance af­firm, and Mr. Wills may now, with so much prejudice, repeat and second: Yet he must pardon, us if we say: That until as full a Command from Christ, be produced for Infants Baptisme, as is from the Pope for the same, that the lye he talks of, will certainly rest at their door, who with so much confidence assert, that it was Christs pre­cept, [Page 95] and the Apostles practise, and yet are able to bring no more from Scripture, or Antiquity, to warrant it, whilest all that full-mouthed, and undenyable evidence, from the Popes Canons, and Decrees, are manifested by us for the same.

But if it should be granted Mr. Wills, that this of Cyprians Decree was authentick, and that there was then a Determination, to baptise all Children upon the Reasons, and Grounds mentioned there­in (viz. because Gods grace was tendered to all. Secondly, Because Children were more capable of it, then grown Men. Thirdly, Because it was ne­cessary to Salvation. Fourthly, Because so avail able to wash away Original sin. Fifthly, Because they do nothing, but pray when they cry, in the first birth. And Sixthly, Because they would otherwise be lost) what would it avail to prove, that their Infants Baptisme that Mr. Wills pleads for, was an Apo­stolical Tradition, or practised in those first times? For Mr. Wills renounceth this as erronous, and false, as we do his, who is neither for the baptizing of all Children, nor upon those grounds asserted, which he reprobates, as Popish, and Ridiculous: And therefore Protogenes his schaeme for baptizing Children, to cure diseases, might as well have been produced by Mr Wills as Cyprians model to save their Souls, and both like significant to what Mr. Wills pleads for. It is true this supposed De­cree of Cyprians was the true pattern, that those first Popish Councels wrote after, and which the Papists have followed ever since, and who there­fore do as much renounce Mr. Wills Infants Bap­tisme, as he doth theirs, upon which score it [Page 96] it was that the Latins counted the Baptisme of the Greek Church a nullity, and did rebaptise those a­gain, as the Greeks did theirs. And therefore is Cal­vin, & Luther and those that made the first change, from the old pattern, put by the Popish Writers amongst those, that positively denyed Infants Bap­tisme, for they conclude that they had as good deny it, as so to alter the Ceremonial form, and change the ends thereof; So that if Mr. Wills seeks for Antiquity, for the Baptisme of the Infants of Be­lievers only, he cannot go higher then Luther or Zwinglius, as Mr. Tombes observes, and if for the Children only of Inchurched Parents, (which I conceive to be his judgement) he cannot ex­tend it higher then the New England pattern, a­bout forty, or fifty years since.

Thus it is manifest to you, first, that there is neither Precept, nor Example, in Scripture for In­fants Baptisme, as is so fully acknowledged. Secondly, That the Scriptures silence, or its not for­bidding, cannot justify any thing in Gods worship, and that nothing but an express Scr [...]pture that car­ries, thus saith the Lord Jesus along with it, can free any from Superstition & false worship; which fully excludes Infants Baptisme by their own Grants, Mr. Wills acknowledging (they cannot say), thus saith the Lord Jesus, Baptize your Children. And thirdly, It is as fully manifested, that the pretended Anti­quity, for the practise of Infants Baptisme fails; none proving it higher by any approved Author, then the fourth, or fifth Century: And then no other Baptisme, then hath been renounced by most Protestants, as corrupt, and erroneus; And that [Page 97] however the Papists, and those that go their way, may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth, or fifth Century: Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his, then New England, or at the furthest then Luther.

CHAP. III. Wherein the Witnesses against Infants Baptisme, are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions.

THe Witnesses produced by me, against In­fants Baptisme, were either particuler Per­sons, or Churches, as you have them at large mentioned in the seventh Chapter.

And first, as to the evidence from particuler Persons, Mr. Wills in his Preface tells us:1. From particuler Persons. That notwithstanding all the flourishes Mr. D. makes, and the numerous Quotations, he hath fetcht from the Magdeburgensian History, in his seventh Chap­ter, from the first Century, to the end of the twelfeth, there are but two Persons, to be found against Infants Baptisme; viz. Adrianus, and Hincmarus,Mr. Wills ownes b [...]t two in the whole. which is just the same Number, he was pleased to allow me before, for Believers Baptisme; But whe­ther these, and their fellows, may not speed, as well as the former, shall be put to as fair a trial, and so submitted to judgement.

‘The first of my Witnesses, urged against In­fants Baptisme, was Tertullian, who doth,Tertullian thc first witness. as expressed pag. 221. eminently oppose it, in six Arguments: First, from the mistaken Scrip­ture, [Page 98] Matt. 19.14. suffer little Children, &c. (by which it seems some would have introdu­ced such a practise) which could not, as he saith, be properly applyed to Infants Baptis­me, for several Reasons urged from their inca­pacaties. Secondly, from the weigthiness of that Ordinanee, which required Caution, and consideration, and no such haste. Thirdly, from the sinfulness of such a practice, by Pro­phaning an Ordinance, and partaking of others sins. Fourthly, from the absurdety of such a practise, in refusing to intrust them with Earth­ly things, and yet commit Spiritual things to their trust. Fifthly, from the Folly of exposing witnesses, propounded it seems, to supply the want of capacity in them, and to undertake for them. Sixthly, from the consideration that the Adult, upon many considerations, were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme. And to which we may add a Seventh (which he is pleased (so falsly) to say, I purposly, and subtilly o­mitted, there being no cause for it, that I know) viz. From the insignificancy of the end, propounded for the same, viz. To take away sin from Children.

Mr. Wills owns Ter­tullians wit. To which testimony, in the First place, he gives us this acknowledgement, pag. 96. viz. That it is acknowledged that Tertullian, who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church, hath divers passages seemingly against Infants Baptisme, but yet withal it must be considered, that his Testimony (such as it is) is but the testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church.

Where by the way, we may take notice, that our witness is owned by him, but the general custom of the Church, he speaks of, is yet to be proved as utterly disowned by us, and for which there is not the least colour of truth as yet pro­duced.

And again pag. 6. he doth grant, That the Magdeburgs do indeed tell us, that Tertullian in this third Age, opposed himself to some that as­serted Infants Baptisme, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme. Charges him wit [...] corrupti­on, and weakness. But what a corrupt Person he was, and how weakly he had Reasoned, he endeavors with much kee­ness to demonstrate.

In answer whereto I say, that his witness be­ing allowed, and to be such a Doctor of Note too, in the Latin Church, it is sufficient; and I think, we need say nothing to those cavils of corruption, and weakness, the evidence being acknowledged, (the main thing intended) and which will be endless to answer, in every Authority that may be urged pro, and con.

But yet in as much as he is our first witness, and speaks so much Reason, and truth, and so much to the purpose; And to make Mr. Wills his unreasonable opposition, the better to appear, we shall give some distinct reply, to his Excep­tions against this our witness, whom he areignes for so much corruption in Doctrine, and folly in this his particuler witness.

And first, for that great corruption in Doctrine,1. The cor­rupt Do­ctrine he charges Tertullian with. he charges him with, about Chrysme, Exorcisme, &c. I presume there are none of his ancient Do­ctors [Page 100] comes short of him, and who were as much Montanists as he therein, viz. Origen. Cyprian, Chrysostom, Austin, &c. only herein Tertul­lian was more Orthodox, holding none of those to be Jure Divino, whilest they took them to be Apostolical Traditions, and essential to Baptis­me, Magdeb. Century 3. chap. 10. pag. 240. compard. 82. 225. 248. And for those evil sentiments of God, and Christ, it is certain that Origen did far exceed him, as you will find at large in his Naevi, pag. 261. &c. and which ar­gues a very partial mina to be so quick sighted in the one, and so stark blind in the other. And as to his being a Montanist, before he wrote his Book of Baptisme, which Mr. Wills affirms, I see it not confirmed by any good Authority, the Magdeburgs tell us, that from Carthage, he went to Rome, Tertullian no Monta­nist before he wrote fo [...] Baptis­me. and lived long there, where he wrote against the Montanist, and wrote his Book of Prescriptions, as Helvicus saith, the fifth of Se­verus, which Mr. Wills ownes to be about the fortyth year of his age: And the said Helvicus tells us, that it was twenty years after, before he wrote fore the Montanists. And he that writes the lives of the Primative Fathers, pag. 82. tells us, that in the eleventh year of Severus, Ter­tullian wrote his Book of Baptisme, against Qui [...] ­tila in his third Tome next to his Prescriptions, and in the fivetenth year, his Book of the Resur­rection, &c. But if he was turned Montanist before, the matter is not much, for it must be owned, that a Man that is erroneous in one thing, m [...]y be Orthodox enough in another: The business [Page 101] is, whether as to matter of fact, he spoke these things against Infants Baptisme, and that is not denyed: And in the next place, whether he spoke not reason, and truth▪ in that his testimony, which in the next place we shall examine.

Therefore Secondly, as to the weakness of his Argument, which he renders so contemptible, and ridiculous, and guilty of so much dotage, I make the following particuler reply to each exception, viz.

First, as to his first Argument,1. He abu­sed not the Text Mat. 19.14. from the mi­staken Scripture, he saith, he abuseth the Text by his Paraphrases. But second thoughts will I presume, tell him, it is no abuse, but a very proper answer to them, that would make the word Come in the Text; to be a coming to Baptisme; which, saith he, cannot be, because Children cannot come to that Ordinance, till they are Elder, till they know, and are taught, why they come, &c. Will you have them made Christians, before they know Christ? An [...] what could be spoken more full, and pertinent, and more agreeable to truth?

Secondly, From his advising caution, 2. To defer Baptisme is often necessary. and con­sideration, from the weightiness of the Ordi­nance, he makes sport with it, as he applyes it afterwards, to young Men, and young Women, viz. that they shou d rather defer, & consider what they did, and how much mortification, and sanctification, was required therein, then headily, and rashly to pra­ctise it, and which I conceave was wholesome Councel, and no wayes Ridiculous, and no other then John Baptist gave those that came to his Bap­tisme, viz. that they would first bring forth [Page 102] fruits meet for Repentance, and amendment of Life, agreeing also with the advice our Saviour gives in the Case, viz. To sit down, and con­sider what the Christian life calls for, and what it will cost.

The Ordi­nance is prophan'd thereby.Thirdly, From the Sin of Prophaning an Or­dinance, where he charges Tertullian with con­tradiction; having, as he saith, else where acknow­ledged, that the Children of Believers were holy, whom here he calls Dogs: Which is Mr. Wills mi­stake, he calls them not Dogs, but alludes only to Christs Proverbial saying, of prophaning an Ordinance, viz. that such a practise would be as prophane, as to cast Pearls before Swine, and holy things to Dogs.

Irrational & absurd.Fourthly, From the absurdety of Refusing to intrust Children with temporalls, through their want of knowledge, and activity, and yet commit greater things; viz. spiritual to th [...]m, which he saith, is a very sorry Argument, because Children were ca­pable of Circumcision of Old, [...]d of Benediction in the Text; But what then? were they not meerly Passive in both, and wherein neither knowledge, Faith, or activity, was required, but all these re­quired, and absolutely necessary in Baptisme? If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest; which as Mr. Baxter so well observes, includes the Ne­gative, otherwise thou mayst not.

No Rule for Sure­ties.Fifthly, From the folly of exposing of Sure­ties (a good witness against them) which, saith Mr. Wills, speaks nothing against Infants Baptis­me: But therein he must pardon me, for take a­way Sureties (who were afterwards appointed [Page 103] to Repent, believe, [...]onfess, promise, and Re­nownce, for the Children, as you have heard) Infants Baptisme must needs fall, which had its main foundation upon them.

Sixthly, From the Consideration, Proper only for the Adult. that the A­dult Persons were the only Subjects, from the necessity of the Prerequisites thereto, viz. Repen­tance, Faith, Fasting, Prayer, &c. To which Master Wills sa [...]th, that those might belong to Aliens. But what is that to Tertullians saying? that they, viz. the Adult, are only to be baptised, from the Reasons, before mentioned, so agreeing also with the Scripture.The end insignifi­cant.

Seventhly, From the insignificancy of the end propounded, viz. To take away sin, and was not this sound Doctrine? And which, I presume, Mr. Wills himself must conclude, much more Ortho­dox, then all the Decrees of the Doctors, and Councels, requiring Children to be Baptised (up­on penalty of damnation) to take away their sins.

Now therefore what Reason he hath so to vaunt over this witness, as such a piece of Dotage, and contemn it as so Ridiculous, is submitted to judgement. Let him but produce as good Ar­guments, from any of his Antient Doctors, for Infants Baptisme, we shall not contemn them, and when he makes as good a defence for Cy­prians, and his 66. Bishops Grounds for it, we shall not slight, and scoff at it.

But in further confirmation of this our witness, you have Doctor Barlow, Dr. Bar­low. telling us, That Ter­tullian dislikes, and condemns Infants Baptisme, as unwarrentable, and irrational.

Daille. Daille also tells us, as you have it pag. 149. That Tertullian was of an opinion, that Infants were not to be Baptised.

Scultet.And Scultetus also in his Medul, Pat. Lib. 7. cap. 42. pag. 1. Tells us, that Tertullian, in his Book of Baptisme affirmeth, that they only should be baptised, that were capable of the knowledge of Christ.

Magdeb.The Magdeb. do also tell us, p. 52. That he was only for Adult Baptisme, and opposed himself to those that affirmed otherwise.

Beatus Rhenanus. Beatus Rhenanus, in his Annotations upon Ter­tullian, saith, That those that were come to their full growth were Baptised, wh [...]ch custom, saith he, was long observed.

His own grant.But what need we offer any more, Mr. Wills himself hath already owned it, though not so ho­nest, to add him to the other two, he granted me, which the ingenious Reader I doubt not will do.

And as to his allegation, that this instance of Tertullians denying it, was a great evidence, that it was early practised in the Church, is already spoke to: For all that can be gathered thence, is that some pleaded for such a practise, and that it was as well confuted, and suppressed (by sound reason, and truth) f [...]om this Person of Note; but what Man of Note witnessed for it, or that the Church, as he saith, in this time practised it, is yet to be proved, Mr. Wills his insinuation being not sufficient.

Above 40. particul [...]r [...]itnesses against In­fants Bap­tisme un­answered.After Tertullian I have given you (from pag. 229, to 237, 243, 246, 286.) above forty more [Page 105] particuler instances of Persons, that have asserted Believers, and denyed Infants Baptisme, and to which I did expect (as in Reason, and Justice I ought) some fair return from my Antagonist, but instead thereof meet with the quite contrary, giving me just occasion of complaint.

First, Because he only excepts against six,Except only a­gainst 6. or 7. or seven, and objects nothing against all the rest, and yet allows me but two of the whole Number, viz. Adrianus, and Hincmarus, saying nothing to Vincentius, Victor, Heribertus, Cresconius, Ful­gentius, Regienses, Albanus, the Swermers, Ar­noldus, Henericus, Bruno, and about thirty more, so fully denying Infants, and asserting Believers Baptisme only: And therefore may it not fairly be concluded, that either his silence gives consent to the whole, or else his dealing is very disin­genious, and unfair.

Secondly, Because his Exceptions against those six, or seven, are so frivolous.His excep­tions weak & frivolous

First, He tells me, Berinus Berinus. is nothing to my purpose, because he respects Pagans only; Of which let the Reader judge, who faith as p. 232. that Baptisme ought not to be administred to any, without instruction.

Secondly, That Guillertus, and Smaragdus, Guill. & Smaragd. were both for Infants Baptisme, which I also owne; But with all say, that the Dutch Cen­tury Writers do tell us, that they both altered their minds, and which I give you at large from them, pag. 234. of which he takes not the least notice.

Thirdly, That I brought in Durandus, Durandus. a se­vere [Page 106] Encmy against Anabaptists, as a witness a­gainst Infants Baptisme, p. 146. the quite con­trary he'l find, is true in my pag. 242. where I proauce him as the great Enemy, and Persecutor of Bruno, and Berengarius, for their witness against Infants Baptisme; and is it not very injurious, and conterdictious for him, to owne that Duran­dus was so severe an Enemy against Anabaptists, and yet not to acknowledge, and allow me Bruno, and Berengarius, my two witnesses I produce, for denying Infants Baptisme, that he persecuted the same, It is true Durandus is in the Index, I do not know how, put among the witnesses, but the said Index directs to the page, where the Story is rightly told you, and from whence he had the account, what an Enemy he was to the Anabaptists.

Bishop of Apamen.Fourthly, That the Bishop of Apamen, &c. was mentioned amongst my witnesses, and pag. 231. said to be for Anabaptisme, yet not said to be against Infants Baptisme, pag. 146. But the late Cen­tury Writers, so calling them in a modern sense, we have no Reason to doubt it.

Fifthly, That I have nothing to evidence, that Peter BruisPet. Bruis. denyed Infants Baptisme, but the im­pudent Storyes of two lying Abots, when he knows I produced three, or four Evidences more, to prove it: And he also knows, that those pre­tended absurdeties he would bring upon the two Abbots, viz. Cluniacenses, and Bernard, are lying forgeries of his own, which I shall present­ly demonstrate.

Sixthly, That I have no ground to say, [...]hat Wick­liffWickliff. [Page 107] denyed Infants Baptisme, p. 146. when I pro­duce so much evidence to prove it, which you have from p. 283. to 289. demonstrating, that he not only affirmed, that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptisme, but withal that Children are not Sacramentally to be baptised, and what can be more express evidence in the case.

Another piece of injurious dealing,A notori­ous falacy, & abuse detected. I have to complain against our Author for, is for his fa­thering so notorious a falacy upon the Reader, and abuse upon my self, In affirming that I pro­duce a great Bede-role of witnesses against Infants Baptisme, who were so firmly for it, as I in contra, diction to my self grant, viz. Austin, Chrysostome, pag. 25. of his. And Theophilact, Anselme, Bede, Gregory, Anslbertus, Albertus, Lumbard, &c. And the three Councels of Bracarens. Tollatan, and Constantinople in his Recapitulation, p. 139, &c.

Whereas I have again, and [...]gain said, that I produce them not as positive witnesses against In­fants Baptisme, there being not one of them in my Catalogue (which would have been madness indeed, wh [...]n I have brought them in amongst those that have asse [...]ted Infants Baptisme) but for these Reasons only, viz.

1. First, to shew what strong Arguments,Why Per­sons own­ing Infants Baptisme are pro­duced for witnesses. so agreeing to the Scripture Institution, and pat­tern, they have themselves produced for Believers Baptisme only, viz. From the necessity of Con­fession and Profession of Faith, and Repentance, before Baptisme

2. Secondly, upon what weak, and erroneous Grounds, they assert Infants Baptisme also, most [Page 108] of which I have given pro, and con, that their con­tradictions, not mine, may appear.

3. Thirdly, that, that, which they make to Reconcile that contradiction, may appear insigni­ficant, viz. the Confession, and Profession of Gossips, or Sureties for them, of which the Scrip­ture makes no mention, and whereby all the for­mer Authorities, for Believers Baptisme, may appear good for us, and against themselves.

The wit­nesses produced from Churches. Having thus cleared my Testimonies, given in from particuler Persons, I come in the next place, to examine what he hath said to the wit­nesses, produced from the several Churches. I have mentioned, viz. the Waldenses, Dona­tists, Britains, &c. concerning whom he is pleased thus to express himself, p. 129. And in reference to the confidence of my Antagonist, that the Wal­denses, Donatists, and Britains, were all against In­fante Baptisme, when none of them were, makes good the Proverb, Pertureant Montes, &c.

But what cause he hath for this confident vain glorious boast, will soon be tryed.

The Witness born by the Waldenses, against Infants Baptisme, justified.

The 4. fold Evidence to prove the Wald. denyed In­fants Bap­tisme.THe first he opposeth, is th [...]t of the Waldenses, whose witness, against Infants Baptisme, I make good from a four fold Demonstration, viz.

Fitst, From their Confessions of Faith. Se­condly, From the witness born thereto, by their most eminent Men. Thirdly, From the Decrees of Councels, Popes, and Emperors, against the Body [Page 109] of the People, for the same. And Fourthly, From the Footsteps thereof, they have left in the several Regions, and Contreys, where they have been dispersed.

Upon which he makes this following reply, pag. 46. viz. That there are two sortes of People, that 'tis like will be imposed upon by the Flourishes, which this Champion makes, those who are igno­rant, and those who are prejudiced against Infants Baptisme, no doubt but all this will pass for Gospel amongst such: But I may say of the Author, Mul­ta loquitur, sed nihil dicit, or rather probat; and that which he saith, is but Vox, & praeterea nihil: A great sound of words, but no proof; and this he promiseth to make appear in order.

To the First, as to the Confessions of Faith, he saith two things: First, that there are no such Confessions to be found of that Nature, nor any thing that looks like a Confession, unless it be in Ʋtopia, pag. 111. But my Adversary hath a notable dex­terity, to prove, Quidlibet, ex quolibet, p. 46.

Secondly, That the quite contrary appears by their contrary Confessions of Faith, witnessing how firmly they did assert Infants Baptisme, pag. 46, and 64. &c.

To both which I answer, First, that it may be manifest to the Reader, that their Confessions of Faith, do indeed exclude Infants from Bap­tisme, I shall give in a Parallel betwixt, what their Confessions say, and what he, in the Repeti­tion thereof, makes them say, and leave it to judgement, how fairly he hath dealt therein.

What their Con­fessions are, as p. 239, &c.

The Wal­denses Confessi­ons of Faith.[That God hath not only instructed us by his Word] But hath also ordained cer­tain Sacraments to be join­ed with it, as a means to unite us unto, and to make us partakers of his bene­fits.

And that there are only two of them [belonging in Common to all Members of the Church, under the New Testament, viz. Baptisme, and the Lords Supper.]

We do believe, that in the Sacrament of Baptisme, water is the visible, and External sign, which repre­sents unto us.

That which [by the invi­sible vertue of God opera­ting] is within [us] viz. the Renovation of the Spi­rit, and the Mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ.

By which also we are re­ceived into the holy Congre­gation [Page 111] of the People of God their professing, and declaring openly our faith, and amendement of life.]

We esteem for an abo­mination, and Anti-Chri­stian, all humane inven­tions, as a trouble, and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit.

When humane Tradi­tions, are observed for Gods Ordinances, then is he wor­shiped in vain, as Es. 19. Matth. 15. And which is done when grace is at­tributed to the External Ceremonies, and persons enjoined, to partake of Sacraments, without faith and truth.

That Anti-Christ at­tributes the Regenera­tion of the holy Spirit, unto the dead outward work of baptizing Chil­dren [into that Faith] and teacheth that thereby, [Baptisme] and Regene­ration must be had, [grounding therein all his Christianity, which is against the holy Spirit.]

What he makes their Confessions to be, p. 45, &c.

God hath ordained cer­tain Sacraments to be joined with the word, as a means to unite us unto, and to make us parta­kers of his benefits.

And that there are only two of them —

We do believe that in the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, water is the visi­ble, and external sign; which represents unto us

That which — is within — viz. Renovation of the Spi­rit, and Mortification of our Members in Je­sus Christ.

We esteem for an abo­mination, and Anti-Chri­stian, all humane inven­tions, as a trouble, and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit.

When humane Tradi­tions, are observed for Gods ordinances, then is he worshiped in vain, as Es. 19. Mat. 15. And which is done, when grace is at­tributed to the External Ceremonies, and persons enjoined, to partake of Sacraments, without faith, and truth.

That Anti-Christ at­tributes the Regenera­tion of the holy Spirit, unto the dead outward work of baptizing Chil­dren, — and teacheth that thereby, — Regene­ration must be had: —

Whereby you have demonstrated, his great unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confes­sions, by leaving out so many material, and con­siderable parts thereof, that make against him, and then so unfairly, and untruly to say: That there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestants Churhes in the World, in those Articles, and the Waldenses, because all that are for Infants Bap­tisme, believe the same.

But whether it be so indeed, let us examine the particulers.

1. Infants not capa­ble to hear the Word.First, Do all the Paedobaptists believe, That Baptisme, and preaching the Word, are joined to­gether, to instruct the Baptised partyes, and that thereby they have union with Christ, and partake of his benefits? Pray, how is that to be made good, in any Infant, that has no actual knowledge, Faith or understanding?

2. Nor of the Lords Supper.Secondly, Do they indeed believe the Lords Supper, to belong in Common, with Baptisme, to all the Members of the Church; why then do not Infants partake of one, as well as the other, since it belonges to them in Common, if Members of the Church, as Mr. Wills saith, they are?

3. Nor to under­stand the Symbole thereof.Thirdly, Do Paedobaptists, with the Wal­denses, believe as you say, That water in Bap­tisme is the usual sign, representing to the Subjects thereof, the invisible vertue of God operating in them, viz. Renovation of the Spirit, and Mortification of their Members? And can it be truly said, it is so to an Infant, that is not capable to put forth any act of Faith, Repentance, or Mortifica­tion, or discern any the least sign in the wa­ter, [Page 113] of any such things signified thereby.

Fourthly,4. Nor to make Con­fession of Faith be­fore it. Have they indeed a Harmony with the Waldenses, in what further they confess, concerning this Ordinance? viz. That by it t [...]ey are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God, there professing, and declaring openly their Faith, and amendement of life. But how is the Infant capable, with the Waldensian Christia [...]s (not Pagan converts) to profess, and declare openly their Faith, and Repentance, and so to be received into the Congregation thereby?

Fifthly, Do Paedobaptists indeed believe with them, That humane Traditions, and Inventions, 5. That In­fants Bap­t [...]sme is a humane Tradition, and why. are to be esteemed Anti-Christian [...]b [...]m [...]na ions, and vain worship, and that, that worship is vain, and Traditional, when Persons are enjoined to it, without Faith, and truth? Why then are Infants baptised by them, that have no Faith, or know­ledge of truth? and for which there is neither Pre­cept, or Example in Gods word? and by them­selves owned to be an unwriten Tradition?

Sixthly, Do they believe,6. Anti-Christ groundsall Religion in it. That Anti-Christ Grounds all Ch [...]istianity, and Religion, in the Baptisme of Childre [...], attributing Regeneration to that outward work done, contrary to the holy Spirit? Why then do they baptise Children, which as acknow­ledged, is the basis, and Foundation of the false Church, and so contrary to the Spirit, and for which there is nothing, but the Decrees of Popes, and Anti Christian Councels, to warrant it.

Whereby you see, that Infants are manifest­ly excluded Baptism [...], in these six particulers, in these Co [...]fess [...]s, and that Paedobaptists can­not [Page 114] assert the same, without evident contradiction to themselves.

Objections to the contrary Confessi­ons.But in the next place, if these Confessions be good as you say, against Infants B [...]ptisme, yet what do you say to those contrary Confessions, that own the Baptizing of Inf [...]nts, as Master Wills hath given them from Perin, p. 62, 63, 65.

Answer. To which I say, it is to me matter of the great­est admiration, that I having with that exactness, especially in the last Edition, given you such a particuler Account of all t [...]ose Confessions, word for word, both of that of Bohemia, and that of Provence, and proved to you by such ample D [...]moastration, the following particulers; viz. First, That none of them were extant till the sixteenth Century, whereas the other are upon Record in the eleventh, or twelfeth Centuries, so many hundred years before. Secondly, That that Confession, said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia, to King Ladislaus, were not Walden­ses, as they themselves acknowledge in the pream­bule thereof. Thirdly, Have given an account, how, and by what means, and when, those of Pro­vence came to introduce that Custom, so contrary to what their ancient Barbes had instructed them in; How sadly they had [...]eclined even to going to Mass; And how contradictious that practice was, to other parts of the Confessions, into which it was foisted; And that these Waldenses of Provence, that made these Confessions, were inconsiderable to the Body of that People, that was dispersed into so many parts of the World, that held the contrary. Yet Mr. Wills should take so little [Page 115] notice, of what I have said; and Mr. Blind­man that has written since (who has also transcri­bed the said contrary Confessions) without the least notice to what I have said, in answer thereto; which I think is such an abuse, as was never of­fred by any, pretending to answer Books, and therefore I must refer them, and all others that desire satisfaction therein, to what I have so fully, and as I humbly conceave, unanswerably spoken to each Confession.

The Second Demonstration,2. From their emi­nent lead­ing Men, who de­nyed In­fants Bap­tisme. proving that the Walde [...]ses denyed Infants Baptisme, is from the w tness, that was born against it, by some of their most eminent leading Men; viz. Berengarius in the eleventh Century; Peter Bruis, Henericus, and Arnoldus, in the twe [...]feth.

First, Berengarius, who was so famous, that the Waldenses were called after his name for a hun­dred years after, at Mr. Clark tells us, 1. Beren­garius. and who filled all France, Italy, and England, with his Doctri e, as Matthew Paris, and who so emi­nently witnessed, not only against Transsubstan­tion, but Infants Baptisme, which is made good.

First, From the reply that Lanifrank, Proved 1. by Lani­fra [...]k. Arch­bishop of Canterbury, gave to him upon that point, in his Book called Scintillaris, saying, that in denying Infants Baptisme, he did oppose the General Doctrine, and general consent of the Church, Magd. Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240.

Secondly, Cassancer out of Guitmond, 2. C [...]ssan­der. That with the real presence, he denyed Baptisme to little ones, though the latter not so publickly as the for­mer.

3. Councel in France.Thirdly, By the Councel, called by Henry the I. of France, to suppress the Heresies of Bruno, and Berongarius, for denying Transsubstantiation, and Infants Baptisme, Bib. Pat. p. 432.

4. Thua­nus.Fourthly, from the testimony of Thuanus, witnessing, that Bruno, Archbishop of Triers, did persecute the Beringarians, for denying Infants Bap­tisme, as you have it, p. 242, 243.

The wit­nesses to prove it not excepted againstNone of which he excepts against, only saith, that there were several Councels, in which Beren­garius was persecuted for the Real presence, but no mention is made of his denying Infants Baptisme, pag. 51.

But what then? this four fold testimony is e­nough to prove it.

2. P. Bruis, Henry, & Arnold.Secondly, Peter Bruis, Henericus, and Arnol­dus, all in the twelfeth Century, and so emi­nent that the Waldenses for a long time were cal­led by their names, viz. Petrobrusiani, Hene­rici, and Arnoldi, did all of them, deny Infants Baptisme,Testefied by. which is made good by these following Testimonies. viz.

First, That Peter Bruis denyed it, is testified by Peter Cluniacenses, 1. Clunia­censes charge a­gainst them. who amongst the several things he charges him with (fifteen in numb [...]r) puts his denying Infants Baptisme in the front, in four particulers, Osiander Century 12. Lib. 3. cap. 3.

2. In his L [...]t [...]r to 3. Bishops.Secondly, The said Peter Cluniacenses, writes to three Bishops in France, that the Petrobrusiani, and Henerici, denyed Infants Baptisme and held Rebaptization, &c. and that when he urged f [...]r Pae­ [...]obaptisme, the Authority of Austin, and the Latin [Page 117] Fathers; Peter, and his Colegues, appealed to the Scaipture, and the Greek Church.

Thirdly, Cassander testefies,3. Cassan­der. in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve, that Peter Bruis, and Hene­ricus, denyed Baptisme to little ones, affirming that only the Adult should be baptised.

Fourthly, Doctor Pridieux saith in his Latin Councels, 4. By the Latin Councel. that Peter Bruis, and Arnoldus of Bri­xia, were in the second Lateran Councel censured, for the Heresie of Rejecting Infants Baptisme, Church buildings, and adoration of the Cross.

Fifthly, Bernard, 5. Bernard Abbot of Claravel in Bur­gundy, doth in his Letter to the Earl of St. Giles, in his 204. Epistle, accuse the Henerici, or Apo­stolici, of the Heresie of denying Infants Baptisme.

And in his 65. Serm. on the Cant. charges them to oppose Infants Baptisme, Transsubstantiation, Purga [...]ory, praying for the Dead, &c. Osiand. Cent. 12. L. 3. c. 6. p. 291.

All which Bernard said, he had either by inve­stigation (or diligent search) personal disputation with them, or from those that were come from them, Magd. Century 12. cap. 5. pag. 844 (the latter whereof Mr. Wills only takes notice of, so partial is he in his remarks.)

Sixthly,6. Vice­comes. Vicecomes L. 2. ch. 1. That the Hene­rici, and Apostoloci, denyed Infants Baptisme.

Seventhly, Doctor Hamond confesseth,7. Dr. Ha­mond. that Peter Bruis, and Henry his Schollar, and the Pe­tro Brusiani, and Henricani, that sprang from them, opposed Infants Baptisme, Tombes 3. Review, pag. 827.

To all which Testimony Mr. Wills gives in this [Page 118] Ex­ception, pag. 53. &c. That most of this witness is gathered from lying Papists, especially two lying Ab­bots, Bernard, and Cluniacenses; And tells me in as much as I have cited Osiander, he doubts it may be some prejudice to my cause; because what ever Osiander saith of Peter Bruis, and Henericus, de­nying Infants Baptisme, he taketh it out of the works of Peter Cluniacenses, who doth Calumniari for­titer, lay very abominable errors to their charge, and amongst others, this venial one, of denying In­fants Baptisme; Now if any credit must be given to this Abbot, it must be per totum, through out in all, or else in nothing: And verily if his testimony be valide, and the Author from him, our opposites, need not glory in such Waldenses, that they com­ported with their opinions, nor we troubled at their dissenting from us

Let us now therefore, saith he pag. 55. look into the wicked, and false testimony, or account, this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers Peter Bruis, and Henricus, as Osiander takes it out of his own writings (viz. Cluniacenses.) viz.

First, Baptismum abjiciunt: They cast of Bap­tisme, meaning that of Infants.

Secondly, Corporum resurrectionem negunt: They deny the Resurrection.

Thirdly, Carnem comedi prohibent: They forbid eating flesh.

Fourthly, Christum non esse Deum, &c. That Christ is not God, nor took flesh on the Virgin, &c.

Fifth [...]y, Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi [Page 119] in communi, &c. That the Church should possess all things in common.

Then saith by this time, I suppose we may con­clude that these Waldenses were vile persons, or Cluniacenses a lying Abbot,

And then goes on, p. 57. with great severity to ch [...] ­stiseme: Now me thinks he should blush at his indis­cretion, for introducing such a Popish calumniation, for an evidence in this matter: And if he believe this Abbot slandred Peter Bruis, and his followers, in these things, I hope he will excuse the Reader, if he believe he did no less, when he chargeth them to be against Infants Baptisme.

I see by this, that when Men are ingaged in a cause, and wedded to an opinion, they will not re­fuse the most sordid, and shameful wayes to promote it: They will fall in with slanderous Papists, and take up what they say, to defend their opinions, wit­ness my Antagonist, and his Predecessor Mr. Tom­bes, who was heretofore checkt for this very thing, and who boldly justifies himself; and tells us in his Precurser, pag. 29. that Cluniacenses, though a zealous Papist, yet thought fit by Illyricus, to be reckoned amongst witnesses of truth in his Catalogue; and that if such as he, and Bernard, be not taken for witnesses of things in their time, I know not how the Protestants will make up, their Catalogue of witnesses in all Ages; which, he saith, are dange­rous words.

To which I answer, first,Answer 1 his part in dealing. first, let it be taken no­tice, that as to the proof offred by me, for these my witnesses, amongst the several instances pro­duced, he falls upon that which he thinks the most [Page 120] weak, the usual method he takes with me all along, and avoids that which he finds most strength in, which savours of a very partial mind; and truly I conceave, were Cluniacenses testimo­ny from Osia [...]der left out, there is enough from all the rest, to prove that Peter Bruis, Henricus, and Arnoldus, denyed Infants Baptisme; the lat­ter of which the eminent Arnoldus he takes no notice of.

2. His Fals­hood.But in the next place, since he lays so much stress, upon this supposed mistaken part of the testimo­ny, to cast reproach upon all the rest, we will join issue with him, in the Examination thereof, and the rather because he intitles Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Marshal, also to the exception too. Know therefore, that hence, you have a further disco­very of the great unfaithfulness, and want of Con­science in the Author, for daring thus to abuse the World with a cheat, and that which he knows to be a meer forgery of his own, and which will I doubt, not appear to you by the following Cir­cumstances.

1. None of Clunia­c [...] ses.First, He knows that Cluni [...]censes, that he calls the lying Abbot, hath given no such wicked, and false testimony, as he produceth from him out of Osiander; for both Osiander, and the Magd [...]burgs, from whom he had it, gives an account of sweteen particulers, where with he charges Peter Bruis, as receiving them either from his own mouth, or as Mr. Wills acknowled­geth, from their own writings, and not up [...]n uncer­tain Report, p. 56. And which are these that fol­lows, v [...]z. the four first, agai [...]st Infa [...]ts Baptisme; [Page 121] the three next, against Transubstantiation, the eighth, against praying for the dead; the nineth, for Priests Marriage; the tenth, against Adoration of Crosses; the eleventh, against superstitious ado­ring of Temples; the twelfeth, against Church musick; the thirteenth, for the lawfulness to eat flesh on Su [...]days, and Fast dayes; the fourteenth, that upon common fame, as he saith, they did not re­ceive the whole Canon of the Scripture (which saith Osiander) was aske supposeth the Apocriphal writ­tings; and which appears by the next, the fife­teenth, that they only received the Canon of Scrip­ture (sol [...] Canoni credunt) and that the sayings of the Antients were not to be compared to it. The 12 first of these Cluniacenses, particulerly, and at large in several pages, makes answer too Magdeb. Cent. 12. p. 832. &c. Osiander Cent. 12. L. 3. c. 3. But here is not a word, of denying the Re­surrection, Christs Incarnation, or such abomina­tions, said to be delivered by Cluniacenses, and by him charged upon them.

Secondly, that Osiander, that he so often saith,2. Osian­der re­ports no such thing from Clu­niacenses. reports it, and that therefore I did my self in­jury, he doubted in mentioning him, hath not one word of any such thing as from Cluniacenses, but only makes the repetition of those fifeteen particulers, out of the Magdeburgs word for word, as Osiander Century 12. L. 3. cap. 3. is manifest.3. Not charged upon Pet. Bruis, but upon o­thers by other hand in another Age.

Thirdly, He knows that these particulers he mentions, were not charged upon Peter Bruis, but upon the Albegeois in the following Century, by other hands then Bernard, and Cluniacenses, [Page 122] who were dead long before; for Helvicus tells us, that Bernard (who was cotemporary with Clu­niacenses, Peter Bruis, and Henricus) flourished about 1110. And Osiander tells us, that this Al­bigensian Sext, or Heresie, was charged with these things by the Monks Inquisitors, Sabellicus, Sche­delius Anno 1206. who by Pope Innocent the third, that Devil Incarnat, what were sent to discover that People, against whom he came forth with many of others so much murderous cruelty, by fire, and sword, with an Army of hundred thousand Men, to root up, and destroy them: And there­fore the better to justify his cruelties, and to pro­voke all Europa, to come in to help these wicked Imps of his, thus paint out these poor People, as the Monsters of Man-kind.

Why Mr. Wills did this know­ingly. 1 And that Mr. Wills hath done this knowingly, appears, first, by his picking out only the five particulers, out of twenty, leaving out the most gross, viz. their owning two Gods, viz. God, and the Devil; their condemning of Marriage; and justifying all manner of Luxury, and uncleaness; and patronizing Thefts, and Roberies, &c.

2 Secondly, that he knows Osiander saith these things, are not reported by Cluniacenses, and Bernard, but by Lucelbergius, Antonius, Vincen­tius &c.

3 Thirdly, Because he neither mentions Cen­tury, Book, Chapter, or Page, which in other Quotations, out of Osiander, he useth to do.

Therefore let it be judged, whether he h [...]th not injuriously belyed Osiander, belyed Clunia­censes, belyed Peter Bruis, belyed the truth, [Page 123] which by this forgery he would cover, and hide; abused the World, belyed, and abused me also in especial, whom he deals so severly with for the same, as you have heard; But much more fear his own [...]onscience, by this piece of folly, and Fals­hood.

And therefore may we not well return his own words (which he gives me hereupon: viz. Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion, for introducing such evidence and I see by this, that when Men are ingaged in a cause, and wedded to an opinion, they will not refuse the most sordid, and shameful wayes to promote it.

Thirdly,3. From the De­crees ma­de against them for denying Infants Baptisme. That the Waldenses did deny Infants Baptisme, appears from the Decrees of several Emperors, and Popes, against the Body of the People for the same: And the writings of learned Men, living in those times, which you have at large, from p. 248, to 255. viz.

First, The Decrees of Robert, King of France, Anno 1000. first against the Waldenses of Thou­louse, afterwards against several at Orleans, for denying Infants Baptisme.

Secondly, The Decrees of the Emperor Henry the second, Anno 1017. to punish this Sect.

Thirdly, The Decrees of the Emperor Henry the fourth, Anno 1054. for their denying Infants Baptisme▪ &c.

Fourthly, The Decrees of Pope Leo the nineth, Anno 1050. to establish Infants Baptisme, denyed by them.

Fifthly, The Decrees of Pope Gregory the se­venth, Anno 1070. for the same.

Sixthly, The Decrees of Pope Alexander the third, against the Waldenses, for denying Infants Baptisme, and the several wayes he took to prosecute, and persecute them, for the same.

Seventhly, The Decrees in the Gallican Coun­cel, against them for the same.

Eightly, The Decrees of the general Lateran Councel, against them for the same.

Ninenthly, The Decrees of Pope Lucius, Anno 1181. in the Councel of Veroni, against them for the same.

Tenthly, The Decrees of the Pope Urbane, a­gainst them for the same.

Eleventhly, The Decrees of Pope Caelestine, against them for the same.

Twelfethly, The Decrees, and bloody actings, of Pope Innocent the third, against them for the same.

The writings also of several learned Men, of these times, that opposed the Waldenses in this point▪ and charged the whole party therewith, viz. Eckbertus, Erbrardus, Ermigendus, Clunia­censes, Bernard, Durandus, Thomas Walden; And to whom we add some others of great emi­nency, that have come to hand, viz.

Erminger­dus. Ermingerdus who wrote his Book contra Wal­denses in this Age, wherein he chargeth them in these words: Dicunt etiam quod nulli nisi proprio ore, & corde hoc Sacramentum p [...]tat potest prodesse; In­de adducentes hunc errorem, quod parvulis Baptis­mus aquae nihil prosit: They say, that the Sacra­ment of Baptisme can profit none, but those who with their own proper mouths, and hearts, desire the same; from whence they draw the error, that wa­ter [Page 125] Baptisme is not profitable to little Children, Vet. Bib. Pat. Tom. 5. p. 1250.

And Rainerius Rainerius. in his Book contra Waldenses, saith: De Baptismo dicunt, quod ablutio quae datur Infantibus nihil profit▪ item quod patrini non intel­ligent, quià respondeant Sacerdoti: Concerning Bap­tisme, they say, that that which is given to little Children profits nothing, and that the G [...]ssips under­stand not their Responses to the Priests, Bib. Patr. Tom. 13. pag. 300, 301, &c. And which evi­dence I desire the Reader to take the more no­tice of, because Mr. Wills doth so positively deny that Rainerius, in the Catalogue of their errors gives not the least hint of any such thing, no not one word of their denying Infants Baptisme; which, he saith, is very strange, if he had under­stood any thing thereof, Wills p. 96, 97, 98.

You have also Fav [...]n, Favin. the French Chronologer, testifying that in these times, viz. twelfth, and t [...]ir­teenth Century, the Albigens [...]s did deny Infants Bap­tisme, esteeming it superstitious.

Against all which he gives no particuler excep­tion, only saith these two things; First, that whereas I cite two Canons of Pope Alexander the third, that was but just about the rise of the Wal­denses, who were so called, from Peter Waldo of Lyons, about 1160. (as Perin informeth.) And which is evidence, as he supposeth, against the former Decrees, inferring that those mentioned, to be made before that time, were before they were a People.

And Secondly, in pag. 60. saith: That t [...]e [...]e is no co [...]vinc [...]ng pr [...]of to be fetcht from hence, of their [Page 126] being against I [...]fants Baptisme, because they were their Enemies, calumniating malicious Papists, that loaded them with all manner of reproaches, to render them odious: And that unless some one doth, out of their one mouths give better [...]vidence, he shall believe, with Mr. Marshal, that this Doctrine of opposing the baptizing of Infants of Believers is an Innovation, no ancienter then the Anabaptists in Germany, and for which he quotes, Joseph Vice-comes L. 2. c. 1. pag. 103. in Mr. W [...]ll [...] pag. 60. 2. part.

1. Waldense so called from the Vallyes from An­cient timeTo both which I say, First, to the first Ex­ception, you will find that Beza tells us, that they mistake themselves, that say▪ they were called Wal­denses from Peter Waldo, in as much as they were so called from the place of th [...]ir abode in the Valleyes, as at large you have it in mine, pag. 338, & 342. And that Claudius Sciscelius, Counceler to Char­les the Great, in the eight Century, mentions them by that name, in his Book contra Waldenses. But however the People, or Sect of the Waldenses, were known, or distinguished by several names, as the People of Lyons &c. as Eusebius tells us, p. 340. And set forth in story under divers names, in several Ages, as Doctor Ʋsher tells us, and which you have more particulerly, p. 338, &c.

And to the second, that there is convincing proof, offred from the Decrees of Popes, Kings, and Councels,Mr. Mar­shals grant let Mr. Marshals grant suffice, who in pag. 63. of his Defence for Infants Bap­tisme, saith thus: I shall desire you, to shew that any Company, nr Se [...]t (if you will so call them) have denyed Infants Baptisme, produce if you can, [Page 127] any of their Confessions, alledge any Acts of any Councels, where this Doctrine was charged upon any, and condemned in that Councel?

And which I presume is substantially done, both from their Confessions of Faith; and from Acts of Councels also, where such were con­demned.

And as to that Quotation out of Vicecomes, to prove that none denyed Infants Baptisme, till the German Anabaptists, I heartily thank him for it; which you'l find doth the contrary, giv­ing an Account of several, that denyed Infants Baptisme before that time, as you have it in the Quotation he refers to, p. 102, 103. telling us in these words.

That as the Adult Baptisme, Vicecom. ownes that many had denyed Infants Baptisme of old. no one ever doubt­ed thereof, witness (as he saith) the Monuments, or Writings of all the holy Fathers, and Occumenical Councels, as well as the Scriptures themselves, especially the Acts of the Apostles.

But as for Infants Baptisme, he tells us, that Vincentius, Victor, Hincmarus of Laudum, the Hen [...]ric [...], and Apostolici, (in Bernard, and Clunia­censes time,) John Wickliff in his 4. Book of Tria­log. c. 2. Walafrid, Strabo, Ludovicus Vives, &c. did all of them witness against it, in their times. So that we have a good confirming evidence, from his Authority, to establish the truth, we have asserted, and he denyed.

It is true, Vicecomes in the same place, adds amongst the rest of the witnesses against Infants Baptisme, Luther, Calvin, and Beza; and the reason is, because they did oppose, and neglect to [Page 128] do it, as the Church of Rome ordained, and pra­ctised it; setting it up in a New way, without the Services, and Ceremonies of the Church, and which was all one to them, as if it was not practised at all; and therefore did the Church of Rome renownce of old▪ as you have heard; the Baptisme of the Greek Church, as the Greeks renownced theirs, rebaptised those that were baptised by either, as much as if it had not been at all, by either side.

4. From the Foot­steps they had left thereof, in several Countrys.And Fourthly, That the Walden [...]es did deny Infants Baptisme, appears from the Footsteps we find hereof, in those respective Regions, and places, where they had heretofore imprinted it, as appears by the follow [...]ng instances, it being acknowledged that they were dispersed all Eu­ropa over, viz.

In Ger­many.First, In Germany, through all the parts there­of, where they planted Churches, and has Schoo [...]s in so much, that their Barbes could travel all the Countrey over, and lye every night at a Frie [...]ds house, wherein, both by D [...]ctrine and suffering, this truth was eminently c [...]nfirmed, and for which you have several instances, from most parts of the Country, from p. 256, to 260.

S [...]i [...]z [...]r­land.Secondly, In Switzerland, where in like man­ne [...] it was witnessed to [...] from 260, to 267.

Flandres.Thirdly, In Flanders, where it was also co [...] ­firmed, and seal d with much blood, pag. 267, to 269.

Holland.Fourthly, In Holland, or low Countryes, w [...]ere it was also witnessed too, with much blood, and Mar­tyrdom, p. 269, to 271.

Fifthly, In Bohemia,Bohemia. where it was eminently con­firme [...] also, p. 271, to 273.

Sixthly, In Hungaria,Hungaria. in like manner, p. 273, to 274.

Seventhly, In TransylvaniaTransylv. evidenced also, as p. 274.

Eightly, In PolandPoland. a confirmation thereof, pag, 274.

In England it hath also been confirmed, through many Ages, by Christians under several denomi­nations, viz. By Waldenses, Lollards▪ Wickliffians, and Anaba [...]tists, through all the Kings Reigns, from the Conquest to this very day, as at large you have it from p. 275, to 310.

To all which he saith thus, much by way of Conc [...]ssion; viz. that the Waldenses were indeed spread, not only by per [...]ution, but by their own vo­lontary choice before, into all these R [...]gions, is not to be doubted.

But that the Opposers of Infants Baptisme, in the Ʋpper, and Lower Germany, were the re­mains, and offspring of those the Waldenses, is a conceit forreig [...] to all H [...]story, and hath no Foun­dation in reason, or truth; and that his ipse di­xit, or saying so, is no ground for us to believe it, he affirming it only from conjecture, and that ari­seth also from his will, according to that saying: Quod volumus, facile credimus: What we would have, we easily believe.

To which I say, Answer. that if I have proved that this was their Doctrine, and practise, by their Confessions of Faith, the practise of their ancient, and honourable Barbes, and Worthyes, by the Decrees [Page 130] of Popes, Emperors, and Councels; by the prints they have left thereof in the several Coun­tryes ('tis confessed they were driven into) and all this by ancient Recoras and authenti [...]k Testimo­ny, which I presume I have (as yet) undenya­bly done.

Then I rest confident; that the judicious Rea­der will acquit me of this slander, of an ipsa dixit, and that it is only my will, and pleasure, to say all this of my own head, and Fancy without proof. The German Baptists do in their Martyrology, prove their dissent from the Waldenses, through out the Centuries. Perin tells us, that Lollard was a Waldensian Barbe, and that Jo Wickliff as­serted no other but the Doctrine of the Walden­ses, being instructed ther [...]n by the Lollaras

This further Testimony [...] have met with, in the Dutch Book of Martyrs, which I desire the Reader to take notice of, as full measure, and heaped up, as Mr. Wills words it.

Caesarius.First, They tell us, from Jacob Merningus p. 733. Cent. 13. ch. 5. out of Cae [...]arius, That the Waldenses, and Albigenses, have rejected Infants Baptisme, saying that it is of no force▪ nor profitable to any, before they are taught, and do believe, but concerning that Baptisme, according to Christs ap­pointment, they have a very high valew, and esteem, Dutch Martyr, pag. 307.

Dubravius &c.Secondly, That the Waldenses were called Ana­baptists, long before John Hus, they quote the testi­mony of several, viz. Dubravius, M [...]chovius, Cro­merus, Mr. Glancus from Merningus p. 733.

Rain [...]riu [...].T [...]i [...]dly, That the said Merningus pag. 618, [Page 131] 619, 629. makes it good from Rainerius, the Monk Inquisitor, that wrote his Book contra Waldenses in the 12. Century, That the Waldenses did deny Infants Baptisme, and produceth divers of Raine­rius his Arguments, against them for the same, and which he quotes from the Bib. Patrum Tom. 13. p. 300. Though Mr. Wills is pleased to tell us p. 97. that Rainerius saith never a word, about their de­nying Infants Baptisme.

Fourthly, they tell us, that Balthazar Ly­dias, Balthazar Lydias. in his Treat. of the Church▪ and of the Wal­denses, p. 86. Col. 1. tells us, that they reprove many things in the Popish Sacraments, and say, that the bap [...]izing of Children is not profitable to them, Dutch Martyr p. 309.

Fifthly, That Abraham MellinusAb. Melli­nus. in his History of Martyrs, p. 447. Col. 1. doth tell us, That the Waldenses no cast far from them all the Sacraments of the Romish Church, and amongst them, do wholy reject that of Infante Baptisme, as unprofitable, and unnecessary, Dutch Martyr. p. 320.

And therefore the whole of this Story, concern­ing this ancient honourable People, the Walaen­ses is submitted to judgement, and whether I have not good cause to conclude it, with the re­turn (of Mr. Wills his own words upon himself) which he speaks to me upon this very occasion, p. 44. viz.

And is it not a miserable Cause indeed, Mr. Wills his words returned upon h [...]m­self. whose Advocates must still have recourse to lyes for its d [...] ­fence, and an Argument of the want of ho [...]esty, and conscience for Men to persist in this Course, when more then enough hath been said, to convince [Page 132] them of the evil thereof; It was a solemn Rebuk, which Job gave his mistaken Friends, &c. Will you lye (saith he) for God? Surely he hath no need of, nor doth he require us by any sinister, and sinful way, to justify him in his attributes, providences, cause, or truth, As touching the matter in hand before us, if the Paedobaptists have the truth on their side, yet certainly it is little beholding to some of them, who have attempted to defend it by so m [...]ny unwarrenta­ble wayes; In particuler I have made it appear, that the present Author, with whom I have to deal with, is fowly criminal, in laying out the utmost of his skill, in traducing those famous ancient Chri­stians, as if in their several Generations (hereto­fore) they had not witnessed for Believers, against In­fants Baptisme, when he cannot but knew they were not only falsly, and maliciously charged (but cruelly, and murderously handled) by their Anti-Christian Enemyes, for their faithful witness to these dispised truths, &c.

The witness born by the Donatists, against In­fants Baptisme, confirmed.

Donatists.THe next witness he opposeth, is that of the Donatists, concerning whom I gave divers Authorities, proving that they did deny Infants Baptisme.

To which Mr. Wills is pleased to say, that it is only my ipse dixit, and that I do thereby render my self guilty, of a great mistake, to say, that of them whereas neither the Magdeburgs [...]or Danaeus in his Opuscu­lum, nor several other Writers, do charge any such thing upon them.

To which I say▪ that herein Mr. Wills deals,Mr. Wills very dis­ingenious. according to his wonted manner, very disinge­niously with me, First, That having given so ma­ny Authorities, and of such Antiquity to prove it, to tell the Reader, it is my Ipse dixit only. Secondly, To deny them, and yet give no just exception against them. Thirdly, To produce the negative (or silence rather) of some modern Authors, to oppose so many positive Authorities, produced by me, one of which, in all pleas, is worth a hundred Negative ones.

But that the Reader may be satisfied, I had good warranty, to justify my said proofs, and that it was not my Ipse dixit only, I shall give them briefly to you, with what I have since met with, to confirm the same, which are as followeth, viz.

First, From what is mentioned of Donatus him­self,Donatus himself. who, as Sebastian Frank in his Chronicle saith, did teach, that no Infant should be baptised, but only those, that believed, and desired it, p. 222.Donatists his follow­ersr viz.

Secondly, from what we find mentioned, of his Followers, viz.

Cresconius, 1. Cresco­nius. who did oppose Austin in that point, as saith Jacob Merning, p. 230, who was a Dona­tist, as say the Magdeb. Cent. 5. p. 631.

Fulgentius, 2. Fulgen­tius. another learned Donatist, as the Magdeb. tell us Cent. 5. p. 631. did deny Infants Baptisme, and assert only that Baptisme, that was after Faith, Vicecom. L. 3. c. 3. p. 66.

Vincentius 3 Vincen­tius. Victor, another who denyed Infants Baptisme, as saith Vicom. L. 1. c. 2. out of Austin Lib. 3. c. 14. de Anima.

Thirdly, It doth appear, from what we find in Austin Austin. 3. and 4. Books Tom. 7. c. 23. p. 433. written against the Donatists, wherein with so much zeal, and fury, he manageth the Argument for Infants Baptisme against them, bitterly cursing those that oppose it, p. 123. Also in his Epistle to Marcellus Tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. he opposeth himself against them, for denying Infants Baptisme.

Fourthly, Eckberius, and Emericus, Eckbertus & Emericus. learned Writers in the twelfeth Century, contending against the Waldenses, or Catheri, for denying In­fants Baptisme, do say, that the new Catheri, viz. the Waldenses then, did in that point conform to the old Catheri, the Donatists, and Novations, p. 224.

Thomas Walden, Tho. Wal­den. that wrote against Wickliff, in Henry the fourth's time, tells us, that Vincen­tius Victor, with whom Austin contended, did de­ny Baptisme to little ones, De Sacram. Tit. 5. ch. 53. fol. 118.

Osiande [...], Fuller, & Bullinger.Fifthly, Our latter Writers, do also agree herein, that the Donatists, and modern Anabap­tists, were all one; so saith Osiander, Cent. 16. p. 176. And Fuller in his Eccles. Histor. lib. 5. pag. 229. And Bullinger Lib. 5. sol. 216, 222. of Baptisme.

Spanhemius Spanhem. also, saith, that the Donanists deny Infants Baptisme, as appears, saith he, Austin 6. Book against the Donatists, c. 23, 24, 25. Spanh. ch. 4. p. 45.

Sixthly, Because the Donatists, and Novatians, both one in Doctrine, were acknowledged to be the same in Principle with the Waldenses, and [Page 117] that the Novatians, banished by Innocent the third out of Rome, as saith Socrat. L. 7, c. 9. did dwell in Italy, and D [...]lmatia, and were called by the same name with the Wal [...]enses, viz. Cathari, and Fratricilli, in so much as Perin judges, they were the same People; and Osiander confesseth, that the Albigo [...]s came from Rome, Cent. 13. l. 1. ch. 4. p. 329.

Therefore it is left to the judicious Reader, whether I am not sufficiently justifyed, by this six fold testimony in my affirming, that the Donatists did deny Infants Baptisme; and that they may well be reckon'd amongst the number of my wit­nesses, and against whom Mr. Wills has made no just Exception.

But in the next place, Mr. Wills tells us,Mr. Wills slanders [...] the Dona­tists. that if it be taken for granted, they were against Infants Baptisme, they being, as he confesseth, in many things so like Anabaptists, yet by what appears from Mr. Fox, as he tells us out of Eusebius, and f [...]om Au­stins works, as say the Magdebu [...]gs, that I have no reason to boast of my Authority, for both Nova­tions, and Donatists, were vi [...]e Persons, and al­wayes counted for Hereticks

To which I say, Answered. that if I should acknowledge them as corrupt, as Origen, Cyprian, Austin, and Chrysostom, and others of his great witnesses, that held for Chrysme, Excorcisme, and other Su­perstitions, and that Regeneration was effected, in the very act of Baptisme, and th t without Ba [...] ­tisme, and the Eucharist, no Child could be sa­ved, yet their witness as to matter of fact, is to be owned, which is all I produce them for, not [Page 136] undertaking to defend them, in all the Tenets fathered upon them, more then Mr. Wills doth those that are so undenyably charged upon his witnesses, yet this he must give me leave to say, in vindication of the Donatists, and Novatious, viz.

First, For the N [...]vations, that what Mr. Fox speaks of them, from Eusebius, an Author of no great fame, is the less to be regarded, because he was a great friend to the Arians, and the No­vations great Impugners of them, and upon that score it was he spoke very maliciously of them; though Socrates, an Author of better Account, speaks very honourably of them; And Alba­spanaeus upon Optat. Milevitan, bespeaks them a very worthy People, in his 20. Observation.

Magd. say no menti­ [...]n in old [...]riters of [...]eir Do­ [...]es.And as for the Donatists, the Magdeburgs tell us, that they wonder, that there is no more mention of them by the Ecclesiastical Writers, of this Age, either by Sozamus, or others; and that only The doret, in his Heretical Fables, gives some hints of them; And that the Hypo­thoses of their Dogmes, they gathered not from any of their writings, which were not extent, but out of Austins works, [their great Opposer] C [...]nt. 4. c. 5. p. 376, 377. and from whom it is [...]hat Mr. Wills takes his scheame.

But how any can take a good mea [...]ure from [...]ir sevearst Enemy, to make a judgement a­ [...]st them, and condemn them for Hereticks, [...] not; for may you not from Calvins writ­ [...] pick as great a charge against the Luthe­ [...] and as great against the Sacramentarians, [Page 137] out of Luthers writings? Alas what a sad People, doth Mr. Edwards make the Independents; and what a dismal black line, do the Prelates draw upon the Presbyterians; and the Papists again upon them; and what a sad generation are Ana­baptists, if Mr. Wills may be believed; Schisme being in all the incensing crime, which draws forth all the gall, and wormwood; and just so it was betwixt Austin, who was so Catholick in his Communion, and the Donatists, that prest for more purity in their separations, and from whence it was, that all that durt was flung upon them, and they put into such Bears skins, as Mr. Wills puts his Opposites in.

And for those Decrees of Councels, that past upon them for Hereticks, is no good ground to conclude against them, for so they judge the purest Doctrine, and holyest walking in many Ages, witness our Saviour himself, who was censured for a Blasphemer, and the Apostles, and Saints in every Age ever since; and who more censured for Heresy, then the Waldenses, Lollards, and Wickliffians, their Followers, and Disciples, that were so truly Orthodox.

The Witness said to be born against Infants Baptisme, by the Antient Britains, defended.

THe last witness he opposeth, is that born by the Antient Britains, Antient Brittains. and that they de­nyed Infants Baptisme, I gave the following Ar­guments, and which you have at large, p. 226. [Page 138] First, Why they deny'd In­fants Bap­tisme. Because Mr. Fox tells us, out of Bede, and Fabian, and others, that they refused to bap­tise after the manner of Rome, which Fabian as I find, more particularly explains, to be in the point of Infants Baptisme; and in confirmation thereof gave five Arguments. First, Because they kept themselves, both in Discipline, and Do­ctrine, so ezpresly to the Scripture, (there being no express Scripture for Infants Baptisme, as confest on all hands.) Secondly; Because they were such zealous impugners of Tradition, that being as Austin confesseth, the only Divine Autho­rity for it. Thirdly, Because Constantine, the Son of Christian Parents, was not baptised in this Island in his Infancy. Fourthly, Because their custom was to baptise after Confession of Faith, being in Ʋnion, and Communion therein with the French Christians, whereof Instances are given. Fifthly, From the Question that was here put to Austin; viz. how long a Child, that was no in danger of death, might stay unbaptised?’ which he could not resolve, till he sent to Rome for the Solution. And to which me may add, what the Magdeburgs tell us from Hilaries testimony, p. 55. that none but the Adult were baptised, in the Western Churches, in his time.

Mr. Wills opposeth Fabians testimony from BedeTo which he replyes as followeth: First, as to that o [...] Fabians testimony, he saith, it is only a mistaken Paraphrase of Bede; and that Bede men­tions nothing hereof: And th [...]refore gives what Au­stin replyed to the Brittains, in Bedes words L. 2. c. 2. v [...]z. That in as much as you do contrary to our Custom [in many things] yea to the Custom of the [Page 139] Ʋniversal Church, nevertheless if you will obey me in these 3. things; viz. that you keep Easter in its pro­per time; Administer Baptisme, whereby we are born of God, after the manner of the Church of Ro­me, and the Apostolical Church; and preach the Word of God, together with us, unto the English Nation, we will patiently bear all other things you do, although contrary to our Customes; but they answered, they would none of these, nor own him for Arch-bishop.

To which I say, Answer. Fabian did not mi­stake Bede and why. that it doth appear from his Repetition out of Bede, that Fabian has fully hit his meaning: First, Because he tells, the British Christians, that amongst many things where in they were contrary to the Church of Rome, one was in this particuler about Baptisme, wherein they did not only contradict the Universal, but Apostolick Church. Now this must needs be in their refusing to baptise Children; First, Because as to the baptizing the Adult, they were not contrary to the Church of Rome, the Universal, or Apostolical Church, as appears p. 228. Se­condly, Neither could it respect the particuler Mode, Rite, or Ceremony of Baptisme; for the Custom of the Church of Rome was not Ʋniver­sal, which was so much opposed by the Greeks, and Eastern Churches, and not at all to be made out to be Apostolical. Thirdly, Therefore must needs respect Infants Baptisme: First, Because the Church of Rome had particulerly enjoined, and imposed it, to beget Infants to Regeneration, that they might be born of God, as the words of their Canons demonstrate, and which words carry the [Page 140] Reason, and ends of it, and that they intended the substance, and not the particuler Ceremony of the Ordinance. Secondly, Because Infants Bap­tisme was so universaly received in this seventh Age, in other parts of the World, to this end here mentioned. Thirdly, Because it was also received, and enjoined to be an Apostolical practise. Fourthly, It would have been Childish, and ridi­culous, to have said Baptisme in general was A­postolical, which none ever denyed, and so fully before received by them; therefore Austin could intend nothing else, nor Bedes words import any thing else; which therefore Fabian did so fully, and significantly represent, in saying, give Christendom to Children, viz. let them as the Church of Rome has received, and enjoined it, be born of God by Baptisme, and become Christians, as so generaly also receiv d.

And for Mr. Wills saying, They did no more re­ject Infants Baptisme, then they did preaching to the Saxons with Austin; Is very true, having as much Reason to reject the one, as the other, for by preaching here with them, must be understood Authoritively, by being ordained by them, that they might not preach, as they did, as a company of Lay-men, and Mechanicks, but to be set apart thereto by this Apostolical Embassador, [or proud Lordly Prel [...]t,] which they refused, not admitting him therein, to be their Arch-Bishop, and which explains Austins meaning in the business of preach­ing, and their denying thereof; which they h [...]d as good Cause to do, as to deny their Romish In­fants Baptisme. and their Superstitious, Obser­vation [Page 141] of Easter; And therefore it was, that this Ante Christian Wolf did devoure, and worry this Flock of Christ, because they refused the Popish Baptisme, and Ministry. Secondly, As to those five other Arguments given by me, to confirm the former, he saith, they are meer trifles, (which is an Excellent way of Answering, and next to Bellarmin thou lyest) which is submitted to judgement.

And Lastly, He gives another Argument,Mr. Wills saith, Pela­gius was a Monk of Bangor, & for Infants Baptisme. why the Brittains were not against Infants Baptisme; viz. Because Pelagius who, as he saith, was one of their Fellow Monks of Bangor, yet did owne Infants Baptisme; which was two hundred years before this, and which was a good Argument, that they did also

To which I say,Question­able. that as to Pelagius being one of these Old Brittains, and belonging to this very People, is by no good Authority to be found; For though it is true, Humphry, Loyd and Mr. Fuller, do so guess, yet they produce no Antient Author to confirm it; It is true, in Austins 106. Epist. he is called Pelagius Britto, to distinguish him from another Pelagius of Tarentius; but whether because he was sent into that Nation, or of it, not certain.

But Secondly, If it be granted,It follows not that the Brit­ains where of his jud­gemen [...], & why. that he was a Brittain, and one of these Monks, it no more follows, that they must all be for Infants Bap­tisme, because he was so, then that they were all for the Pelagian Heresy, because he was the head thereof; which it is eminently known they re­jected, when they sent for the help of those famous French Christians, Germanus, and Lupus, who were [Page 142] sent to them again, and again, from the Elders, and Ministers about Lyons, to expel that Poyson; and therefore do I call them the Waldesian Chri­stians, who inhabited those parts where their abode was, Magdeb. Cent. 5. p. 1147, &c.

An Hist. Account of PelagiusBut as to Pelagius, the Magdeburgs do give us this Account of him, from Austin, and Lucelber­gius, Cent. 5. pag. 1453. viz. that he was full of zeal, and affection, a d that his beginning was good, and holy (so that, if he was a Monk of Bangor, he began well) And that by the Catholicks he was prefered, and made one of the Monks of Syria, and that having lived long at Rome, went from thence in­to England, which Islana he wholy infected with his Error (by which it appears, that if he was one of that Society, yet that he got his poyson a­broad, both of one kind, and of another) That after he fell into this Error, he wrote many Books, and many Epistles to the learned Men of this Age, whereby he infested the Ʋniversal Church; And se­veral Fathers opposed him, viz. Jerom, Austin, and others, and that his Books were condemned by many Synods, and Councels, Magdeb. Cent. 5. pag. 894. 586, 587.

Now therefore what ground Mr. Wills hath to conclude, the History of those Churches, and his Book also, in that manner he doth, is sub­mitted to his better consideration, and the Ju­dicious Reader, and which they find in the fol­lowing words, viz.

And in reference to the co [...]fidence of my Antago­nist, that the Waldenses, Dona [...]ists, and Brittains, were against Infants Baptisme, when no [...]e of them [Page 143] were, I shall conclude with a Distich, which I think may not improperly be applyed to his whole Dis­course:

Ridiculus tandem ecce Cavis Mus prodit ab antris,
Quem gravidi Montes perturiere diu.

And from what hath been said, I see no Reason why Mr. D. should be so much offended with Mr. Marshal, and Mr. Baxter, for saying Infants Bap­tisme was but lately opposed, by the Anabaptists in Germany; and do appeal to the Reader, whether Mr. Baxter doth not speak true, in his plain Scrip­ture proof, pag. 153. who saith, that for his part he cannot find in his smal reading, any one Divine, or party of Men, did certainly oppose, or deny Infants Baptisme, for many hundred years after Christ. And then again p. 261. the World may see, what a cause you put such a face upon, when you cannot give the least proof, so much as of one Man (we will allow them one, viz. Hincmarus: what not Aarianus too? that is hard,) much less Socie­ties, and least of all godly Societies, that did once oppo [...]e, or d [...]ny Infants Baptisme, from the Apostles dayes, till about Luthers time.

Amongst the several Erratas committed by the Press, the Reader is desired to correct these that follow, viz.

Pag. 4. l. last, r. cleansing. p. 5. l. 6. r. it. p 6. l. 7. r. excepts. l. 13. r. four. p. 7. l. 20. blot out first. l. 22. r. Baptisme. p. 9. l. 7. r. it, for is. l. 26. r. there were. pag. 19. l. 27. r. their. p. 20. l. 19 r. their. p. 21. l. 13. r. words. p. 30. l. 27. r. infamy. p. 35. l. 25. r. these. p. 36. l. 19. r. he cites. p. 44. l. 24. r. speaks. p. 45. l. 15. r. bearing. l. 24. r. had. p. 59. l. 26. r. At cum. p. 80. l. 29. r. the, for they. p. 86- l. 26. r. ad Romanos incertus est. p. 88. l last, r. Arminia­nisme, for Arianisme. p. 95. l. 24. r. for. l. 27. r. both a like. p. 100. l. 24. r. for. p. 101. l. 13. r. Paraphrase. p. 105 l. 26 r. Gislbertus. p. 107. l. 9. r. imposing, for Fathering. p. 114. l. l. last, r. that should p. 115. 5. r. is I think, for which I think is. p. 122. l. 8. r. for what were, were p. 125 l. 1 [...]. r. affirms, for dei [...]y. p. 128. l. 19. r. had Schools. p. 148. l. 23. 29. r. tell, for tells. p. 159. l. 19. r. Fifthly, for Fifty. l. 20. r. the, for them. pag. 158. l. 8. r. profess. l. 14. blot out a p. 142. l. 4. r. Armes, for Armies. In the Preface Minists, for Minesters.

CHAP. IV. Wherein you have the Stories concerning the German Anabaptists reviewed, and the Principles and Practise of Ana­baptistry (as Mr. Wills calls it) vindicated against his reproaches.

IN the reflection I made upon the Story of Tho. Munzer, and John of Leyden, What be­fore said hereto. for whose sakes so much obliquity hath been cast upon the Anabaptists and their way, ever since; I principally intended these two things.

First, to shew the unreasonableness of char­ging the innocent with the crimes of such as are guilty: And to this Mr. Wills in the gene­ral consents, though he tells us withall, the suspition he hath, of the Principle of Anabaptistry it self.

Secondly, I gave a brief account of matter of fact, and therein shewed that those Ger­mane commotions were not Anabaptistical in their Original, but moved upon the same pre­tentions, as the Helvetians and others before them had done; then gave the reasons why I thought there was ground to doubt of the truth of what was reported concerning the horrid crimes committed by them in their communities.

Mi. Wills res Ob­jections,In answer hereunto Mr. Wills reproves me. First, for denying those motions to be Anabap­tistical. Secondly, for making an odious Com­parison betwixt those commotions and them in Helvetia, p. 103. Thirdly, for mistaking matter of fact in the Original of the Munster commotion. Fourthly, As being extreamly scan­dalous for my doubts concerning those horrid impieties in Munster. And Fifthly, he char­ges the Principle it self as naturally leading to immorality and division.

To these I make this brief reply.

VVhy the Commotions in Swevia not Ana­baptistical.First, that the Commotions in Swevia 1635. were not Anabaptistical appears by their twelve demands, which you have mentioned at large by Osiander Cent. 16. c. 36, p. 100. Wherein is not one word savouring of Anabaptism, but about freedom from Exacti­ons, and to deliver themselves from the Tyranny (as they say) of their Princes and Bishops more Helvetiorum (which Gnedolius also informs us, as I before mentioned) being much of the same nature with those other Demands made by the Rusticks twenty three Years before (which was the Year after the Revolt of Berne and Schafhuisen) of which you have also an account in Osiander Cent. 16. L. 1. c. 6. p. 10. And that these commoti­ons were not fomented and principally mana­ged by the Anabaptists may appear; First from those first Demands, which were prin­cipally made and managed by the Papists; as Osiander and Bishop Jewel against Harding [Page 147] inform, and the Articles themselves express; and that the Latter Demands in 1625. were principally carried on by the Lutherans, (though it is true Luther afterwards Writ against them) as Osiander tells us. In which attempt also that Year fell of them (as Paget in his Herisography informs us) one hundred and fifty thousand: the hundred part whereof could not be Anabaptists.

To the second he tells us it is both odious and injurious, to compare those attempts of Gene­va and the Switzers with those in Swevia, when none, as he saith, can be such Diaboli as to charge the Switzers with Robbing the Nobility, Plundring of Towns, and Castles, Rifling of all that was Sacred, as those Germans did.

To which I say,VVhy the Compari­sions not odious as charged. that the Chronicles them­selves can best inform how those Cantons formerly, and those of Basil Schafhusen and Geneva since did manage their Confederacies, surprize their Towns and Castles, disposess their Princes, and Bishops; and possess them­selves of their Revenues Civil and Ecclesiasti­cal. For my part I am yet to learn (from what ever I read) where the difference lay in the attempts, only that those Cantons had better Conduct and prospered, and the other had neither Conduct nor Success, but miscarri­ed in both; which if the other had done, as much obloque might have befallen them. And you'l find some Protestant Writers as well as Popish to charge as much iregularity on the undertaking of the one, as of the other; [Page 148] who will tell you that the Boores in Germany, and they of Munster, might as warrantably turn out their Princes, Bishops, and Canons; and posess themselves of their Revenues, as Geneva, and those of Helvetia had done. And we are not ignorant of the several at­tempts that the City of Munster hath made within a few years, since wholly Popish, to deliver themselves from the Exactions of their Bishop, which by the Bishop hath been e­steemed no less seditious and rebellious, than the former.

Thirdly as to the Originall of the Munster commotion, though he grants the turning out of the Bishops, Cannons, &c. out of the Churches, and the City also, by the Refor­mists. Yet tells me, I speak falsely in saying, that Spanhamius tells us that it came to Arms betwixt the Bishops and City, who saith the quite contra­ry, and tells us (as he saith) that it never came to blows.

That the first stirrs in Mun­ster was a­bout Pro­testant Reforma­tion.To which I say, my words you'l find are these, viz. That Sphanhemius and Osiander tells us, that the first stirrs in the City was a­bout the Protestant Reformation, the Senate siding with Rotman and others of the Mini­sters against the Papists and their Bishops, that opposed them to Arms, and this before the coming in of John a Leyden.

Mr. Wills very par­tial.I say Spanhemius and Osiander tells us, &c. He takes notice only of the former, and it is ma­nifest they both of them speak of those first stirs about turning out the Bishops Canons; [Page 149] Spanhemius it is true speaks very briefly of the difference and Agreement that happened be­twixt the Bishop and Senate thereupon, Though I must tell Mr. Wills it is his mistake to say, that Spanhemius denies it came to Armies: for he saith no such thing; But Osiander from Sleyden goes to particulars: And tells us, how the Bishop drew a Force down to a Neighbouring Village called Telgeto, stopt and streightned them of provision (for so saith Sleiden) And sent messengers to command the restoring of the Canons to their Churches again, and the turning out of Town the new Preachers: But how that instead thereof they detayned his Messengers, and sent a party out of the Town in the Night and surprized and brought away Prisoners, diverse of the Bishops men; and that he himself had been taken also, if he had not gone out of his Quarters, that Night before. And if this could be done without Arms, and Blows, let all Men judge: and whether the reproof doth not more properly belong to Mr. Wills than my self therein.

Fourthly, As to the Suspition (why I suppo­sed there was cause to doubt) of the truth of those monsterous Villanyes acted in their Communities in the Latter part of the Siege, as mentioned by their malitious enemies the Papists, and many of their inveterate enemies the Protestants, He saith it is extreamly scanda­lous in two respects, First for calling into Quest­ion the matter of fact, especially as reported by the Protestants, who were not (as he saith) inve­terate [Page 150] enemies, but very loving friends to them. And Secondly, For endeavouring to palliate such horrid actings of the Anabaptists, a thing never done by any.

Why cause to suspect some of the reports about Munster.In answer whereto I say let it in the first place be remembred, that as to the first part of my suspicion, why those horrid enormities reported might be scandals, viz. From the reports given them by the lying Papists (who speak as bad things of Calvin and Lu­ther themselves, and of the Waldenses before them, as you have heard) he seems silently to own.first from Papists. But his great offence lies against me for questioning the truth of what is said thereof by the Protestant Writers such as Sleiden, Osi­ander, Spanhemius, Zwinglius, &c. who were (as he saith) most faithful historians, grave Divines, and who gave punctuallly the Cir­cumstances of time, place, opinions, &c. And from whom he transcribes the Story: And that my injurious reflection upon them, as though they were the Anabaptists inveterate enemies and that they were willing to take up and improve such reports, to blast not only the whole party of the Anabaptists but the;r Principles also, against whom they conten­ded, savour in me (as he saith) of no less then the ebullition of a Malicious, or at best a prejudi­ciall Spirit.

Secondly, Several T [...]o est­ntsTo which I say, how shall we be assured, that these later writers did not make their Reports from the Popish Writers. For Sleiden wrote not his comentary till 1555. about twenty years after the fact, and Osiander only transcribes from [Page 151] Sleiden. And as for Spanhemius he wrote not till eighty years after Sleiden. upon whom Mr. Wills lays the greatest stress, and who ap­pears to be a very partial and unfaithful writer respecting the Anabaptists in that his Histori­call Narration printed 1646. First falsely af­firming that Stork, Stubner, and Muntzer, were the beginners of Anabaptism, and who First (as his own words express) helpt the world to be delivered of that Sect. Secondly in his malicious charging the Anabaptists with all the old Heresi­es, that he could reckon up in any old Author, viz. That they were Manichaeans, Andians, Anthro­pomorphites, Trithcits, Samosatenians, Noeti­ans, and Sabellians: Apollinarists, and Prodi­anites, Anastations, Nestorians, Eutichians, Corinthians, Photinians, Oregenianss Catha­rists, Novatians, Donatists, Parmenians, Marcionites, Eunomians, Montanists, Nico­laites, Basilidians, Cataphrigians, Gnosticks, Pelagians, and Socinians. All which Opini­ons, he enlargeth upon, and applies to them, then which what could savour more of the e­bullition of a Malicious Spirit?

And as for Zwinglius Zwinglius cruel E­nemy with the Anabap­tists. he could give no ac­count of his business, who dyed five years be­fore it, viz 1531. But as to this great friends­ship (Mr. Wills boasts of) By the gentleness and tenderness that he shewed to those anabaptists, that fell off from his Church, whom he treated not as Enemies, but as his intimate friends (as he tells us) I shall give you some particular ac­count, wherein you will find what is that [Page 152] Kindness and Gentleness, it seems we might expect from Mr. Wills if it was in his power.

It is true at first Zwinglius was a great Friend and Companion of the Anabaptists, and a great favourer of their opinion in opposition to that of Infants Baptism, as Treat. Bapt. p 262.

But afterwards who more Cruel amongst the Bloody Papists themselves than he, as you have a particular account from those edicts of Zurick, wherein he had the principal hand, p. 260. And the Inhumane Execution of them by drowning, burning, and Starving. It is true to palliate this Cruelty, Mr. Wills tells us from Spanhemius, that they suffered not these severities for being Anabaptists but as perju­red, disobedient and seditious persons, which is a farther discovery of his malice and unfaith­fullness.

The cruel handling of the An­abap. at Zanc.For those very decrees of Zurick extracted by me proved, out of the Dutch Martyrology, where they are inserted word for word, do testify that it was meerly upon the account of their Judgment for baptizing after profession, those that had been, baptized in their Infan­cies. And to confirm the same, Gastius tells us. L. 1. p. 178. That the Tigurines) or those of Zurick) do drown them in Water, who do bap­tize those that were baptized before. And Horn­beck in his Summa Controvers. p. 340. Gives us a pregnant instance thereof, telling us, That Felix Mentzius of Zurick, was by the Command of the Magistrate (whose laws and authorities he had broke by proceeding to rebaptize [Page 153] persens within their Jurisdiction) was himself drowned in water upon 5th. Jan: Anno. 1527. And this was Zwinglius his Kindness to his in­timate Friends and Brethren (this Mentzius having been an ancient Disciple and an Emi­nent preacher) And much the like friendship they met with from their Protestant Friends at Berne and Schafhuisen as you have it p. 256. And therefore it was no wonder, if they could be so prodigal of their lives that they should be so lavish of their Reputations; for the latter would only help to justifie the former: for just in like manner did the Papists deal with the Allegeois in Innocent the third his time, the bet­ter to cover over their murderous and bloody cruelties against them.

And as to the second part of his exception against my suspicion,Why ground to suspect those hor­rid things reported to be done at Mun­ster. which he calls a pallia­ting of those horrid Crimes, and repeats it as if I tyed it only to the actions of Jo. Mathias, and John of Leydon, when I mentioned my sus­picion of what was reported to be done by the whole party in the Communities in the later part of the Siege: Whereof the Publick Stock might give some occasion of Report (as it had done, as I observed, amongst the Walden­ses of old, as though with their Goods they had the Women also in common too.) But for these following Reasons Mr. Wills must bear with me, if I do not as yet recive it.first Bec. many lear­ned pious men a- First be­cause, I cannot imagine those five Godly and Learned Ministers, viz. Bernard Rotmannus, Hermam Strapedo, Henricuus Rullius, Godfry [Page 154] Straling, Julius Frisius, and others, who had been so successful in the work of Conversion in that place (as is cenfessed) and so many sober Citizens, who had with them embraced that Judgment of Baptism after Faith, could so soon renounce all Godliness and Honesty, so as to practice, or give countenance to such un­heard of Impieties, and Villanies. 2dly, because Merno Simonis (of whom Cassander saith, there were in him and his Followers tokens of a godly mind, Second The Mi­nisters a sober peo­ple did not charge it upon them. saith thus in his Book of Funda­mentals concerning this People, viz. I doubt not but these our beloved Brethren who lately did sin against God by defending their Faith with Arms are in the Favour of God. And Mr. Robert Bai­lie in his Anabaptism, p. 36. saith the Menno­nites themselves, the ill best of all who carryed the name of Anabaptists, though they Anathematize the Georgians Heresie, yet they approve so far of the Monasterians, that they do much excuse all their wicked practices, and put no doubt of their Saint­ship and acceptation with God, notwithstanding the Crimes the world charges upon them. And what can his signifie but the Mennonists disbelief of the Crimes objected against that wicked Com­munity of the Anabaptists, for had they belei­ved it, they would much more have renounced such moral Impietys, than that of their bearing defensive Arms, which they so witnessed against.

Third Ber. many of them very holy Martyrs.Thirdly, Another Argument why I judge these German Anabaptists were not given up to such Uncleanness and Wickedness is, because so many of them did (upon the Emperours [Page 159] bloudy Placaet) about this time, as well before and after, so chearfully seal their holy profession with their blood, twenty of them were Martyred in the Palatinate, An. 1529. and 350 more in Alsatia the same year, and many hundreds more of them suffered up­on the same account, some by burning, some by drowning, and some by beheading; of whom, the Dutch Book of Martyrs gives an annual account. And therefore Beza in his Epistle to the Gallo-belgick Churches, at Embden saith, many of the Anabaptists are good men, Servants of God, Martyrs of Christ, and our most dear Brethren. Quosdam inter Anabaptistas esse bo­nos, veros servos Dei, Christi Martyres, & cha­rissimos fratres nostros. Hornbeck Summa Con­trovers. L. 5. p. 364.

But Mr. Wills his chief improvement of this Story is yet behind; Which is fitly, not only to render the Professors them of vile and contemptible, but the Principle it self cor­rupt and detestable. And therefore in words at length tells us both from himself and others, that the Principle of Anabaptism is false and dan­gerous; and a Principle of darkness: upon which many black Characters are Writ. And is not this to the purpose indeed? and beyond all that he hath said? And therefore he might have sa­ved himself, the World, and me the trouble, of his great Book in detecting my mistakes in Hysto­ry, and the many falshoods, that he pretends me guilty of, and the Refuting of my Arguments; But rather singly betook himself to this alone: [Page 156] for if he has discovered the rottenness of the Principle, he need do no more.

But then the Question is, how he makes this appear? which you'll find he endeavors to do by two Arguments. First, from the wickedness and immorality of those that profess it. Secondly the riggid and dividing nature of the Principle it self.

Mr. Wills Reason why the Prim. is corrupt.First, from the immorality of the Profes­sors of it. Telling us, p. 94. That we may safely affirm that Doctrine is to be suspected false, which is usually attended with gross miscarriages in the Professors of it: for that speaks the Doct­rine Ominous, and looks like a Spiritual Judge­ment of God upon it. And I heartily wish there were no ground to say, that of such a Nature is the Doctrine of Baptizing grown Persons, in op­position to that of Infants Seed of Believers. Evidenced by the wicked lives of those in Germa­ny, and the Blasphemies and immoralities of divers Persons of our own Nation. And again, p. 106. That the Tumultuous and Rebellious carriages of those in Germany did proceed not so much from the distempered Brains of some; but from their opinions, and the very censtitution of their Sect. by which it will be somewhat diffi­cult to make it out how it may not be therefore chargeable upon all.

Answered Principles may not be tryed by any thing but the Scripture, and whyIn answer hereunto, I say in the first place, That Mr. Wills takes a wrong measure, and sets up a false Standard; By judging the goodness, or badness of Principles, or Doct­rines, by the goodness or badness of the Men [Page 157] that profess them; because Men may have good Conversations, that have rotten Prin­ciples, witness the Scribes and Pharises, of old; the Jesuites, and Quakers, since, that may be Woolves, in Sheeps Clothing, and Devils in the shape of Angels of Light. And on the contrary, Men may have good Principles, and yet very unsuitable Conversations, wit­ness the Professors, both under the Law, and under the Gospel: for whence was it, that God destroy'd and removed his People, of old, pull'd down the Tabernacle, and both Tem­ples, and sent them into Captivity; but for the wickedness of their lives? as Jer. 7.1. to verse 17. 1. Cor. 10.1. to 12. And whence was it that God removed his Candlestick, from those famous first Churches in the New Testa­ment; but for the evil of their doing it must we therefore conclude, that because their Conver­sations, were so bad under both; that there­fore their Principle, and Profession it self, was [...]ought, and led thereunto, by no means? let God be true, and, every Man a lyar▪ for this would be to reproach the truth in every Age.

Therefore nothing but the Infallible Rule of Gods Word, can be the proper Standard to try Doctrines by, according to particular direction in the Case, Isa. 8. 20. Gal. 1.8. [...]. John, 4.1, 2, &c. And the reason is, because all Men are failable, and at best are but M [...]n.

But in the next place, we will trace Mr. [Page 158] Wills in his further proofs, and try whether he be able to make good his uncharitable, not to say malicious, charge, whereby you will be the better able to judge whether the Foundation of his Argument is not slander and false accusation.

Mr. Wills proof fails to these of the Blas­phemies and imo­ralities of the Ger­man Ana­baptists.The Principle saith he is false, because they are usually so that profers it and that they are usu­ally so appears, first by the horrid errors, and wick­ed lives of those in Germany, and by the blasphe­my and immoralities of divers in our own Nation. But how doth he prove the one or the other.

First, how he proves the German Anabap­tists to be so a erronious as you have heard by Sphanhemius his lying fictions and camera's. But concerning whose Orthadox Faith and Doctrine, you have an Account in the Dutch book of Martyrs; first by their publick own­ing the Articles of Faith exhibited by the Waldenses in the twelfth Cent. Recorded at large by Perin, and divers other Authors; and which they Sealed with their Blood through all the parts of Germany, France, Italy, &c. In the several Ages ever since: whereof you have a faithful memorial in their Book of Martyrs from time to time. And who withall do give a punctual account of those latter conventions of their Elders out of all the Provinces in the Low Countries, Germany, Flanders, France, &c. viz. one at Amsterdam, 27. September 1627. And the other at Dort, 21. April, 1632. Where the old Waldesian Articles were Subscribed and [Page 155] Published; and which you have at large with the Scriptures annexed in the said Book of Martyrs, called the Bloody Theatre, Printed at Dort 1660. By which you have an ac­count, that the Anabaptists in Germany were not such desperate Hereticks, as Mr. Wills so untruly suggests; not but that I judge there were erronius Persons, both in former and latter times, that own'd the Doctrine of Bap­tism after Faith both in Germany and England, and we find the purest Churches in the Primi­tive times, were not free from Hereticks of all sorts. Neither I presume will Mr. Wills our Accuser himself, undertake, that the Doctrine of Paedobaptisme doth secure from the grossest errors that are asserted. There­fore since the Articles of Faith that have been, and are own'd, by those Churches are so sound and Orthadox, there is no cause so to reproach them as Spanhamius before; and Mr. Wills that now Writes after his Coppy. And thus much for their Doctrine.

Then as to the Commotions and Rebellions that he tells us the way of Anabaptisme stirred up in Swevia and Munster from the same Author; And what unheard of Villanies were perpetrated in that City, hath been already considered, and the proofs tendred for the same; which I presume is such evidence that no Court of Justice, nor any upright Man can pass a Judgement upon. And truly, if matter of Fact cannot be better told us at home, witness those many false Stories Mr. [Page 160] Edwards in his Gangrene, Fathered upon them; and Mr. Baxter in his report of their Baptising naked (of neither of which Mr. Wills takes any notice) what credit can be given to these forreign uncertain Stories?

But if it should be taken for granted, that they in Swevia and Munster were so Seditious and Rebellious as Mr. Wills from Spanhaemius would make them, must all the Anabaptists in Germany, both in that Age, and ever since be so reputed, and that their Principle leads thereto also? Yea and those very Anabap­tists too: that both then, and ever since that, bore witness against beating of Arms at all: for so did the followers of Mennosimonis and Theodoricus, as Cassander tells us; though so great is Mr. Wills his prejudice, that he will not admit thereof; and rather than not make his words good will adventure to translate that Passage M Cassander's Letter to the Duke of Cleve, quite contrary to what he expresseth concerning them; which discovers Mr. Wills to be either a very heedless. Writer, that dares not what he saith to blast the People he Writes against: or that he doth not well understand a Latin Author; or if he do, sup­poseth by the ignorance of his opposite, he may take the liberty to say any thing of that kind without controle: concerning which Passage, he tells us that they, viz. The fol­lowers of Mennosimonus and Theodoricus, be­ing as he saith, imperito quodam zelo incitati; moved by an ignorant Zeal to what they did, ha­ving [Page 147] a fancy that they must destroy the wicked per vim externam by force of Arms, and this in order to the setting up the Kingdom of Christ; which Satanical delusion put them on upon such exorbitancies just of the same strain with those called 5th. Monarchy-Men, that put all Lon­don into such a fright some years since, as p. 99.

Whereas Cassander saith the direct contra­ry in that very place viz. That though they were guilty of other mistakes through their igno­rant Zeal, Yet tokens of a godly mind might be perceived in them by this that they (accerime semper resisterunt) allways resisted the rage of Munster and John Battenbarg, and taught that the Instauration and propogation of Christs Kingdom was only by sufferings. So that the Reader may perceive that Cassander saith the quite contrary to what Mr. Wills saith of these People applying the Battenburg and Munster Principle of Resistance to these Peo­ple that notoriously held the quite contrary; and therefore doth Cassander plead with the Duke of Cleve for their Liberty, who were there­fore as he tells him, Commiseratione potius & e­mendatione quam insectatione & perditione digni videantur. More worthy of pity and amendment, than persecution and perdition. So you will understand hereby, that he is an Author not to be much trusted in his Authorities and and Translations.

Whereby Mr. Wills would not only have all the German Anabaptists to be charged with that of Munstur, but even those that witnessed [Page 162] against it also; and is not that very hard mea­sure? And would Mr. Wills be content to be so dealt with?

For instance, would he think it just and e­qual, if we should retort his own story upon himself, that he with so much Obliquy re­flects upon us, p. 99. And tell him, that because those Person [...] that had the conduct of that af­fair, that put all London into that fright, were most riged Indipentant Poedobaptists, as certain­ly they were, what ever Mr. Wills may insinu­ate to the contrary. That therefore all Rigid Poedobaptists (Mr. Wills himself in number also) are to be esteemed of the same mind and spirit, notwitstanding all the witness that they, either at that time, or ever since, would be thought to bear against that Action: Yea, and that the very Principle of Indipendant Poedobap­tism tends to such Rebellious actions too, which is his way of dealing with those poor People.

Mr. Wills is short in his Proofs against the Anabap­tists in England.But you may better judge of his forreign in­telligence and proof, by what he tells us to our faces at home; which every body will be better able to discern, and to make a Judge­ment of, viz. That dive [...]s Anabaptists in our own Nation are guilty (as he tells us) of blasphe­mies and immoralities; and therefore the Prin­ciple is false, &c.

To the making good thereof he brings in Mr. Baxter for a Witness, though if he speak any thing to the purpose, the bare af­firmation of a Party would, I presume, be judged as incompetent, as if the next that [Page 163] Writes, should produce Mr. Wills his say-so for authentick proof.

But let us hear what Mr. Baxter sayth to the point, which he tells us p. 100. In these words,Mr. Bax­ters Testi­mony a­gainst An­abaptists. that though Mr. Baxter knew some good and sober Men amongst them; yet that the generality were bad enough: for so (says he) we must understand him in his plain proof p. 143. Where he tells us to this purpose; that he had familiarly known very many of them: And that the Ministers were for the most part censori­ous Opinionatists, who designed to convert Peo­ple more to their Judgements than to Christ: And that Anabaptistry had been the ordinary inlet to the most horrid opinion, and how negligent many are in Family Duties, &c.

Now therefore let all men judge, whether this amounts to any proof. What if Mr. Bax­ter did know some of their Ministers over Zea­lous for their Opinion, and some of the people too remiss; and negligent in their Duties to God? doth this prove the Immorality suggest­ed? and for his Apprehensions, that it is the in­let into horrid Opinions? So the Prelates think of Presbytery and the Papists of Protestanism; is either of them therefore so? and doth that prove them to be Blasphemers, and that we must understand by Mr. Baxters words, they are for the generality bad enough.

But suppose Mr. Baxter in his heat had in­deed said what Mr. Wills would make him say, (which we nowhere find as I know of) yet you will find Mr. Baxter in cool blood hath gi­ven [Page 146] another Character of the Anabaptists, of which, because Mr. Wills will take so little no­tice, I shall here give it you over again upon this occasion: which, you may be pleas'd to read in his own words, in his Book called, The Defence of the Principles of Love, p. 7. viz. that Anabaptists are Godly men, that differ from us in a point so difficult, that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained, that it is not deter­mined in Scripture, Mr. Bax­ters late Testimo­ny for the Anabap­tists. but dependeth upon the Tra­dition of the Church. And I know as good and so­ber men of that mind, as of theirs that are most against them: And that, I once motioned te [...]ms of Concord to the Anabaptists, and was in as h [...]peful a way for Peace with them, as with most others. And in his late large Book called A Christian Directory, he is pleased to say, p. 287. that Anabaptists may not only be admitted to Church Communion, but may be tolerated in their practice also. 1. Because they agree with us in all points absolutely necessa [...]y to Communion. 2. That the Antient Christians had liberty either to Bap­tize, or to let them stay till Age, as they thought best 3. And that the Controversie is of so great difficulty that if in all such Cases, none that dif­fer be tolerated, we may not live toge [...]her in the World or Church, but endlessly Excommunicate or Persecute one another.

Now therefore let it be considered, Whe­ther Mr. Wills hath proved his charge against the Anabaptists in England, and so conse­quentl [...], according to his rate of Reasoning, proved their principle false and dangerous? [Page 151] And whether it is not just and equal, that till he make good the same, he ought to be repu­ted by all men, a Slanderous Person, and a false Ac [...]ser of the Brethren, and as justly to be suspected for his Forreign Intelligence, and Accusation also?

Only this I would advise Mr. Wills, that when he offers his next proof, he be more par­ticular as to the Persons and Crimes he charg­eth; as also, since he makes it so comprehensive, to take in the Generality of the Baptists, and of so great moment as to judge their Principle by also, that the Blasphemy and Immorality is such as is foster'd and borne with by the Church­es, otherwise they are no more chargable with such Crimes, if they have cast any such wick­ed Persons out of them, then the Church of Co­rinth was to be charged with Incest, though they had disowned, and Excommunicated the Incestuous Person.

And truly I think I may with much confi­dence challenge him, or any, the worst of their Enemies, to produce any Blasphemer, or im­moral Person, so known to be, in any of the Churches of Christ under that Denomination. But if any, either in this Nation, in Germany, or else where, that have owned that Principle, have turned Ranters, and Athiests, as too ma­ny, 'tis to be feared, have. I hope the Prin­ciple is no more to be charged with it, than Poedobaptism is; for all the Blasphemies and Immoralities that persons of that Perswasion do much more frequently fall into without (or with so little) controle.

M. Wills Chargeth the Prin­ciple to be of a divi­ding Na­ture.Having considered the Invalidity of the first Reason, Why the Principle is naught, viz. from the Wickedness of those that Prefess it; we come in the next place to examine what he hath farther to say to that he calls the disquiet­ing, dividing Nature of it, to prove it false and dangerous. Which we find p. 95. in these words, viz. The very Principle of Anabaptistry is of a dangerous Nature, which in that Rigidity, as some men hold it, is of a disquieting tendency, that, as Mr. Bunian saith, is not fit for any age or state of the Church. I cannot but sigh to consi­der the ways of some men, whose spirits are im­pregnated therewith, so that their very Constituti­on inclines them to nothing more than to rent and tear, and divide the Church: The Zeal for their Opinion hath, and doth still prove the greatest hinderance to the Conjunction of Christians here in this Nation. For as soon as they become Baptists, as some call them, (and our Opposites love to ap­propriate the name to themselves) they fall off from Godly Ministers and People, differing from them, though never so holy. But let men calmly consider, whether this is not an effect of Ignorance, and Pride; and more from an erring, than well instructed Conscience: and what a Scandal and Shame it is to the Christian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of Faction, and Disturbance in the World? And what an Injury is hereby done to Christ, by contracting, and narrowing his Interest in such a manner? But I see not how it can be otherwise, if men adhere, and strictly keep them­selves to the Antipoedobaptistical Principle: for if [Page 167] our Ministers be no true Ministers, and our Bap­tism a Nullity; and consequently, our Churches no true Churches, how can they hold Communion with us? And though some that are for Baptism of Be­lievers do, yet it must be imputed to their good Na­ture, and not their Principle, which they cross in so doing.

So that now you have him in words at length, and not in figures; as to which I de­sire the following things may be considered.

First, Answered that notwithstanding what he hath said as to the Scandals attending it to prove it false; he seems now to make the proof of all to lye in this, that some Persons holding the same refuse Communion with Mr. Wills; and therefore all such as so dissent from him, are to be exposed to scorn, and hatred, as ly­ing, treacherous, disobedient, perjured, seditious, filthy Persons; for holding a false, and dan­gerous Principle.

Secondly, The Principle of Anabaptistry it self, as some Men hold it; By his own demon­stration he here makes the mode of holding; and that by some Men only, and not the Principle to be dangerous: for if it were the Principle it self, it would then be contrary to all Principles, whether Natural, Moral, or Divine; and to its self also: for Principles always re­main the same in their own Nature, and receive not any such impression from the various conceptions of Men, as to vary in themselves.

If he had said that the Principle does not justifie them that hold it most rigidly in an evil [Page 150] Opinion, or Practise, his demonstration had been good: for I am so far from justifying the Errors of those that hold either that O­pinion, or the Opinion that is contrary to it; that I fear, both Mr. Wills, and my self, have cause to search, and to try our own ways; and to be humbled, for walking contrary to that Principle which we both own concerning Baptism.

Thirdly, Mr. Wills says it is the Constitution of some, impregnated with this Principle, to rend the Church. And let Men consider, whe­ther this be not an effect of Ignorance and Pride. Now then with Mr. Wills, it is neither the Principle it self, nor the manner of holding it; but Ignorance and Pride: so that If I under­stand his way of arguing, either Ignorance and Pride, are all one with the Principle of Ana­baptistry as terms convertible, or else the cause of unbrotherly divisions, is not from the Prin­ciple of Anabaptistry, but from Ignorance and Pride.

Fourthly, if the Correspondence and Com­munion which some Anabaptists have with Mr. Wills, be from their good Nature, and cross to their Principles (as he declares it is) then it seems, that as Ignorance was before the ground of their rending from him, so here Ignorance is also the ground of their Commu­nion with him; as not knowing that they therein cross their own Principles, nor that they are any way obliged to that fellowship by the Word of God, only their good Nature [Page 159] inclines them not to break Company.

Fifthly, as to what he quotes from Mr. Bunian, it had surely been more ingenuous, either to have reply'd himself to those six Ar­guments, as yet unanswered, or provok'd Mr. Bunian to have done it before he had thus joined with him in his Anathama, for surely Reason is never convincingly answered by railing.

Sixthly, I see not the Reason why Mr Wills, or any other Person, should be thus severe against the Principles of Baptism, as proper only to penitent and believing Persons, (for if he mean any thing else by the Principle of Anabaptistry he fights with his own shadow, we being as much against Rebaptisation, as any that oppose it) for there is nothing in the Principle it self, but what inclines to Piety and Ʋnity; it being designed by Christ, not only to promote Sanctification, Rom. 6.4, 5, 6. &c. But to farther Love and Peace, as Eph. 4.3, 4, 5. being the incorporating knitting Ordinance. Yet no Man that ever I have heard of, ever did, or can pretend, that this Principle perfects grace, and knowledge; and therefore now (as of old amongst the purest Churches) are weaknesses, divisions, errors, and evils, found amongst us; and so must it be expected, so long as an evil heart and envious Devil remains: yet withall do we own subjection to a holy and perfect Rule and Directory, to Correct and Rectifie, all er­roes and evil that may arise.

Object. But if Baptism be esteemed a visi­ble Inlet into the Visible Church, and that you can own Church Fellowship with none but Baptised Persons, is not that a Dividing Prin­ciple?

Answ. It is true, it tends to divide betwixt World and Church, but not otherwise; and is no other than all that own the Christian Re­ligion, whether Papists, Protestants Presbyte­rian and Independents acknowledge, Baptism being also owned by the Antients to be Janua Sacramentorum; and so positive is Mr. Baxter for it, that he tells us in express terms, that they must deny the Scripture that deny it: his words are these in his place Scripture, p. 24. I know not what in shew of Reason can be said to this by those that renounce not Scripture; for what man dare go in a way that hath neither Precept nor Example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both? Yet they that will admit Members into the Church without Bap­tism, do so.

So that till Infants Sprinkling be proved Christs Ordinance of Baptism, Poedobaptists (by their own acknowledgment) are not to be esteemed Visible Members of the Church of Christ, having never had an orderly ad­mission therein.

Object. But is not much Ingury hereby offered to Christ, thus to contract and narrow his Interest in such a manner?

Answ. It is true, it is so said by Mr. Wills; But this is no other than Reformation in all [Page 171] Ages (since the Antechristian Defection) hath been charged with, and particularly that Re­formation that has been endeavoured in that other Ordinance of the Lords Supper: There­fore do the Presbyterians cry out against the Independants for sinful Schism, as being Fo­menters of Faction, and for narrowing of Christs Interest in their respective Seperations and Church Communions: to the shame and scandol of the Christian Religion: the same do the Prelates say to the Presbyterians, and the very same do the Papists say to the Epis­coparians also. But Wisdom is justified of her Children.

Thus have we acquit our Principle and Practice from Mr. Wills his False, Unchristi­an, and Injurious Calumnies he has cast up­on us. And shall recommend it to the Read­ers consideration, whether he hath not by this unreasonable (not to say malicious) carri­age towards us, witnessed too much affinity, with that slanderous Libell, called Baxter Baptized in Blood: that was the first Answer to the Treatise of Baptism; and which by Publick Authority was Renounced, and decla­red scandalous malicious.

FINIS.

A brief friendly Reply to Mr. Blindmans friendy Answer about Infants Baptism, in his Essay tending to issue that Contraversie.

SIR

AS to your Essay which came to my hands when I was busily engaged with Mr. Wills, I have at last got so much time to say these few things to it, Viz.

First, As to the Stile and Language, I must needs acknowledge (if compared with M. Wills) to be Sober and Christian, though not without your se­vere Reflections.

Secondly, As to the Substance of what you write, I make this brief Reply.

1. So far as you have concerned your self in the Historical and Ritual parts, this to Mr. W. may be a sufficient Answer.

2. What you or Mr. W. say to the Doctrinal part, Mr. Tombes hath for the present saved me the labour by the return he makes to you both therein: though if God spare me Life, I intend to say something to you also hereafter. But,

3. To the main design of your Book, viz. The parity you make betwixt Infants Baptism, and Womens Re­ceiving the Lords Supper, wherein you suppose you have gain'd so much advantage as to put an end to the Contraversie, I return as followeth:

'Tis confest I said indeed shew but as good Example and Command for Infant Baptism, as we do for Wo­mens Receiving the Lords Supper, and it shall suf­fice; Which, notwithstanding your great confidence, I see not in the least made good, but the contrary alto­gether; and, which I doubt not, is hereby manifest to you and all men.

First therefore, as to the Example urged by me, from Act. 1.14. & 2.42, 44. viz. That Mary the Mother of Jesus, and the Women, were of the number of the 120 Disciples, and who did break bread with the 3000 that were added to them.

To which you give the following Exceptions.

First, That is it not expresly said, that the Wo­men were Believers.

Neither in this place is Peter, and the rest of the Apostles expresly so called, but they are called Disci­ples, and so are the Women, being of the number of the 120, vers. 15. And if any doubt, Whether Mary the Mother of Jesus, Was a Believer, It will by as good Evidence appear as that the Twelve were so; For, so testifyeth the Angel, Luk. 1.18. Elizabeth, v. 45. and her own triumphant Faith, v. 46 to 56. And that the Women, her Companions, were so also, there is little ground to doubt, when it is considered who they were, viz. Mary Magdal. Mary the Wife of Cleo­phas, Joanna and Salom, &c. Who came with Christ out of Galilee, and eminently administred to him, followed him to his Cross, to the Sepulchre, annoint­ed his Body, witnessed to his Resurrection, and to whom he gave Direction, with the rest of his Disciples at his Ascention, to wait at Jerusalem for the promi­sed Spirit, Mat. 27.55, &c. Mar. 16.19. Luk. 23.55, to the 11 of the 24, chap. John 19.25.

Another Exception is, That There is no menti­on that these women were in the great Assembly in the second of the Acts: For, How do you know but they might be dead, or sick, or absent, as Tho­mas was before, Joh. 20.24. as nothing exprest to the contrary, so nothing expresly affirmed that they were present, pag. 3.

This is very strange; For is it not expresly said, (as one continued discourse) by Luke, chap 2.1. That they were all upon the day of Penticost, with one accord in one place: And who could these All be that were thus assembled, but the 120 Disciples before mentioned, who had been waiting together by Christs appointment for the promised Spirit, the space of ten dayes since the Ascention; and who were now to Re­ceive an Answer, none therefore being to be absent. And that the Women were present among them upon the pouring out of the Spirit is manifest, because Peter thereupon affirms, That the Prophesie of Joel was then fulfilled, that foretold the powring out of the Spirit, upon the Daughters and Hand-maids, as well as the Sons, Act. 2.16, 17.

Another Exception is this. The words, you say, upon which you lay the stress of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here, are in express tearms against you, though you take them expresly for you, &c. It being expresly said, [That all that believed were together.] Let us now fairly exam [...]ne the Greek phrase, and we shall find it expresly of Men and not of Women, Viz. [...], the Article of being masculine, doth expresly limit it to Men and not to Women. As if he had said, All the Men that Believed were together, and continued in the Apo­stels Doctrine, breaking of Bread, &c. And to con­firme the same, you'l find the rest of the Chapter speakes expresly of, and to Men, viz. [...], every Man, v. 6, 8. [...], &c. Ye Men of Jerusalem, vers. 22. &c.

To which I say, That this Exception, in my [...]udge­ment, seemes to be as defective in Grammer as in Di­vinity; [Page 180] For, as to the Grammatical part, you cannot but remember, Sir, That our Lillys Grammer, tells us of the Figure Sylepsis, or Conceptio, That com­prehends the less worthy under the more worthy. Indignioris, sub Digniore; as for example. Quid tu & soror facitis. Ego & Mater, miseri perimus. Tu & Uxor, qui adfuistis, testes estote. Therefore why should you so forget your self, as to think it strange that the beliving Women should be comprehended un­der the believing Men. And as to the defect in Di­vinity, What is more frequent in Scripture? Do not you know it is told us, Gen. 5.2. Male and Female created he them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. But to some of your Instances, which I wonder to find urged by a Person of Gravity and Learning. First, as to the Article [...], which surely you cannot but know is so common to both sexes, (and not limited to the Masculine Gender, as always to understand thereby the Man only, as you say) For, it is not said, Mark 16.16. [...], He that believeth, and is baptized, is not the She fully comprehended therein also? And, 1 Cor. 7.30.31. [...], They that weep; [...], They that rejoyce; [...], They that buy; [...], They that use this World; Doth the Ar­ticle in all these (and a 100 places more of the like nature that might be produced) so limit it to the Mas­culine Gender, that only men and not women are to be understood, I hope you will not say so. And is it not said 1 Cor. 6.16. [...], They two shall be one flesh; the Article doth equally respect both. But so much for the Article [...].

Secondly, The Word [...], it comprehends both [Page 181] sexes, and not the Masculine only, as 1 Cor. 7.20. Let every Man, [ [...]] abide in the same calling wherein he is called. And Jam. 1.14. Every Man, [ [...],] is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed, surely must comprehend every Woman to, or else it would be strange Divinity.

Thirdly, The Word [...], the very same, as Jam. 2.2. For if there come into your Assembly a Man, [ [...],] having a gold Ring, &c. Is not a Woman to be understood also thereby? And Jam. 1.8. A double minded Man, [ [...],] is unstable in all his wayes: And is not a double minded Woman so al­so? We might trouble the Reader with the rest of your Instances of this kind, but let these satisfie.

So that Sir, you see your Exceptions to my Exam­ples, are utterly insignificant, for here were Women Disciples and Believers, in Praying together for the Spirit, and afterwards receiving the same together, also continuing together in the Apostles Doctrine, Fellowship, and Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; neither can your pretended limitation of Masculine Words and Articles, you see, relieve you, or inva­lidate our Authority. And in confirmation thereof we may add, Act. 20.7. That the Disciples came to­gether to break bread, Women being as much Dis­ciples as Men. Act. 9.36. And it is also said, 1 Cor. 11.18, 20. That the Church came together to break bread, Women being Church-members as well as Men, Act. 8.12. though debarred some Priviledges as 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.11, 12, 13. For there is neither male nor female, but all one in Christ, Gal. 3.28. And, being many, are one Bread and one Bo­dy; Believing Women being as much of the Body [Page 182] of Christ as believing men, 1 Cor. 10.17. And who are enjoyned to keep Christs Precepts and Command­ments, left in charge for all Disciples as well as the Men, Mat. 28.20. This of Breaking of Bread af­ter Baptism, being none of the least of them; And who must give account for disobedience and neglect of duty as well as the Men.

And as your own Conscience seals to the truth here­of, so you are force also to declare it, telling us, How unpleasing it is to you, to raise Arguments against a known Truth, being, as you say, as much for Belie­ving womens receiving the Lords Supper as the men

Thus have you my Proofs for Womens receiving the Lords Supper, and the Verity thereof confirmed by your self: Therefore in the next place we shall try whether you have, as clear, or, as you say, more full proof for the Example of Infants Baptism, and as to which, you give the following Instances. Viz.

First, That Lydia was Baptized and her Hous­hold, Acts 16.15. It is not said that any of her House were Converted besides her self.

Secondly, The Houshold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. it being apparent, that House in Scripture, doth comprehend Children, 1 Sam. 20.15. 2 Sam. 9.1. Exod. 1.21. &c. Therefore you say, Let impartial persons judge, whether this doth not carry as much, if not mo [...]e probability and evidence in it, than what hath been brought for Womens receiving the Lords Supper, and not lyable to such Exceptions from the Context, nor from any other Scripture. Where­in I joyne issue with you in the Appeal; beseeching you and all men to consider.

First, Whether there be one Infant so much as na­med [Page 183] to be in either of those Housholds, much less that any were Baptized in them.

But we have Women expresly mentioned to be of the Number of the 120 Disciples, upon whom also the Spirit was poured in the day of Penticost, to whom the 3000 were joyned, and who together broke Bread also.

Secondly, Are Children as expresly owned to have right to Baptisme, and enjoyned thereto, and capable to descern the spiritual Mysteries thereof, and to act Faith therein, being Believers, part of the Church, and Members of the Body of Christ, as Women are expresly owned to have right to the Ordinance of the Supper? and enjoyned thereto, and capable to de­scern the spiritual Mysteries thereof, and to act Faith therein, as being Believers, part of the Church, and Members of the Body of Christ?

Thirdly, Is Infants Baptism acknowledged by us to be a known Truth, and that it is unpleasant to us to raise Arguments against it, as you have in ex­press tearms done for Womens receiving the Lords Supper?

So that here is not the least paritie, or comparison, to be made betwixt the one or the other, there being not the least considerable pretence to imagine that any Infants were Baptized, because tis said that Hous­holds were.

First, Because, though it is true that Infants may belong to the Houshold, so may the heathen Idolaters Wife, and Servants, and that Children are said to be in some Housholds, yet there are many Housholds wherein there are no Children, and it is not proved that there was one Infant belonging to either of these two Housholds.

Secondly, In the four Housholds mentioned to be Baptized in Scripture, they are said, at least in three of them, if not in the fourth also, to comprehend only such as were taught Believers; in those Families or Housholds.

As, 1st. Concerning the Jaylor, Act. 16.32, 33, 34. It is said, They spake the Word to all that were in his House, and that He, viz. the Jaylor, Be­lieved in God, with all his House.

2ly, Crispus, Act. 18.8. And Crispus believed on the Lord, and all his House.

3ly, Stephanus House, that was Baptized, 1 Cor. 1.16. are called, the first-fruits or Achaia, that ad­dicted themselves to the Ministery of the Saints, which no Infant was capable to do.

And the 4th, is the Houshold of Lydia, where we have good ground to conclude, there were none Bapti­zed in it but Believers. First because there was n [...] Precept to Baptize any other. Secondly, No Ex­ample for any other. And thirdly, From what is said of them, Act. 16.40. They were only Adult persons, capable of Instruction and Consolation, for t [...] said, Paul and Sylas, after they came out of Prison entered into the House of Lydia, and comforted the Brethren there, viz those in that Family that had been troubled for the hard usuage and Imprisonment of th [...] Apostles.

Besides, tis very probable Lydia was a single Person no Husband being mentioned, but she in chief all along But surely, it is on their part, that say she had Chil­dren, and baptized Children too, to prove it; For [...] yet it doth not appear, but the contrary. So that here i [...] neither Child expresly, nor by any consequence to b [...] found in any of these Baptized Housholds.

In so much that Dr. Hamond, the last great Writ­ [...] for Infants Baptism confesseth, in his sixth Quaery, pag. 471, That to conclude Infants were Baptized, because Housholds are so mentioned to be, is uncon­vi [...]cing and without Demonstration, it being so un­ [...]rtain whether there was any Children in those Fa­ [...]lies. As though, If the Master of the Family Be­ [...]ved, all the House, whether ignorant, unconverted. [...]ophane, and Athiestical, were to be Baptized also.

In the next place we come to examine the parity [...]twixt the Command we urge for Womens receive­ [...]g the Lords Supper, and that which is pretended by [...] for Infants Baptism.

The Command we bring for Womens receiving [...]e Lords Supper, is 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man Ex­ [...]mine himself, and so let him eat, &c. V [...]z. Man or Woman, for so the Word [...], in the Greek, and [...]dam, in the Hebrew signifie. There being one Me­ [...]iator betwixt God and Man, and Woman; the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2.45. Being both but one [...] Christ, Gal. 3.28.

To which you thus Reply, You gather it from the Greek Word [...], which is of the Masculine [...]nd Femenine Gender, and so signifies Male and [...]emale, which I deny not: But I must crave leave [...]o inform you, That when it is limited with words [...]f the Masculine Gender, it hath reference expresly [...]o Men and not to Women; and that it is so here, [...]ou say, you shall abundantly prove, because it is [...]imited; (where you bring [...] again, and some [...]thers of like import mentioned in the Chapter.

Secondly, From the Text it self, where the Re­ [...]ative, [...], is joyned to [...], and so it is [Page 186] expresly limited to the Masculine, and therefore to a Man only, and not to a Woman. Therefore the Text must be read, Let a Man Examine him­self (expresly, not a Woman) and so let him eat, &c.

But I appeal to the sober and juditious Reader, whe­ther this is not a meer trifling in the things of God, and a playing with Words, to pervert the Truth?

As for the Word [...], and others of like nature, we need say no more, and to the Relative [...], as little; Mr. Blindman knowing, I verily believe there is little but deceit in it. For, what more fre­quent in Scripture, than to find this Relative to re­spect both sexes? For Instance, Jam. 1.23, 24. If any be a hearer of the Word, and not a doer, he is like unto a Man beholding his natural Face in a Glass. For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, &c. which, I presume, takes in the Woman as well as the Man. Rom. 13.9. Love thy Neigh­bour as thy self, the same. So Matth. 28.19, 20. Baptizing them, and Teaching them, the same also. So that by Mr. Blindmans rule, we have as lit­tle express Command for their Baptism as their Communion, and that Men are only concerned in both: So that your Exceptions to our Command, are as insignificant as those to our Example.

Then you come, Sir, to produce your Command for Infants Baptism, which you would make us believe is as clear, if not clearer that what hath been given for Womens receiving the Lords Supper, viz. Mat. 28.9. Go teach, or Discipulize, all Nations, baptizing them, and that Children are Disciples, is clear you say, from Act. 15.10. Why tempt you God, to put a Yoak upon the neck of the Disciples?

But for your better Information in Christs Com­mission, I must refer you to the account Mr. Baxter gives of it, who tells us the right Order thereof, and Lessons therein, Viz. That the first task is to make Disciples, which, he tells us, by Mark are called Be­lievers. The second is Baptize them. And the third to Teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in Christs Schoole; Which is a right and true definition of the Text: The Word, [...], to Discipulize or make Disciples, is nothing else but to beget them to the Faith, by preaching the Gospel to them, the true means thereof, and then be­ing instructed in the Faith, they are to be Baptized therein. And therefore again, Mr. Baxter truly tells us, That it is the constant Order, that Baptism follow Faith, and no better than an Impious pro­phanation of the Sacrament if it go without Faith; And that if Faith be not the Pre-requisite to Baptism Philip deluded and not decided the Question, when he told the Eunuch, If he Believed with all his heart, he might. So that when you can make it appear your Infant, as a taught Disciple, believes in Christ, you may find a Command here to Baptize him: Other­wise, as Mr. Baxter tells us, Philips answer carries a Negative in it, viz. If thou dost not believe, thou mayest not be baptized.

And as for Infants Discipleship, from Act. 15.10. It is an utter mistake, the Disciples there being those Gentile Believers that had newly received the Faith, who were neither to be yoked with Circumci­sion, nor any other Jewish Rite, only they were In­joyned to abstain from Idolathits, Blood, things Strangled and Fornication; there being no Infant [Page 188] in the Case, nor concerned herein, neither are they any where called Believers or Disciples.

Therefore, Sir, upon the whole, Let the Juditious Reader Judge betwixt us, whether you have given as good Ground, by as full Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants, as I have done from Gods Word for Womens Receiving the Lords Supper? Not doubting but this search into this your Essay, will put a comfortable End to this part of the Controversie betwixt us.

In the next place you must give me leave to return you an Answer to three or four smart Reflections I meet with in your Book.

First, Sir, I conceive you have given me just occa­sion of Offence, so unduly to mention my not taking notice of Mr. Baxters Errata, without any the least re­gard to what I have so largely spoke for his Satisfacti­on, and my own Vindication, (having received the like measure from Mr. Wills therein also.) And whe­ther the r [...]proving that my Omission with such seve­rity, and wholly passing over those Horrible things Remarkt by me (without Controle, as yet) out of Mr. Bs. Directory, savours not of too much Parti­ality, is recommended to your better consideration.

Secondly, No less infurious are you, and Mr. W. also, from the consideration of those Waldensian Con­fessions of Faith, where they assert Infants Baptism, to infer my mistaking of them in the whole, and to soyl all my other Testimonies in the Book, without taking the least notice how I cited the late Confessions word for word, proving, they were not till their De­fection in the sixteenth Century, and that then other Confessions, cit [...] by me, were in the twelveth Cent. [Page 189] 400 years before; nor regarding what I Answer to every one of them, to which I must refer you, and to what I say to Mr. Wills for the like Disingenuity.

Thirdly, Sir, I have to blame you for a piece of unfairness, not to say unfaithfulness, respecting the Ritual part, where, to avoid the force of the Word Tabal, which the Septuagint renders by the Greek Word [...], and all our Translators by the word Dip. You produce a Text, pag. 190, wherein (as you deal with it) you would necessitate another Interpretation to be put upon it, viz. Levit. 14.6. As for the living Bird, he shall take it and the Cedar-wood, and the Scarlet, and the Hysop, and shall Dip them and the living in the blood of the Bird that was kill'd [there you stop, and leave out] over the running Water, nor taking any notice of what follows vers. 51. And Dip them in the Blood of the slain Bird, and the running Water; But go on with your Inference, as though the running Water was not to be concerned in the Case, and say, Is it credible that the Bird that was killed did yeild so much blood that all those things could be Dipped under it, and Covered with it? Certainly (say you) you must, at least, run a Synechdoche here, or else you will make nothing of it. And if you do, and say a part of them only was Dipt, Why will you not at least allow the same in Baptism?

But whether such dealing with Gods Word comes not under a handling the Law partially, and dealling unfairly, not to say, deceitfully with it, is left to your own Conscience to determine.

Fourthly, I must endeavour to vindicate myself in another unhansom Reflection, respecting an absur­dity [Page 190] you charge upon me, and which I conceive will return upon your self, and Partner too, with disadvant­age, which is this. You are pleased Sir, in pag. 117. to tell me, in Answer to the beginning of my sixth Chapter, That you must crave leave to tell me, that I miss it in my Logick, in affirming the Right Sub­ject of Baptism (viz. a professed Believer) to be­long to the Matter and Essence of Baptism; and which Mr. Wills (in conjunction with you) carryes a little further, and tells me, in his usual Stile, pag. 90. part 2. chap. 6. It is observeable, that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism, (Mark well, saith he) should mistake both the Matter and Form of it; for certainly he is out in both (and to be sure Mr. W. will lose nothing for want of Confidence, if that will carry it.) For the Matter, saith he, all Divines agree to be Water, and the Form, the Words of Christ. For which he quotes Zanchy and Buchan.

To which I say, as to the point of Logick (wherein I own little skill) in affirming, The Subject belongs to the Matter and Essence of Baptism, and that the true Form was Dipping, I conceive I am justified by the Learned. And as to the first, If Burgerdicius understood Logick, he tells us, That the Subject doth belong to the Matter, and is of the Essence thereof; Who divides the Matter into the Mate­ria ex qua, in qua; & circa quam; of which, in which and about which; and that the two latter compre­hend the Subject or Object.

And agreeable hereto, we have the Learned Tilenus giving us the Logical Definition of Baptism, both as to Matter and Form, in his Syntag. Theol. Disp. [Page 191] de Baptis. pag. 376. in these words. First, That the Matter of Baptism is two fold, viz. the Con­stituens and Recipiens; the Constituens of two parts, viz. External and Elementary, viz. the Water. And Internal, the Spiritual thing signified. And the Recipiens, [...], or Subject, is the fit Person that is to receive it. Secondly, That the Essential Form of Baptism is nothing else but the Analogical Reason of the Signes to the Things signified. For as the property of Water in washing away the filth of the Flesh, declares the force of Christs Blood in the washing away of Sin, So Diping in Water is a suitable Analogy of the Death of the Old Man; and coming up out of the Water, the Life of the New.

And in full agreement with him, the Learned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animad. pag. 317. tells us from Alexander Halyes, in these words, A io cum Alex. de Halys, Tinctio est formalis Causa Baptis­mi, & si Tinctio, non Lotio, vel lavatio, vel ablutio; I say with Alexander de Halys, That Dipping is the formal Cause of Baptism; and if Diping, then not washing or pouring.

So that if these Learned Men are Right, you, my Reprovers, are Wrong, and deserve blame and shame for your Rashness.

And further, that the right Subject, viz. a profest Believer is of the Essence of Baptism is manifest be­cause, if you may alter and change that, you may Baptize a Wall, or a Bell, a Sword, or a Standard, or what you will, and call it the Ordinance of Baptism. So that I am hereby the more confirmed, that if you miss it in the Right Subject, or Matter of Baptism, [Page 192] viz. a Profest Believer, and erre also in the due Form or Ceremony, viz. Dipping, you have neither the Matter nor the Form of Baptism; and so, though you may call it Baptism, yet it is a meer Nullity, and no such thing; concerning which, I refer you t [...] the Scheam thereof, in the Broad-side, for further In­formation, and so shall Conclude with your own Words. If these Debates may be blest to discover the Truth to your self, or any other, and add any thing to the making up of the Breach, that the Lord may be one, and his Name one amongst us, in these points where­in we yet differ; I shall have what I aimed at, and the God of Truth and Peace, shall have all the Glory. And that the Spirit of Light and Truth may lead into all Truth, and dispel all the Antichristian Foggs of Ignorance and Darkness, is the Sincere Desire of

Your Unknown Friend and Servant. H. D.

The Reader is desired to Correct these Escapes in this Brief Reply. Viz. Page 178. line 7. r. it is not f. is it not. p. 180. l. 20. r. is it not, f. it is not. p. 183. l. 29. r. Idolatrous f. Idolaters. p. 184. l. 13. r. of f. or.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.