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.

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.

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.

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 Transylvania Transylv. evidenced also, as p. 274.

Eightly, In Poland Poland. 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 Mellinus Ab. 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:

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.