INNOCENCY and TRUTH VINDICATED: OR, A Sober REPLY to Mr WILL's ANSWER to a Late TREATISE of BAPTISM.  
Wherein the Authorities and Antiquities for Believers, and against Infant's Baptism, are Defended, and the mis-representations and Forgeries he boasts of, all returned upon himself.  
With a brief Answer to Mr Blinmans Essay.  
By Henry Danvers.   ex lapidum attritu ignis elicitur, sic saepe veritas ex alternantium imo & altercantium sermonum conflictu. Lipsius. Prov. 18.17. He that is first in his own Cause, seemeth just, but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him. 
Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1675.   

THE PREFACE.  
IT is an Ancient and well approved Maxim among the Learned, that the more truth is winnowed and sifted, the more opposed and contended against, the more transparent and illustrious it appears. Veritas ventilata plus rutilat & impugnata magis elucesit.  
A further confirmation whereof you may meet with, from the late opposition Mr. Will's hath made against the truth, in his late Book called Infant's Baptism attested and vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity, in an Answer to a treatise, by Mr. H.D. etc.  
Wherein notwithstanding the diligent search, he tells us, he has made in the University Library at Oxford, the utmost assistance that all the learned writers Mr. Martial, Baxter, Cobbet, Cotten, Holmes, etc. can give him to disprove and weaken the Authorities urged from Scripture and Antiquity for Believers against Infant's Baptism, ye● you'll find they serve but so much the more to illustrate that truth he pretends to foil, giving only an opportunity for further confirmation and ratification, and to create more full satisfaction or conviction to any that have been in suspense, as to the truth of any of those Authorities urged by me. Wherein notwithstanding his great flourish and noise you'll find he is not able to reprove the truth so much as of one of those many Authorities in the Historical part, and excepting that one in the Doctrinal part, viz. Calvin for Eckius, not another that is considerable in the whole Book.  
Therefore all that I have to ask of the Candid Reader (at whose Bar the matter is now br●ught betwixt Mr. Will's and me) is only to do themselves and the truth in Question so much right as to afford the Common Justice of an open Ear; that having heard the Recrimination, they will also attend to what is said herein for vindication.  
Wherein you have his Arguments duly weighed, and refuted, his caviling exceptions answered; his pretended forgeries, and falsehoods, disproved; the Antiquities of Believers Baptism defended; the innovation, groundless Tradition, and novelty of Infant's Baptism confirmed. The witness against it by eminent men and famous Churches for many Ages maintained; his injurious Calumnies and reproaches (that he not only designs to load the Professors of believers Baptism with, but the Profession itself also) detected and reproved, The groundless custom of sprinkling instead of Dipping further evinced.  
As for his undue and uncomely reflections, the haughty, bitter wrathful, frothy and provoking spirit, he appears in, through the whole Book, s● unbecoming Christian candour, his holy Profession, or the nature of the ordinance treated of, I shall the beast concern myself about, but leave it to him that can convince and will certainly reck●n for such hard speeches for his name's sake; and rather so far as concerns myself with Job, to bind it about me for a Crown, Job. 31.36. And as exhorted Mat. 5. To rejoice to be accounted worthy to suffer contempt & reproach for the truth sake, etc. then to render Railing for Railing. It being also ever judged the sign of a bad cause, for persons to betake themselves to such courses, and thereby to supply the want of matter and sound Argument with rage, clamour and noise.  
The Scripture arguments 'tis true I have little meddled with, and that for these following reasons.  
First, because the Historical part upon which so much stress hath been laid (though the leanest part of the controversy) was the principal new thing added by me (it being as Mr. Will's observes, next to an impossibility to offer any new Scripture, or almost any new Argument that hath not been before urged in the controversy;) and is mainly therefore by him opposed.  
Secondly, Because he has ingeniously confessed, that there is no express Scripture f●r the same; And so many of themselves with one Mouth have owned, the necessity of express Scripture to warrant and justify the practice of every part of God's worship, and that to practise any thing in the worship of God without express warranty from the Word, is superstition and false worship. And that such a Principle ought to be held fast as the great Protestant Bulwark to secure us against all Popish Innovations and Traditions: and which is a sufficient answer out of their own Mouths against any thing they urge from pretended inferences and farr-fetched Consequences, being all that can possibly be said for it.  
Thirdly, because M. Tombs hath now given a particular Answer to him and Mr. Blinman therein, who being none of those rigid Anabaptists that Mr. Will's expresseth so much enmity against, his Arguments may be more acceptable to him.  
And 4ly. because I intent to do it more particularly hereafter, (if God please) by itself, having yet much to reckon with Mr. Will's for his further abuses, and grand mistakes in the Doctrinal part.  
In the next place, it is very observable, and I desire the Reader to take special notice of it, that the things he would so injuriously Father upon me he is himself found foully guilty of; making good Prov. 26.27. and of which I shall point you to a few instances, viz.  
First, that the forgeries and prevarications he charges upon me, do all return upon himself; and not one of them made good against me, as appears from l. 1. to p. 29.  
Secondly, that the several falsehoods he lays to my charge are all of them of his own making and not one of them to be proved against me, as is particularly evidenced from p. 29. to p. 62.  
Thirdly, the notorious abuse he has put upon Authors by forgery, curtilations▪ mis-quotation, mistranslation, and which fully appears by the following instances, viz.  
1. by making an Authority of his own for Infant's Baptism, and fathering it upon Basil in the 4. Cent. in his Book contra Eunom, and asserting it to be the very next lines to what I had repeated from him, thence reproving me for unfaithfulness, in leaving it out, and to be duly suspected in all my Quotations, when not one syllable of any such thing is to be found in him as demonstrated p. 43. to 49.  
2. For mistranslating, mis-representing, abusing and curtailing Greg. Nazien. as appears, p. 8. and 9 and p. 47. and 48.  
3. For his curtailing and abusing the old confession of the Waldenses, leaving out a considerable part thereof, and then making flourishes and inferences upon it, as p. 110.  
4. By abusing his Reader with a supposititious Testimony, of Athanasius, when the Author from whom he brings it owns it to be forged, p. 37, 38, 39 etc.  
5. His egregious unfaithfulness in that notorious abuse he puts upon Osiander, pretending that he certifies several things out of Peter Clumacenses, against Peter Bruis, belonging to the 12. Cent. when he knew them to be the Lying slanders of the Monk's inquisitors against the Albegois, in the 13. Cent. and of which he picks only 5. particulars out of 20. as p. 118. to 123.  
6. His abusing, and mistranslating, a passage out of Cassander quite contrary to what he expresseth; falsely thereby, accusing the Minis' for the very crime therein he acquits them, p. 160. to 163.  
7. His abusing Erasmus, telling us that he testifyes in his Censure before origen's Homelyes on the Romans, that it was Jeroms Version, and not Ruffinus'; and that Jeroms Preface was prefixed thereto; Whereas Erasmus saith the quite contrary in both, viz. First, that it did appear to be Ruffinus 's and not Jeroms, and 2ly, that the said Preface was a cheat of the Book sellers, and none of Jeroms, as p. 86.  
8. His abusing his Reader by a Quotation from Vicecomes, as though he testified, that till Luther's time none denied Infants Baptism, when he doth the quite contrary in the same place, giving an Account of so many before Luther that did it, viz. Vincentius, Victor, Hinemarus, the Henrici, and Apostolici, Wickliff, Strabo, Vives, etc. as p. 127.  
9 By further abusing the Reader in telling him, that Rainarius in his Catalogue of the Waldensian errors, gives not in their denying of Infant's Baptism as a great Argument they were for it being one of the Monk's inquisitors employed to that end; when he doth it expressly in Totidem verbis, as p. 125.  
10. His double dealing about Dr. Tailor's Arguments against Infant's Baptism in his Liberty of Prophecy, suggesting as though Dr. Taylor himself and Dr. Hammond had refuted them, whereas they suppose most of them to remain good against those common pleas for Infant's Baptism; but do not undertake to answer them because many of those Arguments usually brought by Paedobaptists are not good in themselves. p. 52.  
Fourthly, Fearful ositanacy or heedlessness, repeating my words truly in one place, and yet afterwards Fathering the quite contrary upon me; as p. 32.  
Fifthly, Notoriously partial in his Answers all the Book through, replying to some things he judges weak, and leaving others unanswered, and yet vaunting over the whole: as for instance, in the 4. Cent. I give the say of 10 Fathers for adult Baptism, he replies only to 4. of them, saith not a word to the rest, and yet concludes against them all, as p. 6. etc. So in like manner as to the 10. Instances given from the most eminent men not baptised till aged, though the children of Christian Parents, replies only to 4. and not a word to the other 6. and yet concludes against them all, as though he had particularly answered to them, as p. 11. to 15. (though his reply as you'll find, is as insignificant in both as his silence.) And further I produce 3. Councils in the 4. Cent. for the same, to which he weakly replies, he can produce 3 times ten Counsels for Infant's Baptism, viz. in after centuryes when by Popish Counclls it was injoind and imposed as p. 10. And again I quote Spanhaemius and Osiander to prove a thing, he takes notice only of Spanhaemius that speaks to part, but not to Osiander that speaks to the whole; and yet, reproves me for my mistake as p. 148. etc.  
And further he allows but two witnesses for Believers Baptism only, viz Boemus and Srabo, and yet leaves multitudes of them unexcepted against; & unreplyd to, as p. 2. etc. In like manner excepts against but 6. of above 40. particular witnesses against Infant's Baptism, and yet allows but 2. viz. Hinc●●arus and Adrianus, as p. 104, 105. And again, I quote eleven several Churches denying Infants Baptism, he exceps only against 3 saith nothing to all the rest, yet owns none of them. p. 17.  
Sixthly, the inveteracy of spirit testified all along both against the professors and profession itself of Beleivers Baptism only, especially in his railing and false accusations, from p. 145. to 171.  
As for my Epitomizing and repeating some of Mr Tombs s Arguments, and not always mentioning his name, which he calls Plaigiarisme, I do confess in that my collection, I have not so punctually mentioned all our own party from Book to book, wherein (except in the Historical part) I do little more than bring to remembrance, in a new Method (for the benefit of the present age) what has heretofore in large Treatises been writ upon this subject, which I think is usual in Polemical writings, & if I mistake not, Mr Sydnham doth the same thing without mentioning of names, from whom the arguments are brought (which may be endless;) And if I have been thereby injurious to any I beg their pardon; I am sure I have not been so to the truth; But herein I conceive Mr Will's hath not dealt fairly, 1st to reprove me for the same thing he doth himself, for I could draw parallels too upon him if I would be troublesome and impertinent; and 2ly to avoid answering the force of the Arguments, upon pretence they are another's not my own, which I conceive savours little of ingenuity and will scarce go for current pay.  
It is true, it must be owned that Mr Tombs how much soever slighted by M. Will's (though in some things very different from most that own this way) hath done very worthily in this controversy, & was an eminent instrument that God raised up amongst the learned to plead and defend that despised truth, & whose learned labours and unanswered Books do witness for him in the gate, though M. Will's is pleased so ignorantly to vaunt it, & tell us in his Epistle, that the Arguments for believers against Infant's Baptism are a parcel of Trite overworn things, a nauseous cram or repartition of old routed Arguments, that had been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again, though his Antipaedobaptism in 3 parts, containing near as I judge 1500. pages in quarto, replying to what had been written by above 20 several persons are all of them, if I am not misinformed unreplied to to this day  
And further, I must inform the Reader that had any modest endeavours prevailed, these things had more privately (without this troubleing the world) been rectifyd between Mr Will's and me, But he having as he tells us received from the learned his Album calculum, or approbation, would not by any means be stopped in his career for the supposed victory and glory; And how far he has merited that high Encomium given by his Imprimatur, M. B. in his Epistle Recommendatory is to be considered, who tells us, that much thanks is due to him the reverend Author from the Church for answering my Arguments satisfactorily, and by searching into, & so fully confuting all my pretended antiquities, thereby defending (as he saith) God's truth & the Churches right, whilst other of his brothers by ignorance and sloth, treacherous silence or silly unsatisfactory. Arguings, have betrayed the cause.  
But whether instead of the Church's thanks they ought not both (in Mr B's own language) to have the Church told of them, for pestering the world with such impertinencyes, one for his heedless writing of them, and the other for his rash and careless Commendation, is submitted to judgement.  
And lastly, Whether it is not now demonstrably evident to all men that will impartially consider, that notwithstanding the confident vainglorious boast of these great undertakers, that till better proof be manifested there as yet appears as little Antiquity for Infants Sprinkling in the first Ages, as (they themselves acknowledge) express scripture for the same.   

THE WITNESSES FOR Believers Baptism Freed from Forgery and Prevarication.  

CHAP. I. The Baptism of Believers, with the Authorities urged for the necessity of Confession of Faith before it; is defended and the Quotations out of the Magdeburgs, vindicated from Mr. Wills' charge of Prev●rication and Falsehood.  
THe Method I shall observe he ein, shall be to give you a brief account of the Antiquities, and Authorities brought by me, to prove the necessity of Faith before Baptism; and then his Exception against them, and my Reply thereto: whereby the Reader may be able to make an easy, and speedy judgement, at whose door the Prevarications and Falsehoods lie.  
Having, as you'll find, in the 6. first Chapters by 6. Arguments from posi●ve scripture proved: That Believers upon Profession of Faith, are the only Subjects of Baptesme; did in my 7. Chapter (by way of Illustration only) confirm the same, from the eminent Testimony that had been born thereto, throughout all ages. Firmly witnessing, That Confession and Profession of Faith. with free choice, was necessary before Baptism; And which evidence, as I have given it you, through all the Centuries, you may gather up under 2. Heads: 
All the Authorities under 2. Heads.  First, What hath been said thereto by the Ancients themselves, in the first four Centuries, before Infant's Baptism was enjoined (and how confirmed by our modern Writers); And secondly, what witness of that kind hath been born thereto, after Infant's Baptism was imposed, as well by those that denied Infants Baptism, as those that owned, and practised it; not only of the Romish Church, but others through all the rest of the Centuries.  

Mr. Wills charge for Prevarication and Falsehood.  To which Testimonies Mr. Wills makes his Exceptions, charging me with Prevarication, in relating somethings partially, others falsely, and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers; and to that degree, that except only two: viz. Boemus and Strabo. That I have perverted the say of all the Authors throughout the Centuries.  
But how he makes this charge appear, is now to be the Question. And therefore in order to the due Examination thereof, we shall join issue with him, and put it to the trial, how and in what particulars he will make good, either the Prevarications, or falsehoods, suggested by him.  
First as to the Prevarications.  
The Prevarications he mentions, must appear, 
1. Prevarications.  either in the Authorities produced before▪ or since Infant's Baptism was enjoined.  
First, as to those produced by me, before Infant's Baptism was imposed: viz. from the four first Centuries, It is manifest, that as to all the Testimonies I bring in the three first Centuries, so positively affirming, that Profession of Faith was to proceed Baptism: He gives no material Exception, only saith this of Tertulian, pag. 6. second part: That the magdeburg's tell us indeed, that Tertullian in this age, opposed himself to some that Asserted Infants Baptism, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects. But how weakly he doth it, may be seen afterwards, when we come to examine the witness, of which Tertulian is the Van.  
So that I hope, it will be acknowledged, 
None in the 3. first Cent.  that here is no Prevarication, or perverting evidence, in these my first Testimonies in the three first Centuries; and where you will find there is more than seven times two. Boemus and Strabo being none of their number, so that if we should go no further, my first Proposition stands firm, that Believers Baptism was the only Baptism for near 300. years.)  
But to proceed, I perceive his great cry against me, is for the Authorities I produce out of the fourth Century; but how justly, will speedily appear.  
I do indeed say, that it is manifest to me, from the Evidence the Magdeburgs give us herein: 
That Adult Baptism only practised in the 4. Cent. appears.  That it was the approved and universal practice of this Age, as well in the Eastern, as Western Churches, to Baptism upon Profession of Faith.  
And which is made good by a threefold evidence. 
1. From the say of the Fathers.  First, from the say of the Fathers, and greatest men of this Century, both in Africa, Asia▪ and Europa.  

2. Decrees of Counsels.  Secondly, from the positive Decrees of three Eminent Counsels in this Age.  
Thirdly, from th● pregnant instances of ten of the most eminent Men, 
3. From the Children of Christians not Baptised till aged.  that were not Baptised till aged, though the Children of Christian Parents, in this Century.  
First, from the say of the Fathers, both in the East and West.  
First, that it doth not appear, that any other then Adult Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa, 
Africa.  
1. Athanasius.  is manifest by the say of Athanasius, and Arnobius, 
2. Arnobius.  two of the most eminent in those Parts, in this Age: Who do positively affirm, as appears by their saying, at large p. 55, 56. That Teaching, Faith, and Desire should, according to Christ's Commission, precede Baptism. And to which we may add, what we have from Optatus Milevitanus 
3. Optatus Milev.  an other Person of great Name in this Church, in this Age; who tell us in his 4. Book, as say the Magdeburgs, Century 4. pag. 237. That none denies; but that every Man by nature, though born of Christian Parents, is unclean, and that without the Spirit he is not cleansed, and that there is a necessity of the Spirits cleasing before Baptism: So that the house must be trimmed, and fitted for the Lord (viz as he saith, the Soul of the Believer is) that God may enter and dwell in it; according to the saying of the Apostle: You are the Temple of God, and he dwells in you.  
Secondly, that is was the Faith, and Practice of the Churches of Asia, 
Asia.  appears by the like say, of Bazil. Greg. Nazienzen, Ephrim. Syrus, Epiphanius, etc. as at large you have them p. 55, 56, 57  
Thirdly, that it was the universal practice in the Western, or European 
Europe.  Churches, appears also from what is witnessed hereto, by Hilary, Ambrose, Jerom, and Marius Victorinus, in the foresaid Pages. And therefore do the Magdeburgs, upon Hilary's testimony, say, that the Western Churches did so observe it. And from Jerom's testimony, do also tell us, that it doth appear till his time, that the Western Churches did so continue, to Baptism the Adult upon Profession. (The Reader being desired, in both those Testimonies p. 55, 56. to put Western for Eastern.  
Secondly, the truth of this further, 
2. Three Counsels.  appears from those Decrees of the three Counsels: viz. The Carthaginian Council in Africa; And the Laodicean, and Neocesarean Counsels, in Asia; so positively decreeing: That Teaching, Confession, Faith▪ and free Choice, aught to preceded Baptism, which you have in pag. 89.  
Thirdly, a third Argument, 
3. Children of Christians not Bap ised.  that Adult Baptism was the only approved Baptism of this Age, I demonstrated from those ten Remarkable Instances, of the most eminent men in this Century: that were not Baptised, though the Children of Christian Parents, till they were able to make Profession of their Faith, viz. Constantin, Bazil, Greg. Nazienzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerom, Augustin, Nectarius, Valentinian, and Theodosius.  

Four of the 10 excepted against.  To the first ten Testimonies, of the say of the Fathers, Mr. Wills except only against four, viz. Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, and Nazienzen, because he saith, they are all of them express for Infant's Baptism; and which are therefore perverted by me, because I bring them for Believers Baptism only, who were for Infant's Baptism also.  
To which I say, that if but four of the ten be excepted against, than we have six more stand good for us, besides the former (viz. 15. not excepted against) as perverted▪ But  

The four Wit. vindicated. Viz. Basil.  Secondly, it cannot be denied, but these four are very full in their Testimonies, for Adult Baptism; only for Basile saith expressly, Faith must needs precede, and that none else were to be Baptised, and what can be more full. Athanasius 
Athan.  as express also as he, for Teaching, and Faith from Christ's Commission before Baptism. And Nazianzen 
Naz.  as positive as either, That they neither Baptised any of Old without Profession, and that it was dangerous then so to do, and therefore advised, that Infant's Baptism should be deferred, till they were capable to make some Confession. And Ambrose 
Ambrose.  as full also, That the Baptised should not only make Confession, but desire the same. Therefore if any of them should contrary hereto say, Infants should be Baptised, it would not only contradict the acknowledged Rule, the general confessed practice of the Age, but themselves also in the aforesaid Testimony born by them.  
But thirdly, neither doth it appear upon a due search, for aught I can yet find, that these four did so contradict themselves, in asserting Infants Baptism, as affirmed. For  
First, 
Athan not for Infant's Baptism,  Athanasius is much injured in Fathering those Questions to Antiochus upon him, in the 114, and 124. whereof Infants Baptism is asserted, it being a forged, and spurious thing, and none of his, as I shall make manifest presently by undeniable proof.  
Secondly, neither will it appear, that Basil. 
Nor Basil.  has any where asserted Infants Baptism, as I shall fully demonstrate in its place also, and Mr. Wills his egregious mistake about it.  
Thirdly, As for the Testimony that he produceth, that Ambrose was for Infant's Baptism, 
Nor Ambrose.  from that saying of his, lib. 2. de Ab. cap. 11. Because every age is obnexious to sin, therefore every age first is fit for the Sacrament, is no proof for the same; 1. Because Circumcision is there only meant. 2. If Baptised, than those of every age, that are fit for that Sacrament, must be supposed (as he before tells us) viz. those only that are capable to confess Faith and desire Baptism; otherwise (by this testimony as he would carry it) not only all Children, but all Men, and Women in the World, the Bad as well as the Good▪ the unbelievers as well as the Believer, being all obnoxious to sin, are therefore esteemed the fit subjects of Baptism. But suppose Ambrose was positive for Infant's Baptism, it is but the opinion of one Doctor, that contradicts himself too, and that against the judgement, and practise of the Age.  
Fourthly, As for the testimony he urges from Greg. Nazienzen, which has the most in it, we shall duly Examine; He tells us pag. 11. that Greg. Nazienzens' words are express in the case, and makes manifest that he was absolutely for Infant's Baptism, in his 40. Oration, viz. Hast thou a young Child let it be early consecrated, yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its Infancy (as Mr. Wills renders the word) and therefore as in his 3. Oration they Baptised all ages, as he said.  

Nazian. not absolutely for Infant's Baptism.  To which I answer, that from his translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants, to conclude him absolutely for Infant's Baptism, is to impose a fallacy upon his Reader, when he knows the word siggnifies a state of Childhood also, that is capable of understanding, as it is taken 2 Tim 3 15. And that from a Child thou hast known the Scripture; the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore Nazienzen must be understood by his early Consicration, to mean not in the Cradle, but as he explains himself, so soon as they are capable to know Mysteries except only in the case of danger of death; and which is to Baptism not so much a Child as a dying Person. And that he means not the Infant's state is manifest, because in the same 40. Oration he hath these words (speaking of those who decease without Baptism:) viz. Neither can they Re●eive Baptism, either perhaps by Reason of Infancy▪ or some altogether involentary, chance by which it is that even they who would obtained not the gift. Whereby it is manifest, that in his time Infancy was one of the Obstacles that hindered Baptism, and whereby Persons deceased without it. And therefore by that passage, in his third Oration, of all ages Receiving Baptism, is to be understood, such only that are capable of Instruction in the Faith, and the Mysteries of that Ordinance, whether young Men, old Men, or Fathers, having before declared, is so dangerous to come unprepared to it. Therefore Gregory's testimony, so much leaned upon, to prove Infant's Baptism in this Century, signifies nothing. And Doctor Barlow tells us that as Tertullian in the former Age condemned it, as an unwarrentable, and irrational Custom, so did Nazienzen (as he saith) dislike it too, and would not have them brought to Baptism, till they were of some age, and able to answer for themselves, in his Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Objection. But 'tis said, is it not manifest that in case of danger of death, he would have an Infant Bap a sea? Answer. It is true, but that was not qua Infant, but ●s a dying Person; and which was through a superstitious conceit, that Baptism might save them; as some give the Eucharist, and Extreme unction, when they are just departing; In like manner there was also in this Age an opinion, that some had to Baptism Children, 
Sick Persons Baptised for cure.  to cure them of their Bea●ly diseases, Magd. Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 423. As they were grown Persons also in the next Age to cure them, Aug. to. 7. col. 89. c. But what are either of these to that Ordinance of Baptism? Tertullian that, as Doctor Barlow tells us, was so great an opposer of Infant's Baptism, as irrational, and unwarrentable, yet had this fancy of Baptising a dying Child, to save it; which signifies just nothing to the thing pleaded for, and that Persons may as well bring Protogenes for an Authority, that pretended to Baptise the sick Children of this Age, to cure their deceases; as Gregory, and Tertulian for Baptising of dying Children, to save their Souls.  
So that all our instances from the say of our Eminent Men, stands as yet firm for us, notwithstanding what Mr. Wills has said to the contrary.  
Secondly, as to the Decrees of the three Counsels, he saith this: That if it must go by the number of Counsels, they shall carry it; for if I name three, that must be supposed to be against Infant's Baptism, he thinks he should not exceed, if he said, he could name ten times three for it. Besides he conceives, that these three Counsels mentioned by me, had respect only to Pagans, in those their Decrees, from what Mr. Martial had said in answer to that of Neocaesaria.  

His exceptions against the Counsels very frivolous.  To his first answer, I say, It is granted I think (as I have made it ready to his hand;) he may quote the Canons of thirty Counsels, for Infant's Baptism, in the following ages (and a stout argument, no doubt for it.) But what are such Decrees to this fourth Century, wherein I produce three for Believers Baptism, upon Profession and free choice; and he not one in this time (as indeed it is impossible he should) there being none found to ordain any such thing, till after this Century.  
And as to his conception, that the Neocaesarian Council means only Pagans, and not the Children of Christian Women, as he saith. Mr. Marshal hath made appear; and therefore in his usual civility tells me, how impudent it is in me to trouble us with this silly Ridiculous story.  
He must therefore know, that he and Mr. Marshal, both do miss the Case, the stress of the Decree lies not about the Parent, but for the Exclusion of all Children, whether of Pagan, or Christian Parents; because confession, and free choice is required in that Sacrament. And therefore saith Grotius from the Glossers, That an Infant cannot be Baptised, because it hath no power to confess, or choose the Divine Baptism. And which speaks reason, saith Doctor Tailor, and intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church, of interrogating the Catechumen, concerning the Articles of their Creed, which is one Argument saith he, that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism, or that they did prevaricate egregiously, in ask Questions of them, who themselves know, were uncapable of giving answers.  
So that we have as little prevaricated in our Counsels, as in our Fathers.  
Thirdly, the next exception he makes, 
Excepts against 4. of the 10. not Baptised in their Infancy.  is against the Instances of those eminent Men not Baptised till aged, and of the ten before mentioned, he gives in exceptions only against four, viz Constantin, Nazienzen, chrysostom, and Austin.  
By which we have gained, six other unperverted Authorities more; and surely it is of much weight, that if six such eminent Persons, the Children of Christian Parents were not Baptised, till they could make a Confession of their Faith; it is a substantial Argument, that Believers Baptism was the Baptism generally owned in this Age, and that Infant's Baptism was not yet received as an Apostolical Tradition, and ordinance of Christ, whilst so many Renowned worthies of this Age, the Parents of these great Men, should neglect to Baptise them in their Infancy; for the Argument lies there, and not as Mr. Wills so weakly reasons, from some misapprehensions in the parties themselves, as in p. 17.  

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

Nazian. the Son of Christians Parents, as Magd.  As to that of Nazienzen, I wonder Mr. Wills should cavil about him, seeing he knows the Magd●burgs, in the Account they give of his life, tell us from such undeniable Authority: That his Father Gregorius was a pious Bishop, and his Mother Nonna a gracious holy Woman before his Birth, and that she by prayer obtained this her son of God; and how from his youth he did patrizare & matristatim a puero Paternis moribus imbutus est, Mag. Cent. 4. pag. 9●4, etc. Besides in confirmation thereof, Doctor Hall 
Dr. Halls.  (as Mr. Tombs tell us) in his Honour to his married Clergy, 2 Book 8. Sect. saith: That Nazienzen was begotten of his Father being a Bishop, and to prove it, brings his Father's words, speaking to him to persuade him to help him in his charge, which he translates out of the Greek: viz. The years of thy age, are not so many as of my Priesthood, confirming what was said above out of the magdeburg's.  
As for chrysostom he saith: Mr. Marshal saith, 
Chrisost. Christian Parents, as  it is uncertain, whether Father and Mother were Christians at his birth. But as for that we will let it rest upon Grotius' testimony, 
Grotius.  as you have it p. 61. whom none can think a partial Author in this Case, being so firmly for Infant's Baptism, and without dispute so well read in Antiquity.  
And as for Austin I will recommend you to two instances, to make it good, 
Austin Christian Parents, as  and clear Mr. Wills doubts: Th● one is Doctor Tayler; 
Dr. Tailor.  not in his Liberty of Prophecy (which is excepted against by Mr. Wills, but how warrentably we shall hereafter examine) but in one of his last pieces, viz. in his Deswasive against Popery, printed 1667. where you have him in Sect. 3. p. 117. thus expressing himself: viz. That there is no pretence of Tradition, that the Church in all ages did Baptise all the Infants of Christian Parents: it is more certain that th●y did not do it, then that they did: in the first Age St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, and St. Austin, were born of Christian Parents, and yet not Baptised until t●eful age of a man: and more that the Apostles did Baptise any Children, is not at all reported by any credible Tradition.  
The other is Mr. Bazter, 
Mr. Baxter.  an evidence that in this Case is not to be rejected, who is pleased to tell us in a very late piece, viz. his Principles of Love p 7.  
That he knew that in the days of Tertullian, Nazienzen▪ and Austin, men had liberty to be Baptised, or to bring their Children, when and at what age they pleased, and that none were forced to go against their consciences therein. And that he knew not that our Rule or Religion is changed, or that we are grown any wiser or better than they. And again Christian Direct. p. 827. Thus  
That ancient Christians had liberty to let their Children stay till age, as they thought best. And that Austin, and many Children of Christian Parents were Baptised at age.  
And upon the whole, we may add what Doctor Barlow 
Dr. Barlow.  saith to this purpose, pag. 64. I am sure that in the Primative times they were Catechumeni, then illuminati or Baptizati; and that not only Pagans, and Children of Pagans converted, but Children of Christian Parents also.  
Thus we have gone through our first four Centuries, and the proofs urged to this point of History from them; and therein I hope the Reader will fully acquit me, from that charge of Prevarication, in perverting the Authorities brought by me to witness, that in these time's Confession, and Profession of Faith, was held necessary to precede Baptism.  

That only the Adult Baptised in the first ages confirmed by Divert.  And that I am not mistaken, nor alone in my apprehension herein, I shall repeat a few, both of the Ancient and Modern Writers, that have so fully confirmed the truth hereof, affirming with much positiveness, that [only] the Adult, upon Confession of Faith, were the Subjects of Baptism in these first times.  
Walafrid Strabo 
Strabo.  in Rebus Eccles. p. 26. That in the first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given, to them Only, who were come to that integrity of mind and body, that they could know and understand, what profit was to begotten by Baptism; what was to be confessed, and believed; and lastly, what was to be observed by them that are new born in Christ.  
Beatus Rhenanus 
Rhenanus.  in Anotat. sup. Tertull. saith: That the old custom was, that those that were come to their full growth, were Baptised with the Bath of Regeneration; which custom he said continued for some of the first Ages.  
Rupertus 
Rupertus.  in his 4. Book of Divine Offices cap. 18. saith: That in former times the custom of the primative Churches was, that they administered not the Sacrament of Regeneration, but Only, to the Chatecumen, who were instructed in the Rules of Faith, Rehearsing the same.  
Jo. Boemus 
Boemus.  Lib. 2. de Gent. Mor. It was in times past, saith he, the Custom to administer Baptism, Only, to those that were instructed in the Faith, etc.  
Doctor Hamond 
Dr. Hamond.  in his Cat. lib. 1. c. 3. p. 23. saith, That All Men were instructed in the Fundamentals of Faith anciently, before they were permitted to be Baptised.  
Mr. Baxter 
Mr. Baxter.  in his Saints Rest. part. 1. cap. 8. Sect. 5. saith: That Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, who lived in the 2. and 3. Centuries, do all of them affirm, that in the primative times None were Baptised, without an express covenanting, wherein they renounced the World, Flesh, and Devil; and engaged themselves, and promised to obey him.  


The Testimonies for Adult Baptism, after Infant's Baptism was enjoined.  
1. From particular Persons, 1. that denied Infant's Baptism.   In the next place, for further confirmation of this truth, I gave you in some Testimony that was born thereto, after Infant's Baptism was established, in the fifth Century; and that not only from those that denied Infant's Baptism, but from those that owned and practised it, Papists and others, through the rest of the Centuries.  
Of the first I produced several Eminent men, as particular witnesses, some of which I shall mention, viz  

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

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

Albanus.  Albanus, who was put to death for his witness hereto, p. 230.  
These eminent People, called Swermers, 
The Swermers  in the sixth Century: That from Christ Example of Baptism reproved, the evil custom of Infant's Baptism, p. 231,  

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

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

Hinemar.  Hinemarus, Bishop of Laudum, refusing Infants Baptised, only Believers, 235.  
The Egyptian Divines, 
Egyptian Divines.  in the seventh Century, taught Fa●th before Baptism, in opposition to the Romish Baptism; p. 232.  
Carolus, 
Carolus.  Bishop of Maylant, taught that only such as were instructed and confessed Faith, and manifested a holy life, were to be baptised.  
Jacob de Roor, 
Jacob de Roor.  owned only, that Baptism that Christ commanded after teaching and believing; and which the Apostles did also practise; and which, saith he, must needs be after believing, b●cause it is for the burying of sin, the Bath of Regeneration, the Covenant of a Christian li●e, and the putting on the Body of Christ, and planting into the true Olive-tree Jesus Christ, and for the right entrance into the Spiritual Ark etc.  
Besides many others I forbear to mention, but refer you to the Book itself; And which I suppose are all f●ll proper, and pertinent witnesses in the case, and against none of which he makes any exception, and which I hope you will add to all the rest, besides the two he will please to allow me.  
I do also bring into this evidence, 
2. The Churches that denied Infant's Baptism, witnessing for ●●lievers o●●●●.  besides many particular Persons, an Account of several Churches, that have in their Principles, and Practices, confirmed this of Believers Baptism, after profession of Faith, and which are as followeth.  
The Donatists 
1. Donatists.  that taught that none should be baptised, but those that believed, and desired the same, p. 222.  
The Waldenses 
2. ●●●dense  that taught, that by Baptism the Believers we●e Received into the holy Congregation, there protesting, and declaring openly their Faith, and amendment of life, p. 239.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. English.  The Churches in this Nation owning the same Principle, and practise; viz.  
First, In the time of the ancient Britain's, p. 226.  
Secondly, Under the name of Lollards from the Waldensian Barb of that Name, pag. 278. p. 203, 204.  
Thirdly, Under the name Wickliffians, who asserted also that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptism, p. 283.  
And Lastly, Since Henry the Eight's time, under the name of Anabaptists, p. 306.  
Against which latter testimony, from these respective Churches in these several Regions, he only excepts against the Donatists, Waldenses, and ancient Britain's, denying that they were of this Faith and practice, which you have particularly replied to in the third Chapter, where the witnesses against Infant's Baptism are defended.  
But in the mean time it must be remembered, that the rest stand good, as not excepted against.  
Secondly, you have the Testimony, 
2. The witness born to Baptism after Faith, by those that owned Infants Baptism.  born to this truth by many Eminent Men, and Churches, that have owned, and practised Infants Baptism, since the imposing thereof; some of whom are these that follow, as you find them in the respective Centuries; viz Chrysostom, Austin, Gregory, Cassiodorus, Haimo, Rabanus, Anselm, Algerus, Rupertus, Lombard, Albertus, Belarmine, Grotius▪ Luther, Calvin, Hamond, daily, Tayler, Baxter, Church of England. All or most of them, affirming with the Church of England, that Faith and Repentance is required in all those that are to be Baptised, viz. Repentance whereby they forsake sin, and Faith whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises.  
To all which Testimony Mr. will especially quarrels me, for perverting, as he saith, 
Mr. Wills exceptions against this part for the Testimony.  their say, against there intended senses, by improving what they say for Adult Baptism (wherein they meant only Strangers, and Pagans converted to the Faith) against Infant's Baptism, which is in an other way, and upon an other Account, And for being so notoriously contradictious to myself, in saying they are for Believers Baptism in one part of the History, and yet the same Men, and Counsels, for Infant's Baptism in an other.  
Replied to. To which I say, that by Quoting their say, that are so expressly for us, though it may be not intended so; I have done no injury.  

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

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

Austin so for Adult Baptism, in w●rds as to exc ●●e ●ntan●s.  For instance, If Austin tells us in one place, That 〈…〉 put due Examination, both to Doctrine and Conversation▪ aught to be Baptised▪ and that no ignorant or scandelous P●rson, without due instruction, and fruits of Repentance, are to be admitted to Baptism, what can be spoken more agreeable to truth, and more indeed to assert Believers Baptism; to be the only Baptism, and to exclude any other that are no● capable to act Faith, or testify fruits, for if no other, as he saith, than not Infants.  
Yet the same Austin in contradiction hereto saith, 
How weakly & contradictiously Austin asserts Infant's Baptism.  Let Infants be baptised by the Faith of another, to take away Original sin, without which they can neither be Regenerated or save● Now, compare these two together, what sound Christian will not say, that Austin before spoke the mind of Christ, in wholesome sound word? and herein his own words, if not corrupt and heretical; For as one well observes that such Doctrine as this, was the greatest poison, that ever the Father of Lies poured into the hearts of Sinners; to make People think, that sprinkling a little water on the face could Regenerate, take away sin, and save the Soul, and beget grace ex opero operato by the work done.  
Calvin in one place tells us, 
2. Calvin for Believers Baptism by Rule.  the due and right order of Baptism from the Commission, saying thus viz. That Men may rightly offer themselves, to Baptisms Confession of sins is required▪ otherwise the whole action would be nothing else but sp●rt.  
Yet in another place in contradiction hereto saith: Let the Children of Believers be baptised, 
Calvin for Infant's Baptism, in contradiction hereto, without Rule.  because God having taken their Parents into Covenant, they themselves a●● also to be imbrac●d in the same Covenant; Neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith and teaching, because though Children have not yet Faith, nor are capable of teaching, yet their Parents have both  
But by what Rule or Reason this latter is urged, and how possibly to be Reconciled with the former, so agreeable to both, is the knot to be untied.  

3. Mr. Baxter for Believers Baptism, by precept & Example.  So also Mr. Baxter upon Christ Commission, Matth. 28.20. This saith he, sheweth the Disciples their several works in their several Orders; viz. First, to make Disciples, which Mark calls Believers. Secondly, is to Baptise them, whereto is annexed the promise of Salvation. Thirdly, to teach them all other things, which are after to be learned in the School of Christ: And that to contemn this order, is to contemn all Rules of Order; professing his conscience is fully satisfied from this Text, that it is one sort of Faith even saying, that must go before Baptism, the Profession whereof the Minister must expect, as pag. 3. And again, if there can be no Example given in Scripture, of any one that was baptised without the Profession of saving Faith, nor any precept for so doing, than we must not baptise any without it. But the Antecedent is true, saith he, from the practice of all baptised in Scripture, which he particularly enumerates, and then saith, so is the consiquence.  
What can be said more consonant to truth, more agreeable to the Scriptures, and what more in justification to the Baptism of Believers, and to the Excluding all others uncapable of Profession. 
Mr. Baxter for Infant's Baptism, without Precept or Example.   
And yet the same Mr. Baxter tells us, that an Infant is to be Baptised: but by what Rule? Why, s i'th' he, upon the Account of his Parent's Faith? But where is that to be found in the Precept? Is it baptise the believing Parent and his Child? is that found in the order of the Commission, or is a Child to be found in all the pregnant Examples, in the New Testament, that he hath given us?  
When Mr. Baxter, or any one in his behalf, can reconcile Mr. Baxter to Mr. Baxter; Austin to Austin, Calvin to Calvin, I shall own my mistake herein, till then must believe, that it is good service, to improve their contradictions to themselves, and for the service of that truth, that they so vigorously oppose.  
But thirdly, 
3. Reply. No injury done them from their own expositions of their say.  there is no injury done to them in the sense, that most of the Doctors, both Papists and Protestants, have given us themselves; respecting those expressions, about the necessity of Repentance and Faith, before Baptism; and how they reconcile them to Infant's Baptism: And which we have so fully done to our hand, in the English Liturgy, that will put it out of doubt. You know it is there expressly told us, that Faith and Repentance is required, in all that are to be baptised, [good and sound Doctrine.] But then the Question, you know, is put: How do Infants, who by reason of their tender age cannot perform them? v●z. can neither Repent nor Believe, [sound Doctrine still.] To which they answer, Yes; they do perform them by their sureties; So that we are to understand, that though Infants cannot Repent nor Believe, which yet is so necessarily required in every one that is to be baptised, yet that others may undertake for them, answer the Commission for them, Repent, Believe, Confess for them, and declare a willingness in their name to be baptised; and this is actually don● by the sureties, as our English Liturgy directs (and every day's experience tells us in the christening of Children) which interprete to us, the ancient way of Interrogating Sponcers, and which is performed after this manner: 
How by Sureties Infants do confess & profess Faith and Repentance, and so capable of Baptism.  viz. The Priest saith to the surety, Dost thou forsake the Devil, and all his works, etc. Then the surety must answer, I forsake them all. Priest, Then, Dost thou believe in God the Father, rehearsing the Creed? S. To which he is to answer, All this I steadfastly believe. P. then, Will thou be baptised into this Faith? Yes, saith the Surety in the name of the Child, that is my desire. This was the Custom of old, and with Infant's Baptism established, (though it is true they had Sureties, or Witnesses, for grown Persons, before Infant's Baptism was enjoined.) Yet now because the Commission required Faith and Repentance, therefore was this invention found out to answer it. And therefore saith Lud. Vives in his Comment. l. 1. c. 27. That none were baptised of old, but those of age, who did not only understand what the water meant, but desired the same  

Lud. Vives why sureties invented for Infants.  The perfect Image whereof, saith he, we have yet in our Infant's Baptism; for it is asked of the Infant, will thou be baptised? f●r whom the Sureties answer I will; And so saith Strabo pag 60. and Jo. Boemus' p 73.  
Mag●ebu●g Century 5. p. 516. Infants aliena Fice baptisari: Infants are to be baptised by the Faith of another,  
Therefore called Fidejussors, or Sureties, that plight Faith for them; and Sponsors, that answer for them; Susceptors, that undertake Promise, Vow, and Renounce for them.  
So that this appears, to be the untying the knot, the Reconciling or the seeming difficulty, of the necessity of Confession, consent, and desire with Infant's Baptism, so making the Commission but one general Rule, to baptise both Adult and Infants, the Adult by his own Mouth and Faith, the Infant by the Mouth and Faith of another. Therefore all these say of these latter Doctors, and learned Men, speaking to the nature of Baptism; wherein Confession and Profession is required, is to be understood, not as Mr. Wills would have it, to intent only Adult Persons, Pagans, and Heathens, but to intent Infants also; otherwise it would be to make two Baptisms, and necessitate two Commissions: one for the Adult, and the other for Infants. But in as much, as none is to be found for the latter, they include and involve all in the former.  
Therefore by my producing, these proofs from all the Paedobaptists, as the true sense of the Commission, and a general Rule to baptise upon, it will be manifest, that I do not bring them contrary to the mind of the Writers, being urged to confirm and establish Believers Baptism, according to Christ's Commission. The Lutherans are positive, that Children have actual Faith, and in Baptism hear the Word, use Reason, etc. And all the rest, that others Repent, Believe, Profess, Confess, desire for them, viz. either the Surety, or the Parent.  
Objection. But 'tis said, you carry it further, and improve their general Rule for Believers Baptism, against Infant's Baptism, contrary to their intention, because they intent Infants not otherwise to be baptised, but as professed Believers in this way.  
Answer. To which I say, that it truly serves the Intention, wherefore it is brought under this Head, where we do not so immediately concern ourselves against Infants, which is an other part, but for Believers only; though I grant consequentialy it doth so, for if a personal Professing of Faith, be only intended in the Commission, and that no such thing as a surety is to be found in that Text, or any other, to profess or confess, for an other, so as to warrant, the party confessed for, to be a proper subject of Baptism.  
Then it will follow, that all those say, make only for Believers in their own Persons, to the excluding all that are uncapable of Personal Confession and Profession: When any such thing as a surety in Baptism, to believe, repent, and confess for an other is made out from Scripture, they may have Reason to complain, but till then, no injury is done, so to clear the truth, from their own grants and say. But that there is no such thing in the Scripture, take the acknowledgement of some of their own party.  

Magd. against sureties.  The magdeburg's Century 1. p. 497. Do tell us, that Godfathers', or Fidejussors for Infants, or others, they find nothing of in the Scriptures; that in the second of the Acts they offered themselves to Baptism, & that it would be very ridiculous, to think the Apostles would baptise none without Sureties.  
And Doctor Tayler pag. 84. I know, saith he, 
Dr. Tailor against sureties, and his Reasons.  God might if he would have appointed Godfathers', to give answer in the behalf of Children, and to be Fidejussors for them, but we cannot find any Authority or Ground, that he hath; and if he had, that it is to be supposed he would have given them Commission, to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances, and have given answers with more truth; for the Question is asked of Believing in the present, and if the Godfather answer, in the name of the Child, I do believe, it is notorious, they speak false and ridiculous, for the Infant is not capable of Believing, and if it were, he were also capable of dissenting, and how then do they know his mind? and therefore, saith he, Tertullian and Gregory Nazienzen gave advice, that the Baptism of Infants shall be deferred, till they could give an account of their own Faith. If you would be further satisfied about these Sureties or Gossips, why and for what use, viz. for Bells and Churches, and grown Persons as Infants, read pag. 84. 100 128, 129, and 141.  
Object. 2 But if you will not admit of Godfathers', what do you say to Fathers? why may not they Repent, and Believe for the Child, and so answer the Commission, especially being a believing Parent, and in Covenant, according to what Mr. Wills repeats from Mr. Calvin? p.  
Answer. To which I say, that if you betake to that, you quit all your Ancient Authorities, that depend upon sureties, where the Parent is expressly forbidden that Rite, none being permitted to undertake for his Child, neither Father nor Mother, as Vicecomes tells us at large, from the Decrees of the Counsels, ch. 33. p. 92. Mr. Baxter owning it against the Canon-Law also. Neither will you find one syllable in all the New Testament, to relieve you; and therefore must either find out a New Commission, for baptising Per●ons without personal Repentance, & Faith, or renounce, the practice of sprinkling Infants, that are so uncapable to do any thing thereof. And which case you have very fully, and honestly put by Master Baxter, in his Christian Directory pag. 817. And how well resolved you have it remarked, pag. 217. and worthy of your perusal, upon this point especially; it being brought herein, into such a narrow compass, for if no Scripture ground to baptise an Infant, by a Gossio or Parents Faith and Confession, than Infant's Baptism is certainly a nullity, and out of doors by their own grants. And therefore till Mr. Baxter, or some Body else, give us a better solution in that case of Conscience, we may say in his own words: That for Persons to be baptised without a professed Contracts ● is a Baptism not of Christ's appointment, and that being done without Repentance and Faith, is a profanation saith Mr. Baxter, and ridiculous saith Calvin.  
Now, therefore upon the whole, let the Reader judge, whether my several proofs are not full, proper, and pertinent; And whether Mr. Wills upon the closing of his seventh Chapter, respecting my proofs upon the Centuries, hath spoken like a judicious, sober, considerate Person; in saying:  
That besides Jo. Boemus and Strabo, he may truly say, that from the beginning of the Century to the end, this Unfaithful Man hath perverted the say of all Authors, which he hath quoted, and upon consideration of his carriage herein, I am confident of those two things:  
First, that never any Writer did more prevaricate, and show more Falsehood than he hath done.  
Secondly, that he would certainly have forborn, if he had thought, any man would have been at the trouble, to examine and search whether he saith truth or no.  
I say, it is referred to judgement, 
My Appeal upon the proofs and the Prevarication charged.  whether any sober man can judge, Mr. Wills has read the Book he so contems, vehemently asperses, and inveighs against; Or secondly, if he hath, whether he did consider what was either written by the Author, or by himself in answer? And thirdly, If so, whether he ought not to be esteemed a Person extremely void of Reason or Conscience, and that prejudice did more prevail with him then impartial judgement?  

Secondly, concerning the Falsehoods he charges me with. 
2. The Falsehoods.   
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 Falsehoods charged upon me, in the egregious abuse put upon so many Authors, in leaving out, and curtailing some of their say, and adding to ot●ers; pretending they 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 University Library at Oxford, to trace these Quotations and to detect their errors, & delivered 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 myself 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 Falsehood.  
Answer 3 But then thirdly, I hope it will be granted on the other hand, that if all these prove 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 join issue with him, in order to the speedy trial, at whose door the Falsehoods lie; for one 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 gins with, 
1. Falshood charged.  in his Preface, etc. 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 shown (he saith) ch. 7. part 1. p. 2. 
3. Falshood charged.  Where he again repeats it, saying, that the magdeburg's 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 magdeburg's 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 Baptism 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.  
Answered. 1 To which I say, that it is most manifest, that this injurious man doth charge a Falsehood, of his own making, upon me three several times; for he can find no such words in my Book. My words are expressly thus: viz. As to the Subjects of Baptism they, viz. the magdeburg's tell us: That in this Age [they find] they baptised only the Adult, or Aged, etc. I do not say, that they tell us, that in this Age they [baptised only the 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 senses 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 baptising 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●: Answered. 2 For they are not my Translation of the words (and therefore I add not the word [Only] to them, as he falsely suggested) but my fence upon those their words, and no other than I presume every one will give. And wherein his shameful (Oscitancy, as he calls it, or) heedlessness is the more to be remarked, 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 Falsehoods. And it was one of the first things that I met with, from a Friend that was in his Booksellers Shop, where some Ministers were heard to say, upon the reading thereof, that I wanted morality, in so dealing with Authors; Though truly if I had said the word, I do no know where such a heinous 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 magdeburg's 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 Baptism, was taken from the Jewish washings, of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9, 10. divers Baptisms. And so saith he, the Author fathers that upon the Century Writers, which they speaks not.  
Wherein these two Falsehoods are charged upon me: First, in bringing the Mag●eburgs, 
3. Falshood charged.  to assert the Ceremony of Baptism to be by dipping, which they do not, but the contrary.  
Secondly, In affirming 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.  
Answered. 3 To the first (that I am not mistaken, when I tell you) that they do assert the Rite of Baptising to be by dipping, let their own words determine (the substance whereof I before gave you) who having told us, viz. the magdeburg's Century 1. chap. 6. p. 148. That as to the place of Baptism, it was, as occasion was offered, in Rivers and Fountains, etc. 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, & quoth 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. etc.  
That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying an Immersion, (or dipping) in water, proves that the Minister of Baptism 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 Baptism 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 than 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 signify Washing, in opposition to Dipping; and if in any other part of the 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.  
Answered. 4 And as to the other, it is as Notorious as this; for I do not say, That the magdeburg's tell us, that the custom of dipping the whole Body, was changed into sprinkling, etc. 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 expressed, 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 Baptism, which might sufficiently have satisfied Mr. Wills, that I did neither express, or could intent the words as he carries them I did also in my seco●d Impression, (which I presume he could not, but see waiting 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 character, lest 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 Ancients 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. Falsehoods charged.  An other Falsehood 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 citys the magdeburg's Century 3. p. 125, 126. Where he saith, they say no such thing, but the contrary.  
Answered. 5 Wherein he doth me manifest injury, for all that I say to that point, as you'll find, is this; viz. Many were the corruptions about Baptism, that in this Age were creeping in, some whereof, I mentioned, 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 intent (as after I expressed it p. 204.) that passage 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. And withal do in the same place say, That they do not find by an● Authentic 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, etc. 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 magdeburg's, 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 Africa 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 absolute determinations to Baptise Infants.  
Answered. 6 To which I reply, That I do not say, that the magdeburg's do say in so many words, that it was the universal practice of this Age, to Baptise the Adult upon Profession of Faith, as he would insinuate: But as you'll find my words to be, as pag. 55. That from the several Authorities they give us, out of the learned Fathers and Counsels, 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, proving that they Baptised Infants in the African Church, particularly the 124. Question, which he mentions pag. 10. ch. 7.1. part: I shall show you presently it was a mere 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, lest his instance might do him more hurt, then good, though the 114, he mentions at large; The thing expressed therein, as the magdeburg's tell us, is this: Quod Infantem ait ter in aq●am immergemus, & ter educimus 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 afraid, with the proving his Infant's Baptism, he should have offered some thing for the rite of dipping, which is so loathsame to him, and so lose more, than he should get by the bargain.  
It is true the Inventor of this lie, must tell some thing that was true, as to the season he intends it, which was the trine immersion, that from Tertullia's 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 showeth, 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 show, 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 custom 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 Baptism, he might not be for Infant's Baptism also. Whereas he meant by the former only Pagans, and Infidels who according to Christ's Commission must first be taught, then baptised. Athanasius (saith he) was for Infant's Baptism, and it was practised in his days, 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 children's Baptism, is from Tradition, which they fly too, for want of Scripture. Implying here are two Scriptures for Infant's Baptism, 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 Baptism, and which was the opinion of some of the Ancients also.  
Answer ∣ ed. 7 To which I say & is not this excellently remarked from this famous instance? and Anabaptists unworthiness too? in taking no more regard, how well they proved Infants Baptism of old from the Scripture?  
But now this Book of Questions fathered upon Athanasius, proving such▪ an other Fable, as that goodly piece that was fathered upon Dionysius: It will only serve further, to discover what inventions, the Father of Lies had (by the working of the Mystery of Iniquity) not only to beget and usher in, but to nourish and strengthen this Illegetimate Birth, but the artifice, also he had to time the several forgeries; viz Dionysius for the first; the Pope's Decretals, and Justin Martyrs Responses, for the second; Origen's Stories, 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 magdeburg's, 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 fallacy 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. Tombs tells us) in his Medul. Pat. p. 2. l. 1. c. 42. saith of it also. The magdeburg's do give us this account, which I presume Mr. Wills can tell you, as well as myself, being so considerable a Remark in the History of Athanasius his life, as you have it Century 4. cap. 10. p. 1032 in these words, speaking of his works: Quartus tom●● quaedam habet a diversis translata interpretibus, ut Libellum de variis Quaestionibus Sacrae Scripturae ad Antiochum Principem, interpret 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, etc. Accidit huc quod multos videre est in eo scripto, nav●s atque opiniones ab Athanasio alienas.  
The fourth Tome hath some things translated by divers 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', 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 enlightened by him, etc.  
And hereto it may be added (say they) that one may see in that Writer many errors and opinions, that are far from Athanasius'.  
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 Infant's Baptism, 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, and practice of Infant's Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism, witness those two pertinent Scriptures, urged by this eminent Father.  
Thirdly, for drawing the injurious conclusion, that Infant's Baptism was not practised in Africa in this Age, from his Testimony for Adult Baptism, when the contrary so manifestly appears from those Questions.  
But now this goodly story, proving a lie, 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 played 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 Baptism, then to that of the Adult only, according to Christ's 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 Baptism 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 Baptism, Faith must needs precede, and go before. And in his Exhortation to Baptism, that none were to be baptised but the Catechumen, and 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 Acquaintance with that Father, and understand not in what sense he speaks, who would not think that this Ancient Doctor was against Infant's Baptism, and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his days? [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 Catechumen, 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 Baptism, which he is pleased to say, is so abominably false.  
And to evince my Forgery and Falsehood, 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, henceforward have a care, Reader, how ye trust the Author's Quotations, for the palpable abuse done to this Father.  
Answered. 8 To which I say, but if the abuse prove his own, what then? And that it is so, the Reader will presently understand. Know therefore, that the Quotations out of Bazil's Exhortation to Baptism, you'll find in the magdeburg's 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 Catechumen 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 Baptism. There being no such syllable, nor any thing like it, either in the foregoing or following words, I have also searched. all that the magdeburg's 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 passages that Bazil speaks of Baptism; and who from Mirningus and Montanus, their great Century Writers, do testify, that he was altogether for Adult, and wholly against Infant's Baptism. 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 Baptism, 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 Symbol of death, burial, & 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, etc.  
That who ever is baptised, whether Jew or Greek, male or female, etc. 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 holiness of the truth, and renewed in knowledge, according to the Image of him that created him, etc. And therefore in his Book of Baptism, doth largely treat of the necessity of partaking of the Lords Supper, that other Ordinance of Christ, immediately after Baptism.  
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 nourished 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 magdeburg's) that made that former Decree in the Council of Neocaesaria. But you'll say, how 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? Maxim 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 Baptism them, yes by all means [in Case of urgent danger, for it is better to be sanctified without their knowledge, then to die without it] for so it happened 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 Christ's Commission, was necessary to precede Baptism; 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 falsehood herein.  First, for the several Falsehoods (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 Infant's Baptism, in the fourth Century p. 136. Thirdly, from the great acquaintance he had with this Father and his sense herein (a false and vain glorious boast) affirms 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 mere mistake but a wilful abuse.  

2 False Accusation.  Secondly, for false accusing of me: First, for curtailing, partially quoting, and misapplying; this Father stopping, where I should have gone on. Secondly, For imposing a fallacy, and Falsehood upon the Reader, to say he was only for Adult Baptism, when the contra●y was so manifest. Thirdly, For so palpably abusing 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 remarked, that whilst he would pretend to reprove, and render me odious for Prevaricacation, Forgery and Falsehood, that he himself should be so left, to do the same things, in a far worse manner? fulfilling Rom. 2.21, 22.  
Another Lie and Falsehood, 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 Infant's Baptism; and amongst other evidence for the same, to produce their Concessions of Faith; Whereas there is not a w rd of th●t importance in them, but th●ir Confessions of Faith quite otherwise, viz. for Infant's Baptism.  
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, therein, he, or I, you will easily 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 Falsehood, he charges upon me, in abusing, and deceitfully perverting the say of two of our modern Authors, Mr. Baxter, and Dr. Ta●ler, which I shall add hereto, and be accountable for in this place.  
And first, he is pleased to say, 
10. For Falsehood, & unworthy dealing with Mr. Baxter.  That I have as an unworthy Person dealt craftily, and sinisterly with Mr. Baxter, pag. 12, 13. and disingeniously perverted, and traduced, the say of that worthy Man, to countinuance my Errors; Quoting divers of his Arguments to Mr. Blake, as though he had been only for Believers Baptism, when he had so fully explained himself to mean Adult, not Infants Baptism, 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. Tombs. 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. Tombs 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 himself, and the cause he pleads 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. Tombs his Arguments, or my Apology, for producing those Arguments, he had much better have forborn his uncivil Revile upon it, which only for the most part bespeaks, either an evil Cause, or an evil Nature, 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 grieving, and offensive to most Protestant ears) charging me most severely, viz. That as being possessed 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 Anabaptism) 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 Holiness (and wherein, as I have judged, his greatest Excellency lies) supposing had he let Controversies alone, and addicted himself thereto, he would much more have furthered the Peace, and Union, he pretends to promote. It having been, as I have heard, a judgement that Bishop Usher made of him, that if he persisted in Polemical Writings, that he was like to prove a Troubler, rather than a Promoter of Peace.  
As for those passages, collected and Epitomised out of his ●hris●ian Directory, they we e no less astonishi g, then grieving to many, that under pretence to general Reconciliation. he should endeavour to Reconcile 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 forbidden, to have provoked 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 Conscience, and out of the Mouths of Babes can perfect his own praise, because of Enemies, and Avengers.  

11. Falsehood, or delusion. respecting Dr. Tailors work●.  An other heinous thing he lays to my charge, is for my de●usion, as he calls it, in Doctor Tailor's Case, by improving his s●vings, in his Liberty of Prophesy, as t●ough he was wholly 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 advantage thereat, he had since put forth, an Excellent piece called, A Consideration of the Practice of the Church, in Baptising Infants of Believing Parents. And withal that though himself had not answered those Arguments, in his Libert● of Pr●p●e●y, which some thought stood in need of an wearing; Yet D cto● Hamond h●d effectually done the same, in his Letter of Resolution to six Queries, pag. 35, 36, etc.  
To which I reply: Answ. That as to those Arguments of D●ctor Tailors, 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 Enemy, to bring ●orth such convincing Arguments, and Reason's, from his own mouth, to witness to his despised reproached truth.  
Yet truly, 
Reasons why the plea for Anabaptists was Dr. Tailors own sense. 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 Protestant's for Infant's Baptism, 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 themselves, those other Arguments in plea for the A●abaptists, are good in ●pposing them, and so they are accidentally strenghted (in their error, as he calls it) by the we●●ness, and confidence's of weak opposition. 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 Arguments by 〈◊〉 ●ayl●r.  Liberty of Prophecy p. 228) First, t●e Arguments pleaded from the inst●●●tio● of the Type, viz. Circumcision 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 children's part. Eightly, From the Apostolical practice, who having Commission to teach all Nations, baptising them, did Baptise whole Households, Infants being part of Nations, and Households. Tenthly, From the universal practice 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 replied 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, than 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 wholly to 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 Infant's Baptism, Wills p. 36.  
It is true, Answer. about six years after he had written 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 persuade 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. Tailor 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 repeats 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 Circumcision. Secondly, From Children right to the Kingdom of Heaven. Thirdly, To adopt them into the Coverant. Fourthly, From Apostolical tradition; Only adds two or three more savouring, more grossly of Popery, viz. from the use, and necessity of Baptism to pardon thiir sin, Regenerate, and save them.  

3. Because in other 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 Apostolical Tradition for Infant's Baptism. That it was n●t practised fill the third, nor judged necessary till the fourth Century. That there was no Scriptural proof for Infant's Baptism. That the Children of Christian Parents were not Baptism, 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.  

Objection.  But 'tis said one Reason Doctor Tayler gives, why he did not answer those Arguments, was because his worthy Fr●end Doctor Hamond, had in charity, and humility descended to answer that Collection.  
Answer. It is true indeed, Doctor Hamond in that piece, called his Letter of R●solutoin to six Queries; 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 enforced, 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 enforced, 
Dr. Hamond rather confirms than 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 Discourse with Doctor Tailors own words, to that purpose, viz. I consent to the truth of the Doctor's 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, etc.  
And therefore doth he in that Discourse acknowledge these following things:  
First, The weak argui gs from Circumcision either to its typicalness, identity; Reason of difference, or invalidity of parallel with Baptism, so as to found Infant's Baptism upon them, pag. 482, etc. 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 Infant's Baptism from Christ's Precept to baptise all Nations, is one of the blind and lame, that is of more use to betray and lose, then to defend and secure the Fort, p. 494. sect. 96,  
Fourthly, That to conclude Infants were baptised, because Households 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 Infant's Baptism.  It is true the Doctor useth other Mediums, to confirm and establish Infant's Baptism by, which are not usually urged by the Paedobaptists, and which because the Doctor lays 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 Baptisms.  The first is, because Christ's Institution of Baptism, doth not exclude Infants from Baptism, there being nothing in Christ's 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 Doctor's Arguments, and upon which he seems to lay the greatest stress, to found and enforce Infant's Baptism, is from the Custom of Baptising 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, 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 men's feet, ears, and tongue, that they may come, believe, and confess, and so be capable of Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism, 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, etc. 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, that we should believe that the Mosaic Law, either may or ou●ht to be understood therefrom? Much less the Gospel, to which they are professed Enemies: The Talmud is called a Labyrinth of errors, and the Foundation of Jewish Fab●es: It was perfected, and acknowledged for authentic, five hundred years after Christ: And out of it, Maimonides drew his Doctrine, as also the rest of them; therefore we cannot acquiesce in such testimony.  
And again upon the d●fference he takes notice of, that was betwixt two of their greatest Rabbis, upon that point (who were cotemporaries) viz. Eliazer, that affirmed that the Prosolytes were Circumcised, and not Baptised; And Joshua, who attested the qui e contrary, that th●y were Baptised and not Circumcise●, saith: V●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, etc. 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 professing Christianity, should be so left o● God, to assert and establish Gospel Ordinances from the Fabulous Talmud, and their lying Rabbis, so directly contrary to the Scripture, is mat●er of the greatest admiration.  
A third 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 Martyr's Responses, Irenaeus, ●●ginus, Origen, Cyprian, the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, St. Augustin, and the Milevi●an Council. 479, to 482. The force of all which you'll have tried in the next following Chapter, to wh●ch I refer you. And so you have the substance of Doctor hamond's 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 strong 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 there I had not substantial ground, to quote Doctor Tayl●rs Arguments, he gives in his Liberty of Prophesy, in the behalf of Believers, and against Infant's Baptism, and whether Mr. Will, had reason to charge me with delusion, for producing of them; which as yet stand unanswered for the most part, and I believe ever will do.    

CHAP. II. That Infant's Baptism hath neither Foundation in Scripture, or Antiquity, is made good, against Mr. Wills his pretences to both.  
Section. 1 AS in the former Chapter, so in this, I shall sum up what I have said, to justify the truth of the assertion, what Mr. Wills grants thereof, wherein the force of his Objections lie, and my Reply thereto.  

That no Precept or Practice for Infant's Baptism.  The first thing I did herein, was to make good the Scriptures total silence, either as to Precept, or Practise, for Infnnts Baptism, and that by the full grant, and acknowledgement of so many of themselves; viz. the magdeburg's, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, Staphilus, Choelens, Melancton, Zwinglius, Rogers, Baxter, pag. 89. to 93  
As also the necessity of Scripture Precept, or Example, to warrant every Ordinance, by the say of Tertullian, Austin, Theophilact, Luther, Calvin, Ball, 6. Art. of the Church of England, pag. 93, to 97.  

Mr. Wills Answer, & grant.  All which our Antagonist, fully grants, with our foresaid Authorities, viz. That there is neither Precept, or Example for the Baptising of Infants, that is to say, Expressly, Literally, and Sillabically, p. 35, 36, 32. And that Scripture Authority is necessary to warrant every Ordinance; But withal saith these two things, viz.  
First, 
1. No Scripture forbidding.  that as there is no Scripture expressly commanding so, neither is there any Scripture, excluding, Infants from Baptism, nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptised, pag. 36, 38, 101, 131, 132.  
Secondly, 
2. Good consiquence for it.  Though a thing may not expressly the commanded, as Thus saith the Lord jesus, Baptism your Children, for they believe; yet that it may be commanded Implicitly, and by Consiquence, though not expressly enjoined in so many words: (And so was the Resurrection by Consiquential Reasoning proved, Act. 22.31, 32. Act. 13.33, 34.) And what was thus commanded, is as valid, and obliging as if it was in so many Letters, and Syllables; and thus we affirm Infants Baptism is commanded, p. 36. And we affirm against their practice of plunging over head, and ears, that there is no express command for the same, nor Example to plunge them as they do, with their  on, pag. 101. And therefore in Mr. Baxters' words tells us (in his usual Civility) what ignorant Wretches we are, to call for express words of Scripture, when we have the evident consequence, or sense, and is Scripture Reason (saith he) no Scripture with you?  
To both which I reply, First, 
Reply to the first.  to his first Argument, that Infant's Baptism may be lawful, because not forbidden in the Scripture, nor no where told where it was not done; May also prove the Lawfulness of Baptising Bells, and Church Walls, of Chrism, Exorcism, Communicating Infants, and a hundred other inventions, that were practised of old, and still are in use amongst the Papists; neither is it any where told us, in Express terms, that such things were not practised.  

What not commanded in worship, is forbidden.  But this we have clear in the Scripture, and and which is to be a Rule to us, in all such Cases, that that worship, which in express terms is not comman●e●, is expressly forbidden; and for which take the following Scriptures, viz.  
Col. 2.20, 21, 22. If you be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the World, why as though living in the World, are you subject to Ordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not) after the Commandments of Men.  
Matth. 15.9. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the Command●ments of Men.  
Deut. 4.2. You shall not add unto the Word, wh●ch I command you, neither shall you demtnish aught from it, that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God, which I commanded you. 12.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.  
Jer. 7.31. And they have built the High places, etc. which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart.  
Jos. 1.7. Observe to do, according to all the Law, which Moses my Servant commanded, you shall not turn from it, to the right hand, or to the left.  
Which great truth, is well asserted, and defended, by Doctor Owin in his Book, called Innocency, and truth vindicated, in reply to Doctor Parker, 
Dr. Park.  who having in his Ecclesiastical Policy, p. 189. said (with Mr. Wills) that what t●e Scripture forbids not, it allows, and what it allows, is not unlawful, and what is not unlawful, may lawfully be done. Doctor Owin 
Dr. Owin.  thus answers him, p. 345. This tale I confess we have been told by many, and many a time, but it hath been as often answered, that the whole of it, as to any thing of reason, is captious, and Sophistical: For if, because they are not forbidden, they may lawfully be introduced, into Divine Worship, than ten thousand things may be made lawful; But the truth is, although a particular prohibition be needful, to render a thing evil in itself: A general prohibition, is enough to render any thing unlawful in the worship of God, so we grant that what is not forbidden, is lawful; but with all say that every thing is forbidden (that should be esteemed as any part of Divine worship) that is not commanded. (And therefore very excellently, and undeniable proves, pag. 339.) That no part of God's worship, either in the Old, or New Testament, was lawful, but what had some express warrant, from his Word for the same: And that all Additions, and Traditions of Men therein, God reproved, and rejected as vain worship.  
Secondly, as to his second Argument, 
Reply to second, viz. That express not Consiquential Scripture for every part of worship. Mr. Collings.  that is so much a Kin to the former, viz. That implicit; and consiquential Commands, are as valide, and obliging as if expressly enjoined, and commanded: I shall refer him, and the Reader to some eminent Men of his own, for an Answer.  
Mr. Collings before his Vindic. Minist. Evang. tells us: That in things relating to the worship of God, it is a general Rule in which our Brethren, and we have long since agreed, That nothing aught to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel.  

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

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

Only plain Scripture for God's worship.  So that what ever ventures, Persons may make in drawing Consiquences, and Inferrences from the Scripture, for any supposed truths (wherein great care, and caution is to be used) yet is it a known agreed Rule amongst Protestants: That in the Worship of God, (wherein so much Sophestry hath been used to introduce, and impose, not only Ceremonies about worship, but worship itself, from Old Testament Rites, and Observations;) Nothing therein as worship is to be admitted, without some plain, and express word, by precept, or practise, to warrent the same, out of the New Testament. And therefore when Doctor Parker in the aforesaid Book falls so foul, upon this Principle (with intention to raze this great Protestant Bulwark, and tells us p. 171. That the very Mystery of Puratinisme, lies in this very assertion, viz. That nothing aught to be established, in the worship of God, but what is expressly commanded, in the Word of God, and that it is a vile, novel, and unreasonable Principle, that takes away all possibility of settlement in the Church, and the main pretence to all pious villainies, etc. You have Doctor Owin pag. 303. most worthily defending the same, adding only this hereto [viz. as part of worship.] And which he maintains, by the Authority of Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity▪ as well as from the testimony of the most learned Protestant writers.  
Doctor Hamond 
Dr. hamond's.  himself tells us (as Mr. Tombs in his Review hath it pag. 827.) viz. That it is highly unreasonable, that an Institution of Christ, such as each Sacrament is, should be judged of, by any other Rule, whether the fancies, or Reasons of Men, but either the word, wherein the Institution is set down, or the Records of the practice of Christ, or his Apostles in Scripture.  
So that by all this evidence it appears, 
Mr. Wills his unreasonableness.  that Mr. Wills is so Hetradox, in both his positions, that he has neither Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, or the learned Protestant Writers, to stand by him therein. And wherein, if he persist, he gives up not only the Independent, but whole Protestant Cause, and all our Reformation at once; For what inventions in worship are their? that Men can impose, with any presence to Decency, and Order, or Analogy to any of the Legal Rites, that may not be introduced, and given way too. And Doctor Owin adds: That all the Superstitions, and Idolatryes; yea all the Confusion, Blood, and Persecution; yea all the Wars, that for so long a season have spread themselves over the face of the Christian World, have come in at this door.  

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

Baptising is Dipping in English.  And as for a plain word, to dip over head, and ears, the word itself doth it, because Dipping, or Emerging▪ as I make appear against Mr. Wills' Sophistry, signifies nothing else, but so putting the thing under water, as to cover it all over; and that not only by the most Eminent Critics, but the constant usage of the word, both in the Old, and New Testament.  
And as for the Baptising with  on, as no Scripture mentions the putting them off, so the light of Nature teacheth there should be some on. And that the  are dipped matters not, so long as the Person is dipped, as all that experience it must needs acknowledge.  

Consiquences from Circumcision proved not Infant's Baptism.  Though as to plain Consiquences, and Scripture Reasoning, we admit, as well as they, provided we have all the parts of worship kept to express words, and Gospel Ordinances asserted by Gospel Institutions. And therefore we deny the inferences usually drawn, from Circumcision, under the Law, for Baptism, under the Gospel, to be either plain, proper, or true.  
And because Children were Circumcised, under the Law, by an express positive command, therefore that they may be Baptised, without any Precept, or command, under the Gospel, holds not by any means. For though in some things Circumcision, may have some analogy with Baptism, viz. in heart Circumcision, or Mortification, must it therefore be good in all? it holds not. For though the Ark, as Doctor Tayler well observes, in some thing holds Analogy with Baptism, therefore to draw in all the Circumstances, of the one, to the other, would make Baptism a Prodigy, not a rite; and therefore, saith he, Types, and Figures prove nothing, except some Command accompanies. Had we as Express a command to Baptise Children, under the Gospel, as they to Circumcise them, under the Law, it would end the Controversy; But as we have neither Command nor Example, as granted, so neither can there be any Analogy, either in subject, qualification, or end, as so largely proved: Not in subject, one being to be Males only in Israel; the other Males, and Females in all the World; Not in qualification, one to be the Natural Seed of Abraham, without respect to Faith, and Repentance; the other the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, with respect to Faith, and Repentance; for that is required in all Persons that are to be Baptised, as so fully granted. Neither in the ends, the one to enter visibly into the National Church thereby; the other into the Spiritual Church, and to partake of Spiritual Ordinances, so entering also into Covenant, and acting Faith in the Promises, and sharing of Privileges, in the very act of entrance, that no Child, under the Law, or Gospel, could be capable of.  
In the next place, as to the Antiquity of enjoining Infant's Baptism, with all its impious Concomitants, of Salt, Oil, Spittle, Chrism, Exorcism, etc. He grants it was not till above four hundred years after Christ in the Milevitan, and Carthaginian Counsels; But withal saith, the Reason why it was not enjoined sooner, was because the Lawfulness of it was rarely, if it all questioned before.  

A good grant from Mr. Wills for the witnesses against Infant's Baptism.  To which I say, then if it be so, that the Canons in the respective Counsels enjoining, and enforcing Infants Baptism, [whereof, he saith, he hath above thirty to produce] were only made upon the occasion of those that denied, or opposed it: We have then our Witnesses throughout all Ages, confirmed by himself; yet with all I must remember him, presently, that though these first Canons, and those in other Centuries, were made against those that denied Infant's Baptism, to curse, and Excommunicate, and destroy them, yet it was denied long before any Canons were made to impose it.  
And further he affirms. That though Infant's Baptism was not imposed, before the fifth Century, yet that it was practised in the former Centuryes, from the Testimonies of Justin Martyr, and Iraeneus, Origen, and Cyprian.  
To which I say, 
No proof that Infant's Baptism was practised in the 3. Century.  that as to the validity of our Author's testimonies, as to the practice of Infant's Baptism in the first times, we shall presently Examine; though I deny not, but that it was discoursed before the third Century, and which appears, as I have owned, by Tertullia's Reasoning against it; but the thing I affirm, is that it is not manifest by any Authentic Authority, that it was practised as an Ordinance of Christ before; As Doctor Barlow so well observes, viz. that he doth believe it came in, in the second Century, (viz. in the Notion) and in the third, and fourth began to be practised, and defended to be lawful, by the Text grossly misunderstood Jo. 3.5.  
And as to the magdeburg's themselves, though they tell us, that from what they find from Origen, and Cyprian, concerning it, they conclude it was practised; and that many Superstitious Rites in Baptism were also spoken of, in those first Centuries: Yet do tell us withal in express words, Century 3. ch. 6. p. 125. Nec de susceptione, de Baptismo, explicari quidquam inveniat, in omnibus hujus saeculi, veris & probatis Scriptoribus: Neither can one find any thing spoken of, the Susception of Baptism, in all the true, and approved Writers of this Ag●. They tell us indeed, of o●e only instance, mentioned by Vincentius, who wrote of the affairs of the Gallican Churches, mentioning a Family, that was Baptised, in the time of Aurelianus the Emperor, in which there was a Godly young man, by name Symphorianus, who was Baptised by Benignus the Presbyter; but with all they say of this Vincentius, Author non ita satis probatus: An Author not so well approved of.  
Therefore till any instance be produced, of any Child that was Baptised as an Ordinance of Christ, within the first three hundred years, or towards the Conclusion of it, I am yet unreprovable in that my assertion; For if it should be taken for granted, that those four before mentioned had spoken of it, yet if they do not speak of the practice of it, which is all that I assert, I am very safe in what I have said.  

Tradition the principal Ground, that hath been urged for Infant's Baptism.  
Section. 2 
Tradition the principal Ground upon which Infants Baptism was 1. founded  THe next thing to be enquired into, is the principal Ground, upon which Infants Baptism was first imposed, and afterwards established, which I have made appear to be humane, or Unwritten Tradition, by divers Authorities, both Ancient, and Modern, p. 133.  

Austin.  Austin saith, That Infant's Baptism is not to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition, etc.  

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 Ancients, etc.  
Doctor Field, 
Dr. Field.  That Infant's Baptism is therefore called a Tradition, because it is not delivered in the Scriptures, that the Apostles did Baptise Infants, or that they spould do so.  
Convocation at Oxford, That without the consentaneous judgement, and practise of the Universal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infant's Baptism. 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 Ancient 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 Infant's Baptism.  there is such a vast difference betwixt the Church of Rome, and them, in the point of Tradition, about Infant's Baptism, wherein he owns them too corrupt; yet for my part I see not, as Mr. Wills represents, the Protestant sentiments about it, where the vast difference lies, 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 Apostolical Tradition not written; 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 Infant's Baptism is therefore called a Tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in the Scripture, that the Apostles did baptise Infants, nor any express Precept they should do so: And that Tradition is the practice of such things, as are neither contained in Scripture expressly, nor the Examples of such practices expressly 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 precept, nor practise, expressly 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 Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism (as it is gathered from the Scripture, and appointed by the Church) is of equal authority with the Scripture itself, 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 Infant's Baptism, proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture, aught to be esteemed as firm, and good as the Scripture itself, p. 117.  
Do the Papists teach, 
4. Papists that the Church the subject, not Author.  that Infant's Baptism 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 Infant's Baptism was an Apostolical practice, and Ordinance, not that the primitive Church was the Author, but subject thereof, Christ himself having appointed it, and approved thereof; (though not where written) p. 119.  
Fifthly, Do the Papists maintain, 
5. Papists testified by the Ancients.  That the Truth of this Ecclesiastical Custom, of Infant's Baptism, is handed down to us, to be an Apostolical Tradition, by the writings of almost all the Ancients, Treat. Bap. p. 133.  
So do also the Protestant Paedobaptists defend, 
Protestant witnessed by all the Ancients.  That the holy Ordinance of Infants, Baptism, hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church; for there is no ancient Writer, that doth not acknowledge its Original from the Apostles, Master Wills pag. 102.  
So that by this Parallel we cannot find, where the great difference lies, 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 it, is fully owned by Mr Baxter, in his Prince 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 Baptise 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 fairly to be gathered by Consequence, p. 507. which therefore must needs be the principal Ground, the Ground of the Ground; so that if the Unwritten Tradition prove a mistake, the pretended Scripture Ground, to justify it, 
Communicating Infants is said to be an Apostolical Tradition as well as Infant's Baptism.  must needs be a mistake also: As for instance, the giving of the Sacrament to Infants, was asserted by the say of the Ancients, to be an Apostolical unwritten Tradition, and so practised for many Ages, and this not without a pretended Scripture ground, to justify the said practice 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 necessarily prove a mistake. And therefore (saith Doctor Barlow) upon the like gross mistake, they did defend Infant's Baptism, from John 5.3. and he affirms, they may do one, as well as the other.  
Therefore let all Men judge, whether Mr. 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 Infant's Baptism: For take away the Unwritten Tradition, than the pretended Scriptures, to justify that, avail nothing.  
It is true the Papists are larger, 
The Pap●sts are larger in point of Tradition than the Protestants.  in the business of Tradition than the Protestants, and affirm a larger power, through their Infallibility to determine about it, than the Protestants can own; 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 Authority with the Scriptures: As for instance, their Chrism, Exorcism, Salt, Oil, Spittle (very ancient Traditions, if not more ancient than Infants Baptism it se●f) as Appendices, if not essentials to Baptism: And so Altars, Copes, holy Water, Temples, Holy days, with a vast number more of like kind, gathered also from Scripture Analogy, from Old Testament rites, as Infant's Baptism from Circumcision. And therefore do they reprove the Protestants, for not receiving all the rest, as well as Infant's Baptism, being all upon one bottom, viz. Apostolical Tradition, gathered from Scripture's Consequence.  
The Fathers also herein, 
The Father's larger in point of Tradition than 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 sound than the Papists) viz. Cyprian, Austin, and others of the Ancients, hold Chrism, Exorcism, Infant's righ● to the Supper, etc. 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, etc. The unwritten Traditions, which we keep, are given by the Apostles themselves, or general Counsels, etc.  
And amongst other things (with Infant's Baptism) 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 itself. This length our Paedobaptists cannot go, with the Fathers, and Papists in other Traditions, though they hold fast that of Infant's Baptism with them, which was the main Argument for it till Luther's time, as Mr. Tombs tells Mr. Baxter in his third part of the Review, pag. 767. Nor do I think Mr. Baxter can show me one Author, till Luther's day, who made Infants Baptism, any other than 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 ascribe 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 Tradition above Scripture, but that they make it equal wit● it. I grant, etc.  
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 Ancients; Let us therefore, in the next place, particularly examine the respective Authorities from Antiquity, avouched for the same; for if they fail, the whole Fabric tumbles down. Here also:   

The Antiquities urged by Mr. Wills, to prove Infant's Baptism an Apostolical Tradition, disproved.  
Section. 3 THere are five Authorities, 
5. Authorities to prove Infant's Baptism Traditional.  that have been usually brought to prove, Infant's Baptism 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 false, all the rest depending upon them, necessarily 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 early discover itself, not only to usher in, but to support this Innovation, by Lies, 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. Baptism] whereby it may well be inferred, saith Mr. Wills from Mr. Baxter, that if all may receive it, than 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 mere impertinency, and nothing to the purpose.  
For first, here is not one word of Infants, nor of Infant's Baptism, or its Apostolicalness.  
Secondly, it is very absurd (the better to hook in Children) to interpret the word [all] to be all Men; for if all Men, than it must comprehend wicked, as well as good; Believers, as well as Unbelievers; and which (as confined to Baptism, by Master Wills) is to contradict Christ's Commission, and the Apostles practise, who limited it only to those, that repent 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 profane; And if the word All, be so to be understood, it is a witness for us, not them, for Infants thereby are excluded, who 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 Baptism, to have their new Birth perfected. But in this very Dialogue to Tryphon, tells us, that by the Word, and Baptism, Regeneration was perfected, in all man kind, (viz. in all that did hear, and receive the word, and were capable to come to Baptism.) And again, that by the grace of God, and the Baptism of Repentance, sins were expiated, as magdeburg's Cent. 2. pag. 4. 7. which sufficiently declares, that this is nothing to the purpose, except it be to confirm Believers Baptism only.  
And to which saith Mr. Tombs, 
Mr. Baxters singular Notion.  This testimony for Antiquity of Infant's Baptism, I remember not alleged by any before Mr. Baxter, and therefore, besides the impertinency of the words, as he himself allegeth 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 Infant's Baptism Apostolical, 
Iraeneus testimony examined.  viz. Iraeneus, who in Lib. 2. c. 39 Advers. Haeres. tells us, that Christ did sanctify 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 Baptism, as the Ancients for the most part took it, than were the Infants baptised in his day, Wills p. 129.  
To which I reply, that if this be any more to the purpose then the former, let all Men judge; and whether it be not far fetched, and unnaturaly screwed, without either Reason, or truth?  

Very impertinent.  For first, here is not one word of Infant's Baptism, 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 wholly fallacious, for neither the Scriptures, nor Justin Martyr, do call Baptism Regeneration absolutely, but only as it is the Symbol 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 Hypocrites, 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. Tombs has so well answered Mr. Baxter in his third Review, pag. 79. (And which was never yet replied to) that we need say no more to it, viz.  

Mr. Tombs.  But Christ was not in his Age, an Example of every age by his Baptism, as if he did by it sanctify every age, for than he should have been baptised in every age; but in respect to the holiness 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, than he came to save Simon 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 Infant's Baptism 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 wholly 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 Authentic Au hor, that Infant's Baptism 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 Paedobaptism; 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. Tombs 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 Ancient Writer, that doth not acknowledge, the Original of the holy Ordinance of Infant's Baptism, even from the Apostles. And to Mr. Marshal also, who saith that the Church hath been in possession of Infant's Baptism this fiveteen hundred years, and that no one Authority can be found witnessing thereto, for two hundred years after Christ.  

Origen's testimony tried.  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 Leu. l. 8. Hom. 8. and in Luke Hom. 14. In these words, the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptism to Children (who had the secret Mystery of Divine things committed to them) because they being defiled with the pollution of sin, aught to be washed, or cleansed by the water, and Spirit, etc.  
To which we have said these three things, viz.  

Reason given before agaidst it in Treat. of Baptism.  First, that Origen is but one single testimony, (as Doctor Tayler observes) and that against so much authentic testimony 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 erroneous, and particularly in the point of Baptism.  
Thirdly, that many of his Works, and particularly these that treat of Baptism, 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 origen's Testimony was in the Case, you have Doctor Tailor in his Deswasive against Popery, 2. part pag. 118. printed 1667, one of his last pieces, saying thus: 
Dr. Tailor that Origen was but a single Testimony.  That there is Tradition to baptise Infants, relies but upon two witnesses, Origen, and Austin, and the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly upon a single Testimony, which is but a pitiful 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 Ludou. 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 owns his corruptions, 
Mr. Wills grants the 2.  and great errors, but saith to balance 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 Homilies 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 origen's works, yet that Jerom did translate his Romans, 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 appears to be grisly mistaken.  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, said in per Oratione quasi Sori●es suo se produnt indicio: Herein the Booksellers h●ve been very impudent, both in the Preface, and 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 itself manifests sufficiently, that it was done not by chance, but of design.  
But than 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 Homilies on Luke (what ever they have to say, on that on the Levit. and the Romans) where Origen expresseth the same thing, concerning Infant's Baptism, 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●.  than it is not denied, 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. Tombs 
Tombs.  observes in his third Review, pag. That Erasmus saith on Luke 1.3. Sic enim visus est sentire, quis is fuit, 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 shows (saith he) that Erasmus took them not to be origen's, or at least doubted thereof.  

Vossius.  And Vossius Disputatio 14. Sect. 8. p. 181. saith thus (having cited origen's whole testimony out of Luke, etc.) Sed de Origene minus laborabimus, quia quae citabimus Graece non extant: But we care the less for origen's, 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 origen's 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 monuments, quo Ruffinicas arts 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 Infant's Baptism, were not origen's, 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. etc. But notoriously did deny Original sin, as pag. 265. And therefore doth Doctor Owin, in his display of Arianism 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 origen's, 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 Apostolical.  
The Last, and chiefest, 
Cyprians testimony examined.  that is pretended to warrant this an Apostolic Tradition, is that of Cyprian, in his, and his 66. Bishop's Epistle to Fidus, (who is placed by Usher 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 Epitome of his Epistle.  but a whole Council, that Infants might be baptised before the eight day; & the Reasons to enforce it are these that Follow. First, Because the Baptism 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 than others, and so they need less pardon than Men of grown years, therefore less hindrance in them, to come to God's grace. Fifthly, Because in their first 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 Infant's Baptism 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 enforce 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, Chrism, and other inventions were so too.  
Secondly, Because there is ground to Question, whether there was any such Council: First, Because there is no place mentioned, where such a Council 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 magdeburg's 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 magdeburg's say that he did so affirm it.  
Reply. To which I say, that in proofs of Apostolical Tradition, it is necessary to bring such only, that upon warrantable ground are positive in it: For this at the best can be urged, but as a consequential proof, and far fetched 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 Christ's time, therefore it was the practice of the Apostles, which if allowed, would be excellent authority, for all the Superstitious observations of Chrism, Exorcism, and an hundred more of those knacks.  
But he tells us, the magdeburg's say, that Cyprian affirmed, it was so. And that is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm, except some ancient, and authentic 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 Chrism was so. He replied:  
And doth not the same exception lie against Tertullian, who as the magdeburg's tell us, was the inventor of Chrism, and therefore (says he) is such inflexibleness, stifness, and partiality, fair, and equal?  
To which I say, Reply. If Tertullian, his Master▪ was the inventor of Chrism, which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition, what credit then is to be given to his testimony, that dares to avouch so fearful a lie so knowingly.  
Secondly, If he should tell us, upon his own word, two hundred years after, that both were Apostolical, we have great reason to distrust, that of Infant's Baptism, when we know the other is a manifest Falsehood.  
Neither is there the like reason, to reject Tertullia's Testimony against Infant's Baptism: First, because it is only urged as matter of Fact, that Infant's Baptism was denied 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 Baptisms, 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 denied it, and at the same time told us, a manifest lie of them also, there had been, the like cause to have questioned his evidence: And as to Tertullia's 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 Council? He first answers with a scoff (And that is strange for one that hath launched out, as he hath done, into the vast Ocean of Antiquity) then gives the reason, why he judges there was such a Council, 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 Council, because so many had a good esteem of it: For all the same Fathers, he mentions, esteemed very well of Chrism, and Exorcism, etc. asserted by Cyprian; Doth it therefore follow they were appointed by him in Council, and to be received therefore by them, and all others, without further dispute. But that Cyprians Dictates were not so authentic among the Ancients, may appear by their universally rejecting, his Doctrine of Rebaptisation, though determined in an undoubted Council, at Carthage in Africa, 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 Council gives for that their opinion, which I urge in the third Reason: Only he Cavils with me for the Argument I urge from Augustine's Confession against this Council, viz. that it had not been determined in any Council, saying, that it is a pitiful mistake, and misunderstanding of Augustine's words; who saith: Who had not its first institution from some Councils. To which I say, the words are: Nec Consiliis institutum: Neither instituted, or decreed in Counsels. There is no first: So that he did certainly, by these words, conclude against any institution, or Determinaiton, in this, as well as any other Council; and this to be sure, if it be not in this supposed Council, of Cyprian determined, and instituted, he finds it not where else (this being the first Council, that ever is pretended to mention it, and excepting Origen he particularizeth, no authority higher. Augustine's words run thus: That which the Church (viz. in his time) held, and which had neither been institute●) in Cyprians, nor) in other Council (so concluding against all Counsels) and which was always held (yet gives no higher account, to prove that universal Tenet than 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 fond asserts, that it is next to nothing, and just as good, and authentic, as Augustine's 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 lies for them, and their new imaginations, which feign that Baptism of Children is the Pope's commandment.  
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 Infant's Baptism, as is from the Pope for the same, that the lie he talks of, will certainly rest at their door, who with so much confidence assert, that it was Christ's precept, and the Apostles practise, and yet are able to bring no more from Scripture, or Antiquity, to warrant it, whilst all that full-mouthed, and undeniable evidence, from the Pope's Canons, and Decrees, are manifested by us for the same.  
But if it should be granted Mr. Wills, that this of Cyprians Decree was authentic, and that there was then a Determination, to baptise all Children upon the Reasons, and Grounds mentioned therein (viz. because God's 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 Infant's Baptism 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 baptising of all Children, nor upon those grounds asserted, which he reprobates, as Popish, and Ridiculous: And therefore Protogenes his schaeme for baptising 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 Counsels wrote after, and which the Papists have followed ever since, and who therefore do as much renounce Mr. Wills Infant's Baptism, as he doth theirs, upon which score it it was that the Latins counted the Baptism 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 denied Infants Baptism, 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 Baptism of the Infants of Believers only, he cannot go higher than Luther or Zwinglius, as Mr. Tombs observes, and if for the Children only of Inchurched Parents, (which I conceive to be his judgement) he cannot extend it higher than 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 Infant's Baptism, as is so fully acknowledged. Secondly, That the Scriptures silence, or it's not forbidding, cannot justify any thing in God's worship, and that nothing but an express Scripture that carries, thus saith the Lord Jesus along with it, can free any from Superstition & false worship; which fully excludes Infant's Baptism by their own Grants, Mr. Wills acknowledging (they cannot say), thus saith the Lord Jesus, Baptise your Children. And thirdly, It is as fully manifested, that the pretended Antiquity, for the practice of Infant's Baptism fails; none proving it higher by any approved Author, than the fourth, or fifth Century: And then no other Baptism, then hath been renounced by most Protestants, as corrupt, and erroneus; And that however the Papists, and those that go their way, may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth, or fifth Century: Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his, then New England, or at the furthest then Luther.    

CHAP. III. Wherein the Witnesses against Infant's Baptism, are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions.  
THe Witnesses produced by me, against Infant's Baptism, were either particular Persons, or Churches, as you have them at large mentioned in the seventh Chapter.  
And first, as to the evidence from particular Persons, Mr. Wills in his Preface tells us: 
1. From particular Persons.  That notwithstanding all the flourishes Mr. D. makes, and the numerous Quotations, he hath fetched from the Magdeburgensian History, in his seventh Chapter, from the first Century, to the end of the twelfeth, there are but two Persons, to be found against Infant's Baptism; viz. Adrianus, and Hincmarus, 
Mr. Wills owns b●t two in the whole.  which is just the same Number, he was pleased to allow me before, for Believers Baptism; But whether these, and their fellows, may not speed, as well as the former, shall be put to as fair a trial, and so submitted to judgement.  
The first of my Witnesses, urged against Infant's Baptism, was Tertullian, who doth, 
Tertullian thc first witness.  as expressed pag. 221. eminently oppose it, in six Arguments: First, from the mistaken Scripture, Matt. 19.14. suffer little Children, etc. (by which it seems some would have introduced such a practice) which could not, as he saith, be properly applied to Infant's Baptism, for several Reasons urged from their incapacaties. Secondly, from the weigthiness of that Ordinanee, which required Caution, and consideration, and no such haste. Thirdly, from the sinfulness of such a practice, by Profaning an Ordinance, and partaking of others sins. Fourthly, from the absurdety of such a practice, in refusing to intrust them with Earthly things, and yet commit Spiritual things to their trust. Fifthly, from the Folly of exposing witnesses, propounded it seems, to supply the want of capacity in them, and to undertake for them. Sixthly, from the consideration that the Adult, upon many considerations, were the only proper Subjects of Baptism. And to which we may add a Seventh (which he is pleased (so falsely) to say, I purposely, and subtly omitted, there being no cause for it, that I know) viz. From the insignificancy of the end, propounded for the same, viz. To take away sin from Children.  

Mr. Wills owns Tertullia's wit.  To which testimony, in the First place, he gives us this acknowledgement, pag. 96. viz. That it is acknowledged that Tertullian, who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church, hath divers passages seemingly against Infants Baptism, but yet withal it must be considered, that his Testimony (such as it is) is but the testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church.  
Where by the way, we may take notice, that our witness is owned by him, but the general custom of the Church, he speaks of, is yet to be proved as utterly disowned by us, and for which there is not the least colour of truth as yet produced.  
And again pag. 6. he doth grant, That the magdeburg's do indeed tell us, that Tertullian in this third Age, opposed himself to some that asserted Infants Baptism, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptism. 
Charges him wit● corruption, and weakness.  But what a corrupt Person he was, and how weakly he had Reasoned, he endeavours with much keeness to demonstrate.  
In answer whereto I say, that his witness being allowed, and to be such a Doctor of Note too, in the Latin Church, it is sufficient; and I think, we need say nothing to those cavils of corruption, and weakness, the evidence being acknowledged, (the main thing intended) and which will be endless to answer, in every Authority that may be urged pro, and con.  
But yet in as much as he is our first witness, and speaks so much Reason, and truth, and so much to the purpose; And to make Mr. Wills his unreasonable opposition, the better to appear, we shall give some distinct reply, to his Exceptions against this our witness, whom he areignes for so much corruption in Doctrine, and folly in this his particular witness.  
And first, for that great corruption in Doctrine, 
1. The corrupt Doctrine he charges Tertullian with.  he charges him with, about Chrism, Exorcism, etc. I presume there are none of his ancient Doctors comes short of him, and who were as much Montanists as he therein, viz. Origen. Cyprian, Chrysostom, Austin, etc. only herein Tertullian was more Orthodox, holding none of those to be Jure Divino, whilst they took them to be Apostolical Traditions, and essential to Baptism, Magdeb. Century 3. chap. 10. pag. 240. compared. 82. 225. 248. And for those evil sentiments of God, and Christ, it is certain that Origen did far exceed him, as you will find at large in his Naevi, pag. 261. etc. and which argues a very partial mina to be so quick sighted in the one, and so stark blind in the other. And as to his being a Montanist, before he wrote his Book of Baptism, which Mr. Wills affirms, I see it not confirmed by any good Authority, the magdeburg's tell us, that from Carthage, he went to Rome, 
Tertullian no Montanist before he wrote fo● Baptism.  and lived long there, where he wrote against the Montanist, and wrote his Book of Prescriptions, as Helvicus saith, the fifth of Severus, which Mr. Wills owns to be about the fortyth year of his age: And the said Helvicus tells us, that it was twenty years after, before he wrote fore the Montanists. And he that writes the lives of the Primative Fathers, pag. 82. tells us, that in the eleventh year of Severus, Tertullian wrote his Book of Baptism, against Qui●tila in his third Tome next to his Prescriptions, and in the fivetenth year, his Book of the Resurrection, etc. But if he was turned Montanist before, the matter is not much, for it must be owned, that a Man that is erroneous in one thing, m●y be Orthodox enough in another: The business is, whether as to matter of fact, he spoke these things against Infant's Baptism, and that is not denied: And in the next place, whether he spoke not reason, and truth▪ in that his testimony, which in the next place we shall examine.  
Therefore Secondly, as to the weakness of his Argument, which he renders so contemptible, and ridiculous, and guilty of so much dotage, I make the following particular reply to each exception, viz.  
First, as to his first Argument, 
1. He abused not the Text Mat. 19.14.  from the mistaken Scripture, he saith, he abuseth the Text by his Paraphrases. But second thoughts will I presume, tell him, it is no abuse, but a very proper answer to them, that would make the word Come in the Text; to be a coming to Baptism; which, saith he, cannot be, because Children cannot come to that Ordinance, till they are Elder, till they know, and are taught, why they come, etc. Will you have them made Christians, before they know Christ? An● what could be spoken more full, and pertinent, and more agreeable to truth?  
Secondly, From his advising caution, 
2. To defer Baptism is often necessary.  and consideration, from the weightiness of the Ordinance, he makes sport with it, as he applies it afterwards, to young Men, and young Women, viz. that they show d rather defer, & consider what they did, and how much mortification, and sanctification, was required therein, then headily, and rashly to practise it, and which I conceive was wholesome Council, and no ways Ridiculous, and no other than John Baptist gave those that came to his Baptism, viz. that they would first bring forth fruits meet for Repentance, and amendment of Life, agreeing also with the advice our Saviour gives in the Case, viz. To sit down, and consider what the Christian life calls for, and what it will cost.  

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

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

No Rule for Sureties.  Fifthly, From the folly of exposing of Sureties (a good witness against them) which, saith Mr. Wills, speaks nothing against Infant's Baptism: But therein he must pardon me, for take away Sureties (who were afterwards appointed to Repent, believe, confess, promise, and Renounce, for the Children, as you have heard) Infants Baptism must needs fall, which had its main foundation upon them.  
Sixthly, From the Consideration, 
Proper only for the Adult.  that the Adult Persons were the only Subjects, from the necessity of the Prerequisites thereto, viz. Repentance, Faith, Fasting, Prayer, etc. To which Master Wills says, that those might belong to Aliens. But what is that to Tertullia's saying? that they, viz. the Adult, are only to be baptised, from the Reasons, before mentioned, so agreeing also with the Scripture. 
The end insignificant.   
Seventhly, From the insignificancy of the end propounded, viz. To take away sin, and was not this sound Doctrine? And which, I presume, Mr. Wills himself must conclude, much more Orthodox, than all the Decrees of the Doctors, and Counsels, requiring Children to be Baptised (upon penalty of damnation) to take away their sins.  
Now therefore what Reason he hath so to vaunt over this witness, as such a piece of Dotage, and contemn it as so Ridiculous, is submitted to judgement. Let him but produce as good Arguments, from any of his Ancient Doctors, for Infant's Baptism, we shall not contemn them, and when he makes as good a defence for Cyprians, and his 66. Bishop's Grounds for it, we shall not slight, and scoff at it.  
But in further confirmation of this our witness, you have Doctor Barlow, 
Dr. Barlow.  telling us, That Tertullian dislikes, and condemns Infant's Baptism, as unwarrentable, and irrational.  

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

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

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

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

His own grant.  But what need we offer any more, Mr. Wills himself hath already owned it, though not so honest, to add him to the other two, he granted me, which the ingenious Reader I doubt not will do.  
And as to his allegation, that this instance of Tertullias denying it, was a great evidence, that it was early practised in the Church, is already spoke to: For all that can be gathered thence, is that some pleaded for such a practice, and that it was as well confuted, and suppressed (by sound reason, and truth) f●om this Person of Note; but what Man of Note witnessed for it, or that the Church, as he saith, in this time practised it, is yet to be proved, Mr. Wills his insinuation being not sufficient.  

Above 40. particular witnesses against Infant's Baptism unanswered.  After Tertullian I have given you (from pag. 229, to 237, 243, 246, 286.) above forty more particular instances of Persons, that have asserted Believers, and denied Infants Baptism, and to which I did expect (as in Reason, and Justice I ought) some fair return from my Antagonist, but instead thereof meet with the quite contrary, giving me just occasion of complaint.  
First, Because he only excepts against six, 
Except only against 6. or 7.  or seven, and objects nothing against all the rest, and yet allows me but two of the whole Number, viz. Adrianus, and Hincmarus, saying nothing to Vincentius, Victor, Heribertus, Cresconius, Fulgentius, Regienses, Albanus, the Swermers, Arnoldus, Henericus, Bruno, and about thirty more, so fully denying Infants, and asserting Believers Baptism only: And therefore may it not fairly be concluded, that either his silence gives consent to the whole, or else his dealing is very disingenuous, and unfair.  
Secondly, Because his Exceptions against those six, or seven, are so frivolous. 
His exceptions weak & frivolous   
First, He tells me, Berinus 
Berinus.  is nothing to my purpose, because he respects Pagans only; Of which let the Reader judge, who faith as p. 232. that Baptism ought not to be administered to any, without instruction.  
Secondly, That Guillertus, and Smaragdus, 
Guill. & Smaragd.  were both for Infant's Baptism, which I also own; But with all say, that the Dutch Century Writers do tell us, that they both altered their minds, and which I give you at large from them, pag. 234. of which he takes not the least notice.  
Thirdly, That I brought in Durandus, 
Durandus.  a severe Encmy against Anabaptists, as a witness against Infant's Baptism, p. 146. the quite contrary he'll find, is true in my pag. 242. where I proauce him as the great Enemy, and Persecutor of Bruno, and Berengarius, for their witness against Infant's Baptism; and is it not very injurious, and conterdictious for him, to own that Durandus was so severe an Enemy against Anabaptists, and yet not to acknowledge, and allow me Bruno, and Berengarius, my two witnesses I produce, for denying Infant's Baptism, that he persecuted the same, It is true Durandus is in the Index, I do not know how, put among the witnesses, but the said Index directs to the page, where the Story is rightly told you, and from whence he had the account, what an Enemy he was to the Anabaptists.  

Bishop of Apamen.  Fourthly, That the Bishop of Apamen, etc. was mentioned amongst my witnesses, and pag. 231. said to be for Anabaptism, yet not said to be against Infant's Baptism, pag. 146. But the late Century Writers, so calling them in a modern sense, we have no Reason to doubt it.  
Fifthly, That I have nothing to evidence, that Peter Bruis 
Pet. Bruis.  denied Infant's Baptism, but the impudent Stories of two lying Abots, when he knows I produced three, or four Evidences more, to prove it: And he also knows, that those pretended absurdeties he would bring upon the two Abbots, viz. Cluniacenses, and Bernard, are lying forgeries of his own, which I shall presently demonstrate.  
Sixthly, That I have no ground to say, ●hat Wickliff 
Wickliff.  denied Infant's Baptism, p. 146. when I produce so much evidence to prove it, which you have from p. 283. to 289. demonstrating, that he not only affirmed, that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptism, but withal that Children are not Sacramentally to be baptised, and what can be more express evidence in the case.  
Another piece of injurious dealing, 
A notorious fallacy, & abuse detected.  I have to complain against our Author for, is for his fathering so notorious a fallacy upon the Reader, and abuse upon myself, In affirming that I produce a great Bede-role of witnesses against Infant's Baptism, who were so firmly for it, as I in contra, diction to myself grant, viz. Austin, chrysostom, pag. 25. of his. And Theophilact, Anselme, Bede, Gregory, Anslbertus, Albertus, Lombard, etc. And the three Counsels of Bracarens. Tollatan, and Constantinople in his Recapitulation, p. 139, etc.  
Whereas I have again, and ●gain said, that I produce them not as positive witnesses against Infant's Baptism, there being not one of them in my Catalogue (which would have been madness indeed, wh●n I have brought them in amongst those that have asse●ted Infant's Baptism) but for these Reasons only, viz.  
1. First, to show what strong Arguments, 
Why Persons owning Infants Baptism are produced for witnesses.  so agreeing to the Scripture Institution, and pattern, they have themselves produced for Believers Baptism only, viz. From the necessity of Confession and Profession of Faith, and Repentance, before Baptism  
2. Secondly, upon what weak, and erroneous Grounds, they assert Infant's Baptism also, most of which I have given pro, and con, that their contradictions, not mine, may appear.  
3. Thirdly, that, that, which they make to Reconcile that contradiction, may appear insignificant, viz. the Confession, and Profession of Gossips, or Sureties for them, of which the Scripture makes no mention, and whereby all the former Authorities, for Believers Baptism, may appear good for us, and against themselves.  

The witnesses produced from Churches.  Having thus cleared my Testimonies, given in from particular Persons, I come in the next place, to examine what he hath said to the witnesses, produced from the several Churches. I have mentioned, viz. the Waldenses, Donatists, Britain's, &c. concerning whom he is pleased thus to express himself, p. 129. And in reference to the confidence of my Antagonist, that the Waldenses, Donatists, and Britain's, were all against Infante Baptism, when none of them were, makes good the Proverb, Pertureant Montes, etc.  
But what cause he hath for this confident vain glorious boast, will soon be tried.  

The Witness born by the Waldenses, against Infant's Baptism, justified.  

The 4. fold Evidence to prove the Wald. denied Infant's Baptism.  THe first he opposeth, is th●t of the Waldenses, whose witness, against Infant's Baptism, 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 Counsels, Popes, and Emperors, against the Body of the People, for the same. And Fourthly, From the Footsteps thereof, they have left in the several Regions, and Countries, where they have been dispersed.  
Upon which he makes this following reply, pag. 46. viz. That there are two sorts 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 Utopia, 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 Infant's Baptism, pag. 46, and 64. etc.  
To both which I answer, First, that it may be manifest to the Reader, that their Confessions of Faith, do indeed exclude Infants from Baptism, I shall give in a Parallel betwixt, what their Confessions say, and what he, in the Repetition thereof, makes them say, and leave it to judgement, how fairly he hath dealt therein.  
What their Confessions are, as p. 239, etc.  

The Waldenses Confessions of Faith.  [That God hath not only instructed us by his Word] But hath also ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with it, as a means to unite us unto, and to make us partakers of his benefits.  
And that there are only two of them [belonging in Common to all Members of the Church, under the New Testament, viz. Baptism, and the Lords Supper.]  
We do believe, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, water is the visible, and External sign, which represents unto us.  
That which [by the invisible virtue of God operating] is within [us] viz. the Renovation of the Spirit, and the Mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ.  
By which also we are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God their professing, and declaring openly our faith, and amendment of life.]  
We esteem for an abomination, and Antichristian, all humane inventions, as a trouble, and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit.  
When humane Traditions, are observed for God's Ordinances, then is he worshipped in vain, as Es. 19 Matth. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies, and persons enjoined, to partake of Sacraments, without faith and truth.  
That Antichrist attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit, unto the dead outward work of baptising Children [into that Faith] and teacheth that thereby, [Baptism] and Regeneration must be had, [grounding therein all his Christianity, which is against the holy Spirit.]  
What he makes their Confessions to be, p. 45, etc.  
—  
God hath ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with the word, as a means to unite us unto, and to make us partakers of his benefits.  
And that there are only two of them—  
We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism, water is the visible, and external sign; which represents unto us  
That which— is within— viz. Renovation of the Spirit, and Mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ.  
—  
We esteem for an abomination, and Antichristian, all humane inventions, as a trouble, and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit.  
When humane Traditions, are observed for God's ordinances, then is he worshipped in vain, as Es. 19 Mat. 15. And which is done, when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies, and persons enjoined, to partake of Sacraments, without faith, and truth.  
That Antichrist attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit, unto the dead outward work of baptising Children,— and teacheth that thereby,— Regeneration must be had:—  
Whereby you have demonstrated, his great unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions, by leaving out so many material, and considerable parts thereof, that make against him, and then so unfairly, and untruly to say: That there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestants Churhes in the World, in those Articles, and the Waldenses, because all that are for Infant's Baptism, believe the same.  
But whether it be so indeed, let us examine the particulars.  

1. Infants not capable to hear the Word.  First, Do all the Paedobaptists believe, That Baptism, and preaching the Word, are joined together, to instruct the Baptised parties, 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 Baptism, to all the Members of the Church; why then do not Infants partake of one, as well as the other, since it belongs to them in Common, if Members of the Church, as Mr. Wills saith, they are?  

3. Nor to understand the Symbol thereof.  Thirdly, Do Paedobaptists, with the Waldenses, believe as you say, That water in Baptism is the usual sign, representing to the Subjects thereof, the invisible virtue 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, 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 amendment of life. But how is the Infant capable, with the Waldensian Christians (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 Infant's Baptism is a humane Tradition, and why.  are to be esteemed Antichristian Abominations, 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 God's word? and by themselves owned to be an unwriten Tradition?  
Sixthly, Do they believe, 
6. Antichrist groundsall Religion in it.  That Antichrist Grounds all Christianity, and Religion, in the Baptism 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 Counsels, to warrant it.  
Whereby you see, that Infants are manifestly excluded Baptismal, in these six particulars, in these Confessors, and that Paedobaptists cannot 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 Infant's Baptism, yet what do you say to those contrary Confessions, that own the Baptising 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 particular 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 particulars; 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 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 offered 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 conceive, unanswerably spoken to each Confession.  
The Second Demonstration, 
2. From their eminent leading Men, who denied Infants Baptism.  proving that the Waldenses denied Infants Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 Baptism, 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 denied Baptism to little ones, though the latter not so publicly as the former.  

3. Council in France.  Thirdly, By the Council, called by Henry the I. of France, to suppress the Heresies of Bruno, and Berongarius, for denying Transubstantiation, and Infant's Baptism, Bib. Pat. p. 432.  

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

The witnesses to prove it not excepted against  None of which he excepts against, only saith, that there were several Counsels, in which Berengarius was persecuted for the Real presence, but no mention is made of his denying Infant's Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism, 
testified by.  which is made good by these following Testimonies. viz.  
First, That Peter Bruis denied it, is testified by Peter Cluniacenses, 
1. Cluniacenses charge against them.  who amongst the several things he charges him with (fifteen in number) puts his denying Infant's Baptism in the front, in four particulars, 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, denied Infants Baptism and held Rebaptisation, etc. and that when he urged f●r Paedobaptism, the Authority of Austin, and the Latin 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, denied Baptism to little ones, affirming that only the Adult should be baptised.  
Fourthly, Doctor Pridieux saith in his Latin Counsels, 
4. By the Latin Council.  that Peter Bruis, and Arnoldus of Brixia, were in the second Lateran Council censured, for the Heresy of Rejecting Infant's Baptism, 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 Heresy of denying Infant's Baptism.  
And in his 65. Serm. on the Cant. charges them to oppose Infant's Baptism, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, praying for the Dead, etc. 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, denied Infants Baptism.  
Seventhly, Doctor Hamond confesseth, 
7. Dr. Hamond.  that Peter Bruis, and Henry his Scholar, and the Petro Brusiani, and Henricani, that sprang from them, opposed Infants Baptism, Tombs 3. Review, pag. 827.  
To all which Testimony Mr. Wills gives in this Exception, pag. 53. etc. 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism; 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 Baptism, meaning that of Infants.  
Secondly, Corporum resurrectionem negunt: They deny the Resurrection.  
Thirdly, Carnem comedi prohibent: They forbidden eating flesh.  
Fourthly, Christum non esse Deum, etc. That Christ is not God, nor took flesh on the Virgin, etc.  
Fifth●y, Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi in communi, etc. 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 slandered 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 Infant's Baptism.  
I see by this, that when Men are engaged in a cause, and wedded to an opinion, they will not refuse the most sordid, and shameful ways 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. Tombs, who was heretofore checked 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 offered by me, for these my witnesses, amongst the several instances produced, he falls upon that which he thinks the most 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 conceive, were Cluniacenses testimony from Osia●der left out, there is enough from all the rest, to prove that Peter Bruis, Henricus, and Arnoldus, denied Infants Baptism; the latter of which the eminent Arnoldus he takes no notice of.  

2. His Falsehood.  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 entitles 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 mere 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 particulars, 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, against Infa●ts Baptism; the three next, against Transubstantiation, the eighth, against praying for the dead; the nineth, for Priest's Marriage; the tenth, against Adoration of Crosses; the eleventh, against superstitious adoring of Temples; the twelfeth, against Church music; the thirteenth, for the lawfulness to eat flesh on Sundays, and Fast days; the fourteenth, that upon common fame, as he saith, they did not receive the whole Canon of the Scripture (which saith Osiander) was ask supposeth the Apocryphal writings; and which appears by the next, the fifeteenth, that they only received the Canon of Scripture (sol● Canoni credunt) and that the say of the Ancients were not to be compared to it. The 12 first of these Cluniacenses, particularly, and at large in several pages, makes answer too Magdeb. Cent. 12. p. 832. etc. Osiander Cent. 12. L. 3. c. 3. But here is not a word, of denying the Resurrection, Christ's 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 myself 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 particulars, out of the magdeburg's 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 particulars he mentions, were not charged upon Peter Bruis, but upon the Albegeois in the following Century, by other hands then Bernard, and Cluniacenses, 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 sixth, or Heresy, was charged with these things by the Monk's Inquisitors, Sabellicus, Schedelius Anno 1206. who by Pope Innocent the third, that Devil Incarnate, 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 Mankind.  

Why Mr. Wills did this knowingly.  And that Mr. Wills hath done this knowingly, appears, first, by his picking out only the five particulars, 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 patronising Thefts, and Roberies, etc.  
Secondly, that he knows Osiander saith these things, are not reported by Cluniacenses, and Bernard, but by Lucelbergius, Antonius, Vincentius etc.  
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 belied Osiander, belied Cluniacenses, belied Peter Bruis, belied the truth, which by this forgery he would cover, and hid; abused the World, belied, and abused me also in especial, whom he deals so severely with for the same, as you have heard; But much more fear his own conscience, by this piece of folly, and Falsehood.  
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 engaged in a cause, and wedded to an opinion, they will not refuse the most sordid, and shameful ways to promote it.  
Thirdly, 
3. From the Decrees made against them for denying Infant's Baptism.  That the Waldenses did deny Infant's Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism.  
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 Infant's Baptism▪ etc.  
Fourthly, The Decrees of Pope Leo the nineth, Anno 1050. to establish Infant's Baptism, denied 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 Infant's Baptism, and the several ways he took to prosecute, and persecute them, for the same.  
Seventhly, The Decrees in the Gallican Council, against them for the same.  
Eightly, The Decrees of the general Lateran Council, against them for the same.  
Ninenthly, The Decrees of Pope Lucius, Anno 1181. in the Council of Veroni, against them for the same.  
Tenthly, The Decrees of the Pope Urbane, against them for the same.  
Eleventhly, The Decrees of Pope Celestine, 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, & cord hoc Sacramentum p●tat potest prodesse; Ind adducentes hunc errorem, quod parvulis Baptismus aquae nihil prosit: They say, that the Sacrament of Baptism can profit none, but those who with their own proper mouths, and hearts, desire the same; from whence they draw the error, that water Baptism 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 Baptism, they say, that that which is given to little Children profits nothing, and that the Gossip's understand not their Responses to the Priests, Bib. Patr. Tom. 13. pag. 300, 301, etc. 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 Infant's Baptism; 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 Albigenses did deny Infant's Baptism, esteeming it superstitious.  
Against all which he gives no particular 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 Lions, 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 convincing proof to be fetched from hence, of their being against I●fants Baptism, 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 evidence, he shall believe, with Mr. Marshal, that this Doctrine of opposing the baptising of Infants of Believers is an Innovation, no ancienter than the Anabaptists in Germany, and for which he quotes, Joseph Vicecomes L. 2. c. 1. pag. 103. in Mr. W●ll● pag. 60. 2. part.  

1. Waldense so called from the Valleys from Ancient time  To 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 Valleys, as at large you have it in mine, pag. 338, & 342. And that Claudius Sciscelius, Counselor 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 Lions etc. as Eusebius tells us, p. 340. And set forth in story under divers names, in several Ages, as Doctor Usher tells us, and which you have more particularly, p. 338, etc.  
And to the second, that there is convincing proof, offered from the Decrees of Popes, Kings, and Counsels, 
Mr. Marshal's grant  let Mr. Marshals grant suffice, who in pag. 63. of his Defence for Infant's Baptism, saith thus: I shall desire you, to show that any Company, nr Se●t (if you will so call them) have denied Infants Baptism, produce if you can, any of their Confessions, allege any Acts of any Counsels, where this Doctrine was charged upon any, and condemned in that Council?  
And which I presume is substantially done, both from their Confessions of Faith; and from Acts of Counsels also, where such were condemned.  
And as to that Quotation out of Vicecomes, to prove that none denied Infants Baptism, till the Germane Anabaptists, I hearty thank him for it; which you'll find doth the contrary, giving an Account of several, that denied Infant's Baptism 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 Baptism, 
Vicecom. owns that many had denied Infants Baptism of old.  no one ever doubted thereof, witness (as he saith) the Monuments, or Writings of all the holy Fathers, and Ecumenical Counsels, as well as the Scriptures themselves, especially the Acts of the Apostles.  
But as for Infant's Baptism, 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, etc. 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 denied.  
It is true, Vicecomes in the same place, adds amongst the rest of the witnesses against Infant's Baptism, Luther, Calvin, and Beza; and the reason is, because they did oppose, and neglect to 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 renounce of old▪ as you have heard; the Baptism 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 Countries.  And Fourthly, That the Waldenses did deny Infant's Baptism, appears from the Footsteps we find hereof, in those respective Regions, and places, where they had heretofore imprinted it, as appears by the following 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 Schools in so much, that their Barbes could travel all the Country over, and lie every night at a Friend's house, wherein, both by Doctrine and suffering, this truth was eminently confirmed, 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.  

Flanders.  Thirdly, In Flanders, where it was also confirmed, and seal d with much blood, pag. 267, to 269.  

Holland.  Fourthly, In Holland, or low Countries, 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 persecution, but by their own volontary choice before, into all these R●gions, is not to be doubted.  
But that the Opposers of Infant's Baptism, in the Upper, and Lower Germany, were the remains, and offspring of those the Waldenses, is a conceit foreign to all History, 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 practice of their ancient, and honourable Barbes, and Worthies, by the Decrees of Popes, Emperors, and Counsels; by the prints they have left thereof in the several Countries ('tis confessed they were driven into) and all this by ancient Recoras and authentic Testimony, which I presume I have (as yet) undeniably 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 Germane Baptists do in their Martyrology, prove their dissent from the Waldenses, through out the Centuries. Perin tells us, that Lollard was a Waldensian Barb, and that Jo Wickliff asserted not 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 Baptism, saying that it is of no force▪ nor profitable to any, before they are taught, and do believe, but concerning that Baptism, according to Christ's appointment, they have a very high value, and esteem, Dutch Martyr, pag. 307.  

Dubravius etc.  Secondly, That the Waldenses were called Anabaptists, long before John Hus, they quote the testimony of several, viz. Dubravius, M●chovius, Cromerus, Mr. Glaucus from Merningus p. 733.  

Rain●riu●.  T●i●dly, That the said Merningus pag. 618, 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism.  
Fourthly, they tell us, that Balthasar 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 baptising 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 wholly reject that of Infante Baptism, 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 lies for its defence, and an Argument of the want of honesty, and conscience for Men to persist in this Course, when more then enough hath been said, to convince them of the evil thereof; It was a solemn Rebuk, which Job gave his mistaken Friends, etc. Will you lie (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 ways; In particular I have made it appear, that the present Author, with whom I have to deal with, is foully 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 Infant's Baptism, when he cannot but knew they were not only falsely, and maliciously charged (but cruelly, and murderously handled) by their Antichristian Enemies, for their faithful witness to these despised truths, etc.   

The witness born by the Donatists, against Infant's Baptism, confirmed.  

Donatists.  THe next witness he opposeth, is that of the Donatists, concerning whom I gave divers Authorities, proving that they did deny Infant's Baptism.  
To which Mr. Wills is pleased to say, that it is only my ipse dixit, and that I do thereby render myself guilty, of a great mistake, to say, that of them whereas neither the magdeburg's ●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 disingenuous.  according to his wont 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 Infant's Baptism, and assert only that Baptism, that was after Faith, Vicecom. L. 3. c. 3. p. 66.  
Vincentius 
3 Vincentius.  Victor, another who denied Infants Baptism, 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 Infant's Baptism 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 Infant's Baptism.  
Fourthly, Eckberius, and Emericus, 
Eckbertus & Emericus.  learned Writers in the twelfeth Century, contending against the Waldenses, or Catheri, for denying Infant's Baptism, 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 Baptism 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 Baptism.  
Spanhemius 
Spanhem.  also, saith, that the Donanists deny Infant's Baptism, 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 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 Waldenses, 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 justified, by this six fold testimony in my affirming, that the Donatists did deny Infant's Baptism; and that they may well be reckoned 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 Infant's Baptism, 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 Augustine's 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 always counted for Heretics  
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 Chrism, Excorcisme, and other Superstitions, and that Regeneration was effected, in the very act of Baptism, 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 undertaking to defend them, in all the Tenets fathered upon them, more than Mr. Wills doth those that are so undeniably charged upon his witnesses, yet this he must give me leave to say, in vindication of the Donatists, and Novatious, viz.  
First, For the Novations, 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 mention in old ●riters of ●●eir Do●●●es.  And as for the Donatists, the magdeburg's 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 Augustine's 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 Heretics, 〈◊〉 not; for may you not from calvin's writ● pick as great a charge against the Luthe● and as great against the Sacramentarians, out of Luther's writings? Alas what a sad People, doth Mr. Edward's 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; Schism being in all the incensing crime, which draws forth all the gall, and wormwood; and just so it was betwixt Austin, who was so Catholic in his Communion, and the Donatists, that pressed for more purity in their separations, and from whence it was, that all that dirt was fling upon them, and they put into such Bear's skins, as Mr. Wills puts his Opposites in.  
And for those Decrees of Counsels, that past upon them for Heretics, is no good ground to conclude against them, for so they judge the purest Doctrine, and holiest 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, than the Waldenses, Lollards, and Wickliffians, their Followers, and Disciples, that were so truly Orthodox.   

The Witness said to be born against Infant's Baptism, by the Ancient Britain's, defended.  
THe last witness he opposeth, is that born by the Ancient Britain's, 
Ancient Britain's.  and that they denied Infants Baptism, I gave the following Arguments, and which you have at large, p. 226. First, 
Why they denied Infants Baptism.  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 Infant's Baptism; 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 Infant's Baptism, as confessed 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 Union, 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 not 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 magdeburg's 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 Bede  To which he replies 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 therefore gives what Austin replied to the Britain's, 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 Universal Church, nevertheless if you will obey me in these 3. things; viz. that you keep Easter in its proper time; Administer Baptism, 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 Customs; but they answered, they would none of these, nor own him for Archbishop.  
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 particular about Baptism, wherein they did not only contradict the Universal, but Apostolic Church. Now this must needs be in their refusing to baptise Children; First, Because as to the baptising 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 particular Mode, Rite, or Ceremony of Baptism; for the Custom of the Church of Rome was not Universal, 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 Infant's Baptism: First, Because the Church of Rome had particularly 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 Reason, and ends of it, and that they intended the substance, and not the particular Ceremony of the Ordinance. Secondly, Because Infant's Baptism was so universally 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 practice. Fourthly, It would have been Childish, and ridiculous, to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical, which none ever denied, and so fully before received by them; therefore Austin could intent 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 Baptism, and become Christians, as so generally also receiv d.  
And for Mr. Wills saying, They did no more reject Infants Baptism, than 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 Laymen, and Mechanics, but to be set apart thereto by this Apostolical Ambassador, [or proud Lordly Prelate,] which they refused, not admitting him therein, to be their Archbishop, and which explains Augustine's 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 Baptism. and their Superstitious, Observation of Easter; And therefore it was, that this Ant Christian Wolf did devour, and worry this Flock of Christ, because they refused the Popish Baptism, and Ministry. Secondly, As to those five other Arguments given by me, to confirm the former, he saith, they are mere trifles, (which is an Excellent way of Answering, and next to Bellarmin thou liest) which is submitted to judgement.  
And Lastly, He gives another Argument, 
Mr. Wills saith, Pelagius was a Monk of Bangor, & for Infant's Baptism.  why the Britain's were not against Infant's Baptism; viz. Because Pelagius who, as he saith, was one of their Fellow Monks of Bangor, yet did own Infant's Baptism; 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 Britain's, and belonging to this very People, is by no good Authority to be found; For though it is true, Humphrey, Loyd and Mr. Fuller, do so guests, yet they produce no Ancient Author to confirm it; It is true, in Augustine's 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 Britain's where of his judgement, & why.  that he was a Britain, and one of these Monks, it no more follows, that they must all be for Infant's Baptism, 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 sent to them again, and again, from the Elders, and Ministers about Lions, to expel that Poison; and therefore do I call them the Waldesian Christians, who inhabited those parts where their abode was, Magdeb. Cent. 5. p. 1147, etc.  

a Hist. Account of Pelagius  But as to Pelagius, the magdeburg's 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 Catholics he was preferred, and made one of the Monks of Syria, and that having lived long at Rome, went from thence into England, which Islana he wholly infected with his Error (by which it appears, that if he was one of that Society, yet that he got his poison 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 Universal Church; And several Fathers opposed him, viz. Jerom, Austin, and others, and that his Books were condemned by many Synods, and Counsels, 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 confidence's of my Antagonist, that the Waldenses, Donatists, and Britain's, were against Infant's Baptism, when no●e of them were, I shall conclude with a Distich, which I think may not improperly be applied to his whole Discourse: 
Ridiculus tandem ecce Cavis Must prodit ab antris,  
Quem gravidi Montes perturiere diu.   
And from what hath been said, I see no Reason why Mr. D. should be so much offended with Mr. Marshal, and Mr. Baxter, for saying Infant's Baptism 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 small reading, any one Divine, or party of Men, did certainly oppose, or deny Infant's Baptism, 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 deny Infant's Baptism, from the Apostles days, till about Luther's time.    

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

CHAP. IU. Wherein you have the Stories concerning the Germane Anabaptists reviewed, and the Principles and Practice of Anabaptistry (as Mr. Wills calls it) vindicated against his reproaches.  
IN the reflection I made upon the Story of Tho. Munzer, and John of Leyden, 
What before said hereto.  for whose sakes so much obliquity hath been cast upon the Anabaptists and their way, ever since; I principally intended these two things.  
First, to show the unreasonableness of charging the innocent with the crimes of such as are guilty: And to this Mr. Wills in the general consents, though he tells us withal, the suspicion he hath, of the Principle of Anabaptistry itself.  
Secondly, I gave a brief account of matter of fact, and therein shown that those German commotions were not Anabaptistical in their Original, but moved upon the same pretensions, as the Helvetians and others before them had done; then gave the reasons why I thought there was ground to doubt of the truth of what was reported concerning the horrid crimes committed by them in their communities.  

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

Why the Commotions in Swevia not Anabaptistical.  First, that the Commotions in Swevia 1635. were not Anabaptistical appears by their twelve demands, which you have mentioned at large by Osiander Cent. 16. c. 36, p. 100 Wherein is not one word savouring of Anabaptism, but about freedom from Exactions, and to deliver themselves from the Tyranny (as they say) of their Princes and Bishops more Helvetiorum (which Gnedolius also informs us, as I before mentioned) being much of the same nature with those other Demands made by the Rustics twenty three Years before (which was the Year after the Revolt of Berne and Schafhuisen) of which you have also an account in Osiander Cent. 16. L. 1. c. 6. p. 10. And that these commotions were not fomented and principally managed by the Anabaptists may appear; First from those first Demands, which were principally made and managed by the Papists; as Osiander and Bishop Jewel against Harding inform, and the Articles themselves express; and that the Latter Demands in 1625. were principally carried on by the Lutherans, (though it is true Luther afterwards Writ against them) as Osiander tells us. In which attempt also that Year fell of them (as Paget in his Herisography informs us) one hundred and fifty thousand: the hundred part whereof could not be Anabaptists.  
To the second he tells us it is both odious and injurious, to compare those attempts of Geneva and the Swissers with those in Swevia, when none, as he saith, can be such Diaboli as to charge the Swissers with Robbing the Nobility, Plundering of Towns, and Castles, Rifling of all that was Sacred, as those Germans did.  
To which I say, 
Why the Comparisions not odious as charged.  that the Chronicles themselves can best inform how those Cantons formerly, and those of Basil Schafhusen and Geneva since did manage their Confederacies, surprise their Towns and Castles, dispossess their Princes, and Bishops; and possess themselves of their Revenues Civil and Ecclesiastical. For my part I am yet to learn (from what ever I read) where the difference lay in the attempts, only that those Cantons had better Conduct and prospered, and the other had neither Conduct nor Success, but miscarried in both; which if the other had done, as much obloque might have befallen them. And you'll find some Protestant Writers as well as Popish to charge as much iregularity on the undertaking of the one, as of the other; who will tell you that the Boors in Germany, and they of Munster, might as warrantably turn out their Princes, Bishops, and Canons; and posess themselves of their Revenues, as Geneva, and those of Helvetia had done. And we are not ignorant of the several attempts that the City of Munster hath made within a few years, since wholly Popish, to deliver themselves from the Exactions of their Bishop, which by the Bishop hath been esteemed no less seditious and rebellious, than the former.  
Thirdly as to the Original of the Munster commotion, though he grants the turning out of the Bishops, Cannons, etc. out of the Churches, and the City also, by the Reformists. Yet tells me, I speak falsely in saying, that Spanhamius tells us that it came to Arms betwixt the Bishops and City, who saith the quite contrary, and tells us (as he saith) that it never came to blows.  

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

Mr. Wills very partial.  I say Spanhemius and Osiander tells us, etc. He takes notice only of the former, and it is manifest they both of them speak of those first stirs about turning out the Bishop's Canons; Spanhemius it is true speaks very briefly of the difference and Agreement that happened betwixt the Bishop and Senate thereupon, Though I must tell Mr. Wills it is his mistake to say, that Spanhemius denies it came to Armies: for he saith no such thing; But Osiander from Sleyden goes to particulars: And tells us, how the Bishop drew a Force down to a Neighbouring Village called Telgeto, stopped and straightened them of provision (for so saith Sleiden) And sent messengers to command the restoring of the Canons to their Churches again, and the turning out of Town the new Preachers: But how that instead thereof they detained his Messengers, and sent a party out of the Town in the Night and surprised and brought away Prisoners, divers of the Bishop's men; and that he himself had been taken also, if he had not gone out of his Quarters, that Night before. And if this could be done without Arms, and Blows, let all Men judge: and whether the reproof doth not more properly belong to Mr. Wills than myself therein.  
Fourthly, As to the Suspicion (why I supposed there was cause to doubt) of the truth of those monstrous Villainies acted in their Communities in the Latter part of the Siege, as mentioned by their malicious enemies the Papists, and many of their inveterate enemies the Protestants, He saith it is extremely scandalous in two respects, First for calling into Question the matter of fact, especially as reported by the Protestants, who were not (as he saith) inveterate enemies, but very loving friends to them. And Secondly, For endeavouring to palliate such horrid actings of the Anabaptists, a thing never done by any.  

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

Secondly, Several T●o estnts  To which I say, how shall we be assured, that these later writers did not make their Reports from the Popish Writers. For Sleiden wrote not his commentary till 1555. about twenty years after the fact, and Osiander only transcribes from Sleiden. And as for Spanhemius he wrote not till eighty years after Sleiden. upon whom Mr. Wills lays the greatest stress, and who appears to be a very partial and unfaithful writer respecting the Anabaptists in that his Historical Narration printed 1646. First falsely affirming that Stork, Stubner, and Muntzer, were the beginners of Anabaptism, and who First (as his own words express) helped the world to be delivered of that Sect. Secondly in his malicious charging the Anabaptists with all the old Heresies, that he could reckon up in any old Author, viz. That they were Manichaeans, Andians, Anthropomorphites, Trithcits, Samosatenians, Noetians, and Sabellians: Apollinarists, and Prodianites, Anastations, Nestorians, Eutichians, Corinthians, Photinians, Oregenianss Catharists, Novatians, Donatists, Parmenians, Marcionites, Eunomians, Montanists, Nicolaites, Basilidians, Cataphrigians, Gnostics, Pelagians, and Socinians. All which Opinions, he enlargeth upon, and applieth to them, than which what could savour more of the ebullition of a Malicious Spirit?  
And as for Zwinglius 
Zwinglius cruel Enemy with the Anabaptists.  he could give no account of his business, who died five years before it, viz 1531. But as to this great friendsship (Mr. Wills boasts of) By the gentleness and tenderness that he shown to those anabaptists, that fell off from his Church, whom he treated not as Enemies, but as his intimate friends (as he tells us) I shall give you some particular account, wherein you will find what is that Kindness and Gentleness, it seems we might expect from Mr. Wills if it was in his power.  
It is true at first Zwinglius was a great Friend and Companion of the Anabaptists, and a great favourer of their opinion in opposition to that of Infant's Baptism, as Treat. Bapt. p 262.  
But afterwards who more Cruel amongst the Bloody Papists themselves than he, as you have a particular account from those edicts of Zurick, wherein he had the principal hand, p. 260. And the Inhuman Execution of them by drowning, burning, and Starving. It is true to palliate this Cruelty, Mr. Wills tells us from Spanhemius, that they suffered not these severities for being Anabaptists but as perjured, disobedient and seditious persons, which is a farther discovery of his malice and unfaithfulness.  

The cruel handling of the Anabap. at Zanc.  For those very decrees of Zurick extracted by me proved, out of the Dutch Martyrology, where they are inserted word for word, do testify that it was merely upon the account of their Judgement for baptising after profession, those that had been, baptised in their Infancies. And to confirm the same, Gastius tells us. L. 1. p. 178. That the Tigurines) or those of Zurick) do drown them in Water, who do baptise those that were baptised before. And Hornbeck in his Summa Controvers. p. 340. Gives us a pregnant instance thereof, telling us, That Felix Mentzius of Zurick, was by the Command of the Magistrate (whose laws and authorities he had broke by proceeding to rebaptize persens within their Jurisdiction) was himself drowned in water upon 5th. Jan: Anno. 1527. And this was Zwinglius his Kindness to his intimate Friends and Brethren (this Mentzius having been an ancient Disciple and an Eminent preacher) And much the like friendship they met with from their Protestant Friends at Berne and Schafhuisen as you have it p. 256. And therefore it was no wonder, if they could be so prodigal of their lives that they should be so lavish of their Reputations; for the latter would only help to justify the former: for just in like manner did the Papists deal with the Allegeois in Innocent the third his time, the better to cover over their murderous and bloody cruelties against them.  
And as to the second part of his exception against my suspicion, 
Why ground to suspect those horrid things reported to be done at Munster.  which he calls a palliating of those horrid Crimes, and repeats it as if I tied it only to the actions of Jo. Mathias, and John of Leydon, when I mentioned my suspicion of what was reported to be done by the whole party in the Communities in the later part of the Siege: Whereof the Public Stock might give some occasion of Report (as it had done, as I observed, amongst the Waldenses of old, as though with their Goods they had the Women also in common too.) But for these following Reasons Mr. Wills must bear with me, if I do not as yet receive it. 
first Bec. many learned pious men a-  First because, I cannot imagine those five Godly and Learned Ministers, viz. Bernard Rotmannus, Hermam Strapedo, Henricuus Rullius, Godfrey Straling, Julius Frisius, and others, who had been so successful in the work of Conversion in that place (as is cenfessed) and so many sober Citizens, who had with them embraced that Judgement of Baptism after Faith, could so soon renounce all Godliness and Honesty, so as to practise, or give countenance to such unheard of Impieties, and Villainies. 2dly, because Merno Simonis (of whom Cassander saith, there were in him and his Followers tokens of a godly mind, 
Second The Ministers a sober people did not charge it upon them.  saith thus in his Book of Fundamentals concerning this People, viz. I doubt not but these our beloved Brethren who lately did sin against God by defending their Faith with Arms are in the Favour of God. And Mr. Robert Bailie in his Anabaptism, p. 36. saith the Mennonites themselves, the ill best of all who carried the name of Anabaptists, though they Anathematise the Georgians Heresy, yet they approve so far of the Monasterians, that they do much excuse all their wicked practices, and put no doubt of their Saintship and acceptation with God, notwithstanding the Crimes the world charges upon them. And what can his signify but the Mennonists disbelief of the Crimes objected against that wicked Community of the Anabaptists, for had they believed it, they would much more have renounced such moral Impietys', than that of their bearing defensive Arms, which they so witnessed against.  

Third Ber. many of them very holy Martyrs.  Thirdly, Another Argument why I judge these Germane Anabaptists were not given up to such Uncleanness and Wickedness is, because so many of them did (upon the Emperor's bloody Placaet) about this time, as well before and after, so cheerfully seal their holy profession with their blood, twenty of them were Martyred in the Palatinate, An. 1529. and 350 more in Alsatia the same year, and many hundreds more of them suffered upon the same account, some by burning, some by drowning, and some by beheading; of whom, the Dutch Book of Martyrs gives an annual account. And therefore Beza in his Epistle to the Gallo-belgic Churches, at Embden saith, many of the Anabaptists are good men, Servants of God, Martyrs of Christ, and our most dear Brethren. Quosdam inter Anabaptistas esse bonos, veros servos Dei, Christi Martyrs, & charissimos fratres nostros. Hornbeck Summa Controvers. L. 5. p. 364.  
But Mr. Wills his chief improvement of this Story is yet behind; Which is fitly, not only to render the Professors them of vile and contemptible, but the Principle itself corrupt and detestable. And therefore in words at length tells us both from himself and others, that the Principle of Anabaptism is false and dangerous; and a Principle of darkness: upon which many black Characters are Writ. And is not this to the purpose indeed? and beyond all that he hath said? And therefore he might have saved himself, the World, and me the trouble, of his great Book in detecting my mistakes in History, and the many falsehoods, that he pretends me guilty of, and the Refuting of my Arguments; But rather singly betook himself to this alone: for if he has discovered the rottenness of the Principle, he need do no more.  
But then the Question is, how he makes this appear? which you'll find he endeavours to do by two Arguments. First, from the wickedness and immorality of those that profess it. Secondly the rigid and dividing nature of the Principle itself.  

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

Answered Principles may not be tried by any thing but the Scripture, and why  In answer hereunto, I say in the first place, That Mr. Wills takes a wrong measure, and sets up a false Standard; By judging the goodness, or badness of Principles, or Doctrines, by the goodness or badness of the Men that profess them; because Men may have good Conversations, that have rotten Principles, witness the Scribes and Pharises, of old; the Jesuits, and Quakers, since, that may be Woolves, in Sheep's Clothing, and Devils in the shape of Angels of Light. And on the contrary, Men may have good Principles, and yet very unsuitable Conversations, witness the Professors, both under the Law, and under the Gospel: for whence was it, that God destroyed and removed his People, of old, pulled down the Tabernacle, and both Temples, and sent them into Captivity; but for the wickedness of their lives? as Jer. 7.1. to verse 17. 1. Cor. 10.1. to 12. And whence was it that God removed his Candlestick, from those famous first Churches in the New Testament; but for the evil of their doing it must we therefore conclude, that because their Conversations, were so bad under both; that therefore their Principle, and Profession itself, was ●ought, and led thereunto, by no means? let God be true, and, every Man a liar▪ for this would be to reproach the truth in every Age.  
Therefore nothing but the Infallible Rule of God's Word, can be the proper Standard to try Doctrines by, according to particular direction in the Case, Isa. 8. 20. Gal. 1.8. ●. John, 4.1, 2, etc. And the reason is, because all Men are failable, and at best are but M●n.  
But in the next place, we will trace Mr. Wills in his further proofs, and try whether he be able to make good his uncharitable, not to say malicious, charge, whereby you will be the better able to judge whether the Foundation of his Argument is not slander and false accusation.  

Mr. Wills proof fails to these of the Blasphemies and imoralities of the Germane Anabaptists.  The Principle saith he is false, because they are usually so that proffers it and that they are usually so appears, first by the horrid errors, and wicked lives of those in Germany, and by the blasphemy and immoralities of divers in our own Nation. But how doth he prove the one or the other.  
First, how he proves the Germane Anabaptists to be so a erroneous as you have heard by Sphanhemius his lying fictions and cameras. But concerning whose Orthadox Faith and Doctrine, you have an Account in the Dutch book of Martyrs; first by their public owning the Articles of Faith exhibited by the Waldenses in the twelfth Cent. Recorded at large by Perin, and divers other Authors; and which they Sealed with their Blood through all the parts of Germany, France, Italy, etc. In the several Ages ever since: whereof you have a faithful memorial in their Book of Martyrs from time to time. And who withal do give a punctual account of those latter conventions of their Elders out of all the Provinces in the Low Countries, Germany, Flanders, France, etc. viz. one at Amsterdam, 27. September 1627. And the other at Dort, 21. April, 1632. Where the old Waldesian Articles were Subscribed and Published; and which you have at large with the Scriptures annexed in the said Book of Martyrs, called the Bloody Theatre, Printed at Dort 1660. By which you have an account, that the Anabaptists in Germany were not such desperate Heretics, as Mr. Wills so untruly suggests; not but that I judge there were erroneous Persons, both in former and latter times, that owned the Doctrine of Baptism after Faith both in Germany and England, and we find the purest Churches in the Primitive times, were not free from Heretics of all sorts. Neither I presume will Mr. Wills our Accuser himself, undertake, that the Doctrine of Paedobaptism doth secure from the grossest errors that are asserted. Therefore since the Articles of Faith that have been, and are owned, by those Churches are so sound and Orthadox, there is no cause so to reproach them as Spanhamius before; and Mr. Wills that now Writes after his Copy. And thus much for their Doctrine.  
Then as to the Commotions and Rebellions that he tells us the way of Anabaptism stirred up in Swevia and Munster from the same Author; And what unheard of Villainies were perpetrated in that City, hath been already considered, and the proofs tendered for the same; which I presume is such evidence that no Court of Justice, nor any upright Man can pass a Judgement upon. And truly, if matter of Fact cannot be better told us at home, witness those many false Stories Mr. Edwards in his Gangrene, Fathered upon them; and Mr. Baxter in his report of their Baptising naked (of neither of which Mr. Wills takes any notice) what credit can be given to these foreign uncertain Stories?  
But if it should be taken for granted, that they in Swevia and Munster were so Seditious and Rebellious as Mr. Wills from Spanhaemius would make them, must all the Anabaptists in Germany, both in that Age, and ever since be so reputed, and that their Principle leads thereto also? Yea and those very Anabaptists too: that both then, and ever since that, bore witness against beating of Arms at all: for so did the followers of Mennosimonis and Theodoricus, as Cassander tells us; though so great is Mr. Wills his prejudice, that he will not admit thereof; and rather than not make his words good will adventure to translate that Passage M Cassander's Letter to the Duke of Cleve, quite contrary to what he expresseth concerning them; which discovers Mr. Wills to be either a very heedless. Writer, that dares not what he saith to blast the People he Writes against: or that he doth not well understand a Latin Author; or if he do, supposeth by the ignorance of his opposite, he may take the liberty to say any thing of that kind without control: concerning which Passage, he tells us that they, viz. The followers of Mennosimonus and Theodoricus, being as he saith, imperito quodam zelo incitati; moved by an ignorant Zeal to what they did, having a fancy that they must destroy the wicked per vim externam by force of Arms, and this in order to the setting up the Kingdom of Christ; which Satanical delusion put them on upon such exorbitancies just of the same strain with those called 5th. Monarchy-Men, that put all London into such a fright some years since, as p. 99  
Whereas Cassander saith the direct contrary in that very place viz. That though they were guilty of other mistakes through their ignorant Zeal, Yet tokens of a godly mind might be perceived in them by this that they (accerime semper resisterunt) always resisted the rage of Munster and John Battenbarg, and taught that the Instauration and propogation of Christ's Kingdom was only by sufferings. So that the Reader may perceive that Cassander saith the quite contrary to what Mr. Wills saith of these People applying the Battenburg and Munster Principle of Resistance to these People that notoriously held the quite contrary; and therefore doth Cassander plead with the Duke of Cleve for their Liberty, who were therefore as he tells him, Commiseratione potius & emendatione quam insectatione & perditione digni videantur. More worthy of pity and amendment, than persecution and perdition. So you will understand hereby, that he is an Author not to be much trusted in his Authorities and and Translations.  
Whereby Mr. Wills would not only have all the Germane Anabaptists to be charged with that of Munstur, but even those that witnessed against it also; and is not that very hard measure? And would Mr. Wills be content to be so dealt with?  
For instance, would he think it just and equal, if we should retort his own story upon himself, that he with so much Obliquy reflects upon us, p. 99 And tell him, that because those Person● that had the conduct of that affair, that put all London into that fright, were most riged Indipentant Poedobaptists, as certainly they were, what ever Mr. Wills may insinuate to the contrary. That therefore all Rigid Poedobaptists (Mr. Wills himself in number also) are to be esteemed of the same mind and spirit, notwitstanding all the witness that they, either at that time, or ever since, would be thought to bear against that Action: Yea, and that the very Principle of Indipendant Poedobaptism tends to such Rebellious actions too, which is his way of dealing with those poor People.  

Mr. Wills is short in his Proofs against the Anabaptists in England.  But you may better judge of his foreign intelligence and proof, by what he tells us to our faces at home; which every body will be better able to discern, and to make a Judgement of, viz. That dive●s Anabaptists in our own Nation are guilty (as he tells us) of blasphemies and immoralities; and therefore the Principle is false, etc.  
To the making good thereof he brings in Mr. Baxter for a Witness, though if he speak any thing to the purpose, the bare affirmation of a Party would, I presume, be judged as incompetent, as if the next that Writes, should produce Mr. Wills his say-so for authentic proof.  
But let us hear what Mr. Baxter saith to the point, which he tells us p. 100 In these words, 
Mr. Baxter's Testimony against Anabaptists.  that though Mr. Baxter knew some good and sober Men amongst them; yet that the generality were bad enough: for so (says he) we must understand him in his plain proof p. 143. Where he tells us to this purpose; that he had familiarly known very many of them: And that the Ministers were for the most part censorious Opinionatists, who designed to convert People more to their Judgements than to Christ: And that Anabaptistry had been the ordinary inlet to the most horrid opinion, and how negligent many are in Family Duties, etc.  
Now therefore let all men judge, whether this amounts to any proof. What if Mr. Baxter did know some of their Ministers over Zealous for their Opinion, and some of the people too remiss; and negligent in their Duties to God? doth this prove the Immorality suggested? and for his Apprehensions, that it is the inlet into horrid Opinions? So the Prelates think of Presbytery and the Papists of Protestanism; is either of them therefore so? and doth that prove them to be Blasphemers, and that we must understand by Mr. Baxters' words, they are for the generality bad enough.  
But suppose Mr. Baxter in his heat had indeed said what Mr. Wills would make him say, (which we nowhere find as I know of) yet you will find Mr. Baxter in cool blood hath given another Character of the Anabaptists, of which, because Mr. Wills will take so little notice, I shall here give it you over again upon this occasion: which, you may be pleased to read in his own words, in his Book called, The Defence of the Principles of Love, p. 7. viz. that Anabaptists are Godly men, that differ from us in a point so difficult, that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained, that it is not determined in Scripture, 
Mr. Baxters late Testimony for the Anabaptists.  but dependeth upon the Tradition of the Church. And I know as good and sober men of that mind, as of theirs that are most against them: And that, I once motioned te●ms of Concord to the Anabaptists, and was in as hopeful a way for Peace with them, as with most others. And in his late large Book called A Christian Directory, he is pleased to say, p. 287. that Anabaptists may not only be admitted to Church Communion, but may be tolerated in their practice also. 1. Because they agree with us in all points absolutely necessary to Communion. 2. That the Ancient Christians had liberty either to Baptise, or to let them stay till Age, as they thought best 3. And that the Controversy is of so great difficulty that if in all such Cases, none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the World or Church, but endlessly Excommunicate or Persecute one another.  
Now therefore let it be considered, Whether Mr. Wills hath proved his charge against the Anabaptists in England, and so consequently, according to his rate of Reasoning, proved their principle false and dangerous? And whether it is not just and equal, that till he make good the same, he ought to be reputed by all men, a Slanderous Person, and a false Accuser of the Brethren, and as justly to be suspected for his Foreign Intelligence, and Accusation also?  
Only this I would advise Mr. Wills, that when he offers his next proof, he be more particular as to the Persons and Crimes he chargeth; as also, since he makes it so comprehensive, to take in the Generality of the Baptists, and of so great moment as to judge their Principle by also, that the Blasphemy and Immorality is such as is fostered and borne with by the Churches, otherwise they are no more chargeable with such Crimes, if they have cast any such wicked Persons out of them, than the Church of Corinth was to be charged with Incest, though they had disowned, and Excommunicated the Incestuous Person.  
And truly I think I may with much confidence challenge him, or any, the worst of their Enemies, to produce any Blasphemer, or immoral Person, so known to be, in any of the Churches of Christ under that Denomination. But if any, either in this Nation, in Germany, or else where, that have owned that Principle, have turned Ranters, and Atheists, as too many, 'tis to be feared, have. I hope the Principle is no more to be charged with it, than Poedobaptism is; for all the Blasphemies and Immoralities that persons of that Persuasion do much more frequently fall into without (or with so little) control.  

M. Wills Chargeth the Principle to be of a dividing Nature.  Having considered the Invalidity of the first Reason, Why the Principle is naught, viz. from the Wickedness of those that Profess it; we come in the next place to examine what he hath farther to say to that he calls the disquieting, dividing Nature of it, to prove it false and dangerous. Which we find p. 95. in these words, viz. The very Principle of Anabaptistry is of a dangerous Nature, which in that Rigidity, as some men hold it, is of a disquieting tendency, that, as Mr. Bunian saith, is not fit for any age or state of the Church. I cannot but sigh to consider the ways of some men, whose spirits are impregnated therewith, so that their very Constitution inclines them to nothing more than to rent and tear, and divide the Church: The Zeal for their Opinion hath, and doth still prove the greatest hindrance to the Conjunction of Christians here in this Nation. For as soon as they become Baptists, as some call them, (and our Opposites love to appropriate the name to themselves) they fall off from Godly Ministers and People, differing from them, though never so holy. But let men calmly consider, whether this is not an effect of Ignorance, and Pride; and more from an erring, than well instructed Conscience: and what a Scandal and Shame it is to the Christian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of Faction, and Disturbance in the World? And what an Injury is hereby done to Christ, by contracting, and narrowing his Interest in such a manner? But I see not how it can be otherwise, if men adhere, and strictly keep themselves to the Antipoedobaptistical Principle: for if our Ministers be no true Ministers, and our Baptism a Nullity; and consequently, our Churches no true Churches, how can they hold Communion with us? And though some that are for Baptism of Believers do, yet it must be imputed to their good Nature, and not their Principle, which they cross in so doing.  
So that now you have him in words at length, and not in figures; as to which I desire the following things may be considered.  
First, Answered that notwithstanding what he hath said as to the Scandals attending it to prove it false; he seems now to make the proof of all to lie in this, that some Persons holding the same refuse Communion with Mr. Wills; and therefore all such as so descent from him, are to be exposed to scorn, and hatred, as lying, treacherous, disobedient, perjured, seditious, filthy Persons; for holding a false, and dangerous Principle.  
Secondly, The Principle of Anabaptistry itself, as some Men hold it; By his own demonstration he here makes the mode of holding; and that by some Men only, and not the Principle to be dangerous: for if it were the Principle itself, it would then be contrary to all Principles, whether Natural, Moral, or Divine; and to its self also: for Principles always remain the same in their own Nature, and receive not any such impression from the various conceptions of Men, as to vary in themselves.  
If he had said that the Principle does not justify them that hold it most rigidly in an evil Opinion, or Practise, his demonstration had been good: for I am so far from justifying the Errors of those that hold either that Opinion, or the Opinion that is contrary to it; that I fear, both Mr. Wills, and myself, have cause to search, and to try our own ways; and to be humbled, for walking contrary to that Principle which we both own concerning Baptism.  
Thirdly, Mr. Wills says it is the Constitution of some, impregnated with this Principle, to rend the Church. And let Men consider, whether this be not an effect of Ignorance and Pride. Now then with Mr. Wills, it is neither the Principle itself, nor the manner of holding it; but Ignorance and Pride: so that If I understand his way of arguing, either Ignorance and Pride, are all one with the Principle of Anabaptistry as terms convertible, or else the cause of unbrotherly divisions, is not from the Principle of Anabaptistry, but from Ignorance and Pride.  
Fourthly, if the Correspondence and Communion which some Anabaptists have with Mr. Wills, be from their good Nature, and cross to their Principles (as he declares it is) than it seems, that as Ignorance was before the ground of their rending from him, so here Ignorance is also the ground of their Communion with him; as not knowing that they therein cross their own Principles, nor that they are any way obliged to that fellowship by the Word of God, only their good Nature inclines them not to break Company.  
Fifthly, as to what he quotes from Mr. Bunian, it had surely been more ingenuous, either to have replied himself to those six Arguments, as yet unanswered, or provoked Mr. Bunian to have done it before he had thus joined with him in his Anathama, for surely Reason is never convincingly answered by railing.  
Sixthly, I see not the Reason why Mr Wills, or any other Person, should be thus severe against the Principles of Baptism, as proper only to penitent and believing Persons, (for if he mean any thing else by the Principle of Anabaptistry he fights with his own shadow, we being as much against Rebaptisation, as any that oppose it) for there is nothing in the Principle itself, but what inclines to Piety and Unity; it being designed by Christ, not only to promote Sanctification, Rom. 6.4, 5, 6. etc. But to farther Love and Peace, as Eph. 4.3, 4, 5. being the incorporating knitting Ordinance. Yet no Man that ever I have heard of, ever did, or can pretend, that this Principle perfects grace, and knowledge; and therefore now (as of old amongst the purest Churches) are weaknesses, divisions, errors, and evils, found amongst us; and so must it be expected, so long as an evil heart and envious Devil remains: yet withal do we own subjection to a holy and perfect Rule and Directory, to Correct and Rectify, all erroes and evil that may arise.  
Object. But if Baptism be esteemed a visible Inlet into the Visible Church, and that you can own Church Fellowship with none but Baptised Persons, is not that a Dividing Principle?  
Answ. It is true, it tends to divide betwixt World and Church, but not otherwise; and is no other than all that own the Christian Religion, whether Papists, Protestants Presbyterian and Independents acknowledge, Baptism being also owned by the Ancients to be Janua Sacramentorum; and so positive is Mr. Baxter for it, that he tells us in express terms, that they must deny the Scripture that deny it: his words are these in his place Scripture, p. 24. I know not what in show of Reason can be said to this by those that renounce not Scripture; for what man dare go in a way that hath neither Precept nor Example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both? Yet they that will admit Members into the Church without Baptism, do so.  
So that till Infants Sprinkling be proved Christ's Ordinance of Baptism, Poedobaptists (by their own acknowledgement) are not to be esteemed Visible Members of the Church of Christ, having never had an orderly admission therein.  
Object. But is not much Ingury hereby offered to Christ, thus to contract and narrow his Interest in such a manner?  
Answ. It is true, it is so said by Mr. Wills; But this is no other than Reformation in all Ages (since the Antichristian Defection) hath been charged with, and particularly that Reformation that has been endeavoured in that other Ordinance of the Lords Supper: Therefore do the Presbyterians cry out against the Independants for sinful Schism, as being Fomenters of Faction, and for narrowing of Christ's Interest in their respective Separations and Church Communions: to the shame and scandol of the Christian Religion: the same do the Prelates say to the Presbyterians, and the very same do the Papists say to the Episcoparians also. But Wisdom is justified of her Children.  
Thus have we acquit our Principle and Practice from Mr. Wills his False, Unchristian, and Injurious Calumnies he has cast upon us. And shall recommend it to the Readers consideration, whether he hath not by this unreasonable (not to say malicious) carriage towards us, witnessed too much affinity, with that slanderous Libel, called Baxter Baptised in Blood: that was the first Answer to the Treatise of Baptism; and which by Public Authority was Renounced, and declared scandalous malicious.   
FINIS.   

A brief friendly Reply to Mr. Blindman's friendy Answer about Infant's Baptism, in his Essay tending to issue that controversy.  
SIR  
AS to your Essay which came to my hands when I was busily engaged with Mr. Wills, I have at last got so much time to say these few things to it, Viz.  
First, As to the Style and Language, I must needs acknowledge (if compared with M. Wills) to be Sober and Christian, though not without your severe Reflections.  
Secondly, As to the Substance of what you writ, I make this brief Reply.  
1. So far as you have concerned yourself in the Historical and Ritual parts, this to Mr. W. may be a sufficient Answer.  
2. What you or Mr. W. say to the Doctrinal part, Mr. Tombs hath for the present saved me the labour by the return he makes to you both therein: though if God spare me Life, I intent to say something to you also hereafter. But,  
3. To the main design of your Book, viz. The parity you make betwixt Infant's Baptism, and women's Receiving the Lords Supper, wherein you suppose you have gained so much advantage as to put an end to the controversy, I return as followeth:  
'Tis confessed I said indeed show but as good Example and Command for Infant Baptism, as we do for women's Receiving the Lords Supper, and it shall suffice; Which, notwithstanding your great confidence, I see not in the least made good, but the contrary altogether; and, which I doubt not, is hereby manifest to you and all men.  
First therefore, as to the Example urged by me, from Act. 1.14. & 2.42, 44. viz. That Mary the Mother of Jesus, and the Women, were of the number of the 120 Disciples, and who did break bread with the 3000 that were added to them.  
To which you give the following Exceptions.  
First, That is it not expressly said, that the Women were Believers.  
Neither in this place is Peter, and the rest of the Apostles expressly so called, but they are called Disciples, and so are the Women, being of the number of the 120, vers. 15. And if any doubt, Whether Mary the Mother of Jesus, Was a Believer, It will by as good Evidence appear as that the Twelve were so; For, so testifieth the Angel, Luk. 1.18. Elizabeth, v. 45. and her own triumphant Faith, v. 46 to 56. And that the Women, her Companions, were so also, there is little ground to doubt, when it is considered who they were, viz. Marry Magdal. Marry the Wife of Cleophas, Joanna and Salome, etc. Who came with Christ out of Galilee, and eminently administered to him, followed him to his Cross, to the Sepulchre, anointed his Body, witnessed to his Resurrection, and to whom he gave Direction, with the rest of his Disciples at his Ascension, to wait at Jerusalem for the promised Spirit, Mat. 27.55, etc. Mar. 16.19. Luk. 23.55, to the 11 of the 24, chap. John 19.25.  
Another Exception is, That There is no mention that these women were in the great Assembly in the second of the Acts: For, How do you know but they might be dead, or sick, or absent, as Thomas was before, Joh. 20.24. as nothing expressed to the contrary, so nothing expressly affirmed that they were present, pag. 3.  
This is very strange; For is it not expressly said, (as one continued discourse) by Luke, chap 2.1. That they were all upon the day of Penticost, with one accord in one place: And who could these All be that were thus assembled, but the 120 Disciples before mentioned, who had been waiting together by Christ's appointment for the promised Spirit, the space of ten days since the Ascension; and who were now to Receive an Answer, none therefore being to be absent. And that the Women were present among them upon the pouring out of the Spirit is manifest, because Peter thereupon affirms, That the Prophecy of Joel was then fulfilled, that foretold the pouring out of the Spirit, upon the Daughters and Handmaids, as well as the Sons, Act. 2.16, 17.  
Another Exception is this. The words, you say, upon which you lay the stress of women's receiving the Lords Supper here, are in express terms against you, though you take them expressly for you, etc. It being expressly said, [That all that believed were together.] Let us now fairly examine the Greek phrase, and we shall find it expressly of Men and not of Women, Viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Article of being masculine, doth expressly limit it to Men and not to Women. As if he had said, All the Men that Believed were together, and continued in the Apostels' Doctrine, breaking of Bread, etc. And to confirm the same, you'll find the rest of the Chapter speaks expressly of, and to Men, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every Man, v. 6, 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ye Men of Jerusalem, vers. 22. etc.  
To which I say, That this Exception, in my ●udgement, seems to be as defective in Grammar as in Divinity; For, as to the Grammatical part, you cannot but remember, Sir, That our Lillys Grammar, tells us of the Figure Sylepsis, or Conceptio, That comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy. Indignioris, sub Digniore; as for example. Quid tu & soror facitis. Ego & Mater, miseri perimus. Tu & Uxor, qui adfuistis, testes estote. Therefore why should you so forget yourself, as to think it strange that the believing Women should be comprehended under the believing Men. And as to the defect in Divinity, What is more frequent in Scripture? Do not you know it is told us, Gen. 5.2. Male and Female created he them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. But to some of your Instances, which I wonder to find urged by a Person of Gravity and Learning. First, as to the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which surely you cannot but know is so common to both sexes, (and not limited to the Masculine Gender, as always to understand thereby the Man only, as you say) For, it is not said, Mark 16.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that believeth, and is baptised, is not the She fully comprehended therein also? And, 1 Cor. 7.30.31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They that weep; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They that rejoice; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They that buy; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They that use this World; Doth the Article in all these (and a 100 places more of the like nature that might be produced) so limit it to the Masculine Gender, that only men and not women are to be understood, I hope you will not say so. And is it not said 1 Cor. 6.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They two shall be one flesh; the Article doth equally respect both. But so much for the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Secondly, The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it comprehends both sexes, and not the Masculine only, as 1 Cor. 7.20. Let every Man, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] abide in the same calling wherein he is called. And Jam. 1.14. Every Man, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed, surely must comprehend every Woman to, or else it would be strange Divinity.  
Thirdly, The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very same, as Jam. 2.2. For if there come into your Assembly a Man, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] having a gold Ring, etc. Is not a Woman to be understood also thereby? And Jam. 1.8. A double minded Man, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] is unstable in all his ways: And is not a double minded Woman so also? We might trouble the Reader with the rest of your Instances of this kind, but let these satisfy.  
So that Sir, you see your Exceptions to my Examples, are utterly insignificant, for here were Women Disciples and Believers, in Praying together for the Spirit, and afterwards receiving the same together, also continuing together in the Apostles Doctrine, Fellowship, and Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; neither can your pretended limitation of Masculine Words and Articles, you see, relieve you, or invalidate our Authority. And in confirmation thereof we may add, Act. 20.7. That the Disciples came together to break bread, Women being as much Disciples as Men. Act. 9.36. And it is also said, 1 Cor. 11.18, 20. That the Church came together to break bread, Women being Church-members as well as Men, Act. 8.12. though debarred some Privileges as 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.11, 12, 13. For there is neither male nor female, but all one in Christ, Gal. 3.28. And, being many, are one Bread and one Body; Believing Women being as much of the Body of Christ as believing men, 1 Cor. 10.17. And who are enjoined to keep Christ's Precepts and Commandments, left in charge for all Disciples as well as the Men, Mat. 28.20. This of Breaking of Bread after Baptism, being none of the least of them; And who must give account for disobedience and neglect of duty as well as the Men.  
And as your own Conscience seals to the truth hereof, so you are force also to declare it, telling us, How unpleasing it is to you, to raise Arguments against a known Truth, being, as you say, as much for Believing women's receiving the Lords Supper as the men  
Thus have you my Proofs for women's receiving the Lords Supper, and the Verity thereof confirmed by yourself: Therefore in the next place we shall try whether you have, as clear, or, as you say, more full proof for the Example of Infant's Baptism, and as to which, you give the following Instances. Viz.  
First, That Lydia was Baptised and her Household, Acts 16.15. It is not said that any of her House were Converted besides herself.  
Secondly, The Household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. it being apparent, that House in Scripture, doth comprehend Children, 1 Sam. 20.15. 2 Sam. 9.1. Exod. 1.21. etc. Therefore you say, Let impartial persons judge, whether this doth not carry as much, if not mo●e probability and evidence in it, than what hath been brought for women's receiving the Lords Supper, and not liable to such Exceptions from the Context, nor from any other Scripture. Wherein I join issue with you in the Appeal; beseeching you and all men to consider.  
First, Whether there be one Infant so much as named to be in either of those Households, much less that any were Baptised in them.  
But we have Women expressly mentioned to be of the Number of the 120 Disciples, upon whom also the Spirit was poured in the day of Penticost, to whom the 3000 were joined, and who together broke Bread also.  
Secondly, Are Children as expressly owned to have right to Baptism, and enjoined thereto, and capable to discern the spiritual Mysteries thereof, and to act Faith therein, being Believers, part of the Church, and Members of the Body of Christ, as Women are expressly owned to have right to the Ordinance of the Supper? and enjoined thereto, and capable to discern the spiritual Mysteries thereof, and to act Faith therein, as being Believers, part of the Church, and Members of the Body of Christ?  
Thirdly, Is Infant's Baptism acknowledged by us to be a known Truth, and that it is unpleasant to us to raise Arguments against it, as you have in express terms done for women's receiving the Lords Supper?  
So that here is not the least parity, or comparison, to be made betwixt the one or the other, there being not the least considerable pretence to imagine that any Infants were Baptised, because 'tis said that Households were.  
First, Because, though it is true that Infants may belong to the Household, so may the heathen Idolaters Wife, and Servants, and that Children are said to be in some Households, yet there are many Households wherein there are no Children, and it is not proved that there was one Infant belonging to either of these two Households.  
Secondly, In the four Households mentioned to be Baptised in Scripture, they are said, at least in three of them, if not in the fourth also, to comprehend only such as were taught Believers; in those Families or Households.  
As, 1st. Concerning the Jailor, Act. 16.32, 33, 34. It is said, They spoke the Word to all that were in his House, and that He, viz. the Jailor, Believed in God, with all his House.  
2ly, Crispus, Act. 18.8. And Crispus believed on the Lord, and all his House.  
3ly, Stephanus House, that was Baptised, 1 Cor. 1.16. are called, the first-fruits or Achaia, that addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, which no Infant was capable to do.  
And the 4th, is the Household of Lydia, where we have good ground to conclude, there were none Baptised in it but Believers. First because there was n● Precept to Baptise any other. Secondly, No Example for any other. And thirdly, From what is said of them, Act. 16.40. They were only Adult persons, capable of Instruction and Consolation, for t● said, Paul and Sylas, after they came out of Prison entered into the House of Lydia, and comforted the Brethren there, viz those in that Family that had been troubled for the hard usuage and Imprisonment of th● Apostles.  
Besides, 'tis very probable Lydia was a single Person no Husband being mentioned, but she in chief all along But surely, it is on their part, that say she had Children, and baptised Children too, to prove it; For ● yet it doth not appear, but the contrary. So that here i● neither Child expressly, nor by any consequence to b● found in any of these Baptised Households.  
In so much that Dr. Hamond, the last great Writ● for Infant's Baptism confesseth, in his sixth Quaery, pag. 471, That to conclude Infants were Baptised, because Households are so mentioned to be, is unconvi●cing and without Demonstration, it being so un●●rtain whether there was any Children in those Family's. As though, If the Master of the Family Be●●ved, all the House, whether ignorant, unconverted. profane, and Athiestical, were to be Baptised also.  
In the next place we come to examine the parity betwixt the Command we urge for women's receiving the Lords Supper, and that which is pretended by 〈◊〉 for Infant's Baptism.  
The Command we bring for women's receiving ●●e Lords Supper, is 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man Examine himself, and so let him eat, etc. V●z. Man or Woman, for so the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Greek, and ●dam, in the Hebrew signify. There being one Mediator betwixt God and Man, and Woman; the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2.45. Being both but one 〈◊〉 Christ, Gal. 3.28.  
To which you thus Reply, You gather it from the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is of the Masculine ●nd Feminine Gender, and so signifies Male and female, which I deny not: But I must crave leave ●o inform you, That when it is limited with words ●f the Masculine Gender, it hath reference expressly ●o Men and not to Women; and that it is so here, ●ou say, you shall abundantly prove, because it is limited; (where you bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again, and some others of like import mentioned in the Chapter.  
Secondly, From the Text itself, where the Relative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is joined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so it is expressly limited to the Masculine, and therefore to a Man only, and not to a Woman. Therefore the Text must be read, Let a Man Examine himself (expressly, not a Woman) and so let him eat, etc.  
But I appeal to the sober and judicious Reader, whether this is not a mere trifling in the things of God, and a playing with Words, to pervert the Truth?  
As for the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and others of like nature, we need say no more, and to the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as little; Mr. Blindman knowing, I verily believe there is little but deceit in it. For, what more frequent in Scripture, than to find this Relative to respect both sexes? For Instance, Jam. 1.23, 24. If any be a hearer of the Word, and not a doer, he is like unto a Man beholding his natural Face in a Glass. For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, etc. which, I presume, takes in the Woman as well as the Man. Rom. 13.9. Love thy Neighbour as thy self, the same. So Matth. 28.19, 20. Baptising them, and Teaching them, the same also. So that by Mr. Blindman's rule, we have as little express Command for their Baptism as their Communion, and that Men are only concerned in both: So that your Exceptions to our Command, are as insignificant as those to our Example.  
Then you come, Sir, to produce your Command for Infant's Baptism, which you would make us believe is as clear, if not clearer that what hath been given for women's receiving the Lords Supper, viz. Mat. 28.9. Go teach, or Discipulize, all Nations, baptising them, and that Children are Disciples, is clear you say, from Act. 15.10. Why tempt you God, to put a Yoke upon the neck of the Disciples?  
But for your better Information in Christ's Commission, I must refer you to the account Mr. Baxter gives of it, who tells us the right Order thereof, and Lessons therein, Viz. That the first task is to make Disciples, which, he tells us, by Mark are called Believers. The second is Baptise them. And the third to Teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in Christ's School; Which is a right and true definition of the Text: The Word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Discipulize or make Disciples, is nothing else but to beget them to the Faith, by preaching the Gospel to them, the true means thereof, and then being instructed in the Faith, they are to be Baptised therein. And therefore again, Mr. Baxter truly tells us, That it is the constant Order, that Baptism follow Faith, and no better than an Impious profanation of the Sacrament if it go without Faith; And that if Faith be not the Pre-requisite to Baptism Philip deluded and not decided the Question, when he told the Eunuch, If he Believed with all his heart, he might. So that when you can make it appear your Infant, as a taught Disciple, believes in Christ, you may find a Command here to Baptise him: Otherwise, as Mr. Baxter tells us, Philip's answer carries a Negative in it, viz. If thou dost not believe, thou mayest not be baptised.  
And as for Infant's Discipleship, from Act. 15.10. It is an utter mistake, the Disciples there being those Gentile Believers that had newly received the Faith, who were neither to be yoked with Circumcision, nor any other Jewish Rite, only they were Enjoined to abstain from Idolathits, Blood, things Strangled and Fornication; there being no Infant in the Case, nor concerned herein, neither are they any where called Believers or Disciples.  
Therefore, Sir, upon the whole, Let the Judicious Reader Judge betwixt us, whether you have given as good Ground, by as full Precept or Example for Baptising Infants, as I have done from God's Word for women's Receiving the Lords Supper? Not doubting but this search into this your Essay, will put a comfortable End to this part of the Controversy betwixt us.  
In the next place you must give me leave to return you an Answer to three or four smart Reflections I meet with in your Book.  
First, Sir, I conceive you have given me just occasion of Offence, so unduly to mention my not taking notice of Mr. baxter's Errata, without any the least regard to what I have so largely spoke for his Satisfaction, and my own Vindication, (having received the like measure from Mr. Wills therein also.) And whether the reproving that my Omission with such severity, and wholly passing over those Horrible things Remarked by me (without Control, as yet) out of Mr. Bs. Directory, savours not of too much Partiality, is recommended to your better consideration.  
Secondly, No less infurious are you, and Mr. W. also, from the consideration of those Waldensian Confessions of Faith, where they assert Infant's Baptism, to infer my mistaking of them in the whole, and to soil all my other Testimonies in the Book, without taking the least notice how I cited the late Confessions word for word, proving, they were not till their Defection in the sixteenth Century, and that then other Confessions, cit●● by me, were in the twelveth Cent. 400 years before; nor regarding what I Answer to every one of them, to which I must refer you, and to what I say to Mr. Wills for the like Disingenuity.  
Thirdly, Sir, I have to blame you for a piece of unfairness, not to say unfaithfulness, respecting the Ritual part, where, to avoid the force of the Word Tabal, which the Septuagint renders by the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all our Translators by the word Dip. You produce a Text, pag. 190, wherein (as you deal with it) you would necessitate another Interpretation to be put upon it, viz. Levit. 14.6. As for the living Bird, he shall take it and the Cedar-wood, and the Scarlet, and the Hyssop, and shall Dip them and the living in the blood of the Bird that was killed [there you stop, and leave out] over the running Water, nor taking any notice of what follows vers. 51. And Dip them in the Blood of the slain Bird, and the running Water; But go on with your Inference, as though the running Water was not to be concerned in the Case, and say, Is it credible that the Bird that was killed did yield so much blood that all those things could be Dipped under it, and Covered with it? Certainly (say you) you must, at least, run a Synecdoche here, or else you will make nothing of it. And if you do, and say a part of them only was Dipped, Why will you not at least allow the same in Baptism?  
But whether such dealing with God's Word comes not under a handling the Law partially, and dealing unfairly, not to say, deceitfully with it, is left to your own Conscience to determine.  
Fourthly, I must endeavour to vindicate myself in another unhansom Reflection, respecting an absurdity you charge upon me, and which I conceive will return upon yourself, and Partner too, with disadvantage, which is this. You are pleased Sir, in pag. 117. to tell me, in Answer to the beginning of my sixth Chapter, That you must crave leave to tell me, that I miss it in my Logic, in affirming the Right Subject of Baptism (viz. a professed Believer) to belong to the Matter and Essence of Baptism; and which Mr. Wills (in conjunction with you) carries a little further, and tells me, in his usual Style, pag. 90. part 2. chap. 6. It is observable, that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism, (Mark well, saith he) should mistake both the Matter and Form of it; for certainly he is out in both (and to be sure Mr. W. will lose nothing for want of Confidence, if that will carry it.) For the Matter, saith he, all Divines agree to be Water, and the Form, the Words of Christ. For which he quotes Zanchy and Buchan.  
To which I say, as to the point of Logic (wherein I own little skill) in affirming, The Subject belongs to the Matter and Essence of Baptism, and that the true Form was Dipping, I conceive I am justified by the Learned. And as to the first, If Burgerdicius understood Logic, he tells us, That the Subject doth belong to the Matter, and is of the Essence thereof; Who divides the Matter into the Materia ex qua, in qua; & circa quam; of which, in which and about which; and that the two latter comprehend the Subject or Object.  
And agreeable hereto, we have the Learned Tilenus giving us the Logical Definition of Baptism, both as to Matter and Form, in his Syntag. Theol. Disp. de Baptis. pag. 376. in these words. First, That the Matter of Baptism is two fold, viz. the Constituens and Recipiens; the Constituens of two parts, viz. External and Elementary, viz. the Water. And Internal, the Spiritual thing signified. And the Recipiens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Subject, is the fit Person that is to receive it. Secondly, That the Essential Form of Baptism is nothing else but the Analogical Reason of the Signs to the Things signified. For as the property of Water in washing away the filth of the Flesh, declares the force of Christ's Blood in the washing away of Sin, So Diping in Water is a suitable Analogy of the Death of the Old Man; and coming up out of the Water, the Life of the New.  
And in full agreement with him, the Learned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animad. pag. 317. tells us from Alexander Halyes, in these words, A io cum Alex. de Halys, Tinctio est formalis Causa Baptismi, & si Tinctio, non Lotio, vel lavatio, vel ablutio; I say with Alexander de Halys, That Dipping is the formal Cause of Baptism; and if Diping, than not washing or pouring.  
So that if these Learned Men are Right, you, my Reprovers, are Wrong, and deserve blame and shame for your Rashness.  
And further, that the right Subject, viz. a professed Believer is of the Essence of Baptism is manifest because, if you may alter and change that, you may Baptise a Wall, or a Bell, a Sword, or a Standard, or what you will, and call it the Ordinance of Baptism. So that I am hereby the more confirmed, that if you miss it in the Right Subject, or Matter of Baptism, viz. a Professed Believer, and err also in the due Form or Ceremony, viz. Dipping, you have neither the Matter nor the Form of Baptism; and so, though you may call it Baptism, yet it is a mere Nullity, and no such thing; concerning which, I refer you t● the Scheam thereof, in the Broadside, for further Information, and so shall Conclude with your own Words. If these Debates may be blest to discover the Truth to yourself, or any other, and add any thing to the making up of the Breach, that the Lord may be one, and his Name one amongst us, in these points wherein we yet differ; I shall have what I aimed at, and the God of Truth and Peace, shall have all the Glory. And that the Spirit of Light and Truth may lead into all Truth, and dispel all the Antichristian Fogs of Ignorance and Darkness, is the Sincere Desire of  
Your Unknown Friend and Servant. H. D. The 30th. of the 8th. Month, 1674.   

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