A rejoinder to Mr. WILLS his Vindiciae: Wherein The Antiquity for Believers, and Novelty of Infant Baptism is further confirmed.  
As also, His groundless Appeal distinctly answered, and the Forgeries and Mistakes boasted of, still found to be his own.  
With an Appeal to his Conscience about the same.  
That the words of Tertulian and Nazianzen show it was long before all were agreed of the time or Necessity of Baptising Infants before the use of Reason, in case they were like to live to Maturity.  
— It was thought less needful to give it [viz. Infant's Baptism,] a particular express mention in the Records and History of the Church [viz. In those time's] Mr. Baxter in his More Proofs, p. 279.  
By H. Danvers.  Matth. 5.11. And shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my name's sake. Job 16.10. They have gaped upon me with their mouths, and have smote me upon the cheek reproachfully. Psal. 119.42. I shall have wherewithal to answer him that reproacheth me, for I trust in thy word. 
Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Castle, near the Royal-Exchange, 1675.   

The PREFACE.  
BEfore I had finished with Mr. Baxter, I was first assaulted by a new adversary, one Mr. Whitston, and again by my old Antagonist Mr. Wills, not suffering me scarce to take breath, and three to one you know is odds. But hearing, that Mr. H. a mere stranger to me, had undertaken Mr. Whitston, I have obtained so much leisure, to consider what our 3d. Triumvir hath further to say to me. And whom I find upon a serious perusal instead of giving that due satisfaction, my sober Reply, (and all good men) might expect from him, for his manifold detected errors in Antiquity, abuse of Authors, scurrility and indignity to my person (a mere stranger to him) injurious reproaches to the whole party of Baptists, (as well in this as other Nations; not only loading the professors thereof with his slanders, but the profession itself, as leading to Blasphemy and Immorality) is pleased notwithstanding to come forth in this wrathful, self-justifying, and revengeful Spirit, abounding still in his repeated and renewed errors and reproaches; as though an impenitent standing by error was the best way to defend truth, and to recriminate others, the fairest way to clear himself, justifying that Malefactor, who fell foul upon his Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Witnesses, as the best way to save himself: And with the Chased Fox, raiseth a Dust to make his escape. Dealing just with me; as the Heathens did with the Christians of old, putting them into Bear's Skins, and then set the Dogs upon them; or as the Papists have done with worthy Mr. Fox, for detecting their errors and cruelties, have decried him as such a Forger, that none ought to converse with him. But Mr. Wills will find himself under a disappointment, truth is not so to be baffled, nor innocency foiled, he will yet meet with a Vindication of both, in his farther just detection and reproof.  
These few Pages therefore do first truly discover to you, notwithstanding the great noise and clamour of mistakes, that the question discoursed betwixt us is certainly lost, and given up by him, and that the Antiquity so much boasted of is wholly for Believers, not Infants Baptism. With a serious and particular Answer to his groundless frivolous Appeal; discovering withal, that he is truly guilty of those crimes, and many more, that he would so injuriously father upon me, though what he discovers to have been my errors, I fully own, which are few, and very inconsiderable, mistaking 2 or 3 names one for an●ther, viz. Aquinas for Albertus, Sericius for Hincmarus, not hitting a Pope's Name, and not taking Walden to so good advantage as I ought for myself; that of Lanfrank mentioned before, and w●ich are all, of any weight, that I know of, none. of them hurting us in the least, and and are so frivolous, that an ingenious man would scorn to have mentioned, much less to have made such a dust about.  
But in the mean time I must acknowledge, it is very sad the World should be troubled with such stuff, as though such accusations, recriminations, and discovery of nakedness, was for their edification, which I can truly say is very grieving to me, and were not the truth of God likely to suffer by my silence, I should rather have born his reproaches and slanders, than have made any return to him. And therefore what I have done on my part to prevent such mischiefs and inconveniencies, I think will be necessary to give you some particular account of, having before only given you a hint thereof, viz. how much I have endeavoured with Mr. Wills to rectify mistakes, and misunderstandings in a more Private, Friendly, Christian way, that we might save the world this unnecessary trouble.  
Know therefore, that my first Treatise of Baptism, having slept about 12 Months without any public notice, and being ready to come forth with a 2d. Edition, I improved my utmost interest with all sorts, to procure what Objections did rationally lie against it, that if I had committed any mistakes, I might rectify them, having been constrained to take several things upon Trust, for want of opportunity to examine them by their Originals: And therefore did Apologise in my Preface for Candour, that if by the multitude of Quotations through so ancient a Track, they might find any particular mistake, mis-quotation, or mis-applicatoon, they would not so dwell or insist upon it, as to reject the truth of all the rest, that are full, and clear, and without exception, the way that Carpers and Sophisters take, and the Method that Papists have all along taken in Reply to our Protestant Writers, though did assure, (and so I can say with a good Conscience) that I have not willingly given any such occasion, and truly at last, after all the malicious scrutiny, clamour and noise that has been made, it is matter of Admiration, that no more has been brought forth: Mr. Wills having discovered but those few before mentioned: Mr. Baxter but one that had any significancy: And Mr. Whitston not one.  
Therefore hearing, That Mr. B. had something to say against it, I ventured, as I have told you, to send to him; and understanding, that Mr. Wills had spent some time in the Oxford Library, to trace my Authorities, and found me tardy in many, I sent Two or Three Messages to him, to admit of some Converse about it, but in vain; then upon the coming forth of the 2d. Impression, I sent Mr. Wills one of them, with this following Letter.  
SIR,  
I Understand you have some Exceptions against my Treatise of Baptism, especially the Historical Part, and particularly about the Waldenses, and that you intent speedily to print the same. I having, Sir, printed a 2d. Impression, and therein made some alterations, and very considerable additions, especially as to the Waldenses, have taken upon me the confidence to send you one; and which if it may tend to your satisfaction, may save the world, yourself, and me, the further trouble of Answers and Rejoinders, if not, if you will please to Communicate where your principal Objection lies, either to that, or any thing else, and admit of the Exchange of a Letter or Two about it; it may not be unserviceable to the Truth, with this assurance, that if it may appear, that I have done any manifest injury to truth, I shall be ready to give the most public satisfaction it may call for; it having been my earnest and importunate desire, ever since the Exposure of the first, to procure any rational Objection against any thing I had said, and which should have been as welcome to me as an Approbation, (because it is only truth in sincerity I design to propagate) but do assure you, have not as yet met with the least Objection from any one that I had not before obviated. And indeed as to the Historical Part, though it is not offered for proof, but illustration only, would be too great folly to render any wilful mistake, which every Scholar in his Library confutes; Which with the render of Christian Respects, is recommended to your Consideration, by  
Your unknown Friend and Servant, H. D. March 22. 1673.  
To which Letter upon the 10th of May 1674. Mr. Wills returns me answer, that had not my Letter come too late, it would have been incivility not to have complied with me; but that part of his Book was in the Press before mine came to his hand, and therefore desired my excuse, and not to reckon him a willing disturber of the world, having never before invaded the Press.  
As though my Messages sent to him (by a neighbour of the Devizes, and an acquaintance of his after, that came by him to Bristol Fair, and several speakings to his Bookseller to write to him to that end, who still told me he stayed the Press for my second Impression, having been ready for it some months) had no signification, if my Letter had not in time reached him, to prevent that disturbance, or at least to have obtained some Civil return from him.  
Well, the Book comes forth, and how stuffed with prejudice, personal Reflections, egregious Mistakes, bitter Invectives not only against myself, and whole Party, but the Principle itself, you are best able to judge; which I endeavoured some time after, notwithstanding all those high provocations given, modestly to detect in a sober Reply.  
Though by the way this piece of Civility and Ingenuity must not be forgotten, that the week before my Reply was published, they thought meet to put Mr. Wills Title into the Gazette, to proclaim me a Forger all the Nation over, knowing that though I might follow him in the Press, yet there I was not capable to attend him for my Vindication.  
Some months after mine came forth, I heard Mr. Wills was come to Town with a rejoinder: whereupon I sent some Friends to him to prevail for a Conference with him, which could not be obtained. Then I wrote to some of his Friends to acquaint him, that if he would meet with two or three Christian Friends of a side, and communicate to me his Exceptions, I should assure him, that if I had done him or the Truth any injury, I would make the most public satisfaction that they should judge requisite; which could not prevail with him. Afterwards I hearing that he had been with my Bookseller, to read some writing of mine respecting the Controversy, which was showed him, and supposing that might be some obligation to him to be reciprocal, did send my Bookseller to his to obtain the like freedom, to peruse his Papers in his Booksellers hand, but could obtain no permission thereto.  
And yet after the rejection of all these modest endeavours of my part, which bespoke me far from being obstinate or tenacious in any thing that I had writ, he has the Confidence with this clap of Thunder he has come forth with, to tell the world in his Ep. to his Vindiciae, That he must acquaint me that I having treated him with so much rudeness in what is past, that he had little heart to have any more to do with me, unless he see better cause, and gives me security of his Silence for the future, to any of my Contradictions, there being no gaping against an oven, and silence is accounted the best answer to such as superadd contumacy to their mistakes.  
But where has that Contumacy appeared in me? It is true he deals with me in his appeal as a contumacious person, but how such proceed are to be reconciled to Reason, Rule, or Religion, I must confess myself at a great loss.  
Had he dealt with me herein as the Quakers dealt with Mr. Hicks, which he makes his pattern, he had been much more excusable, who (I presume he'll find) admitted of private conference, and had Letters exchanged betwixt them; and till they supposed Mr. Hicks was contumacious, and tenacious, did not proceed in that their Appeal.  
I do not know that it is the practice in Westminster-hall, for a Plaintiff to procure publication for Trial before he gives his Declaration, has his Answer, Reply, rejoinder, etc. and surely Mr. Wills should have had so much patience to have attended what I had said to his Vindiciae, before he had thundered out his Appeal: It may be my Answer to the former, might have prevented the latter. Will nothing satisfy him but my utmost shame and reproach? Yet would he persuade the world, That he loves me as a Brother though erring, and had much rather convince than shame me, advising me to leave tossing the Ball of contention, etc.  
But is this dealing with me like a Brother he designs to convince and reduce from error? Is this to instruct with meekness? to use any Gospel-way to reform and inform, he knows the Sovereign Rule Mat. 18. is not publicly to tell the Church, till all other private ways are ineffectual.  
I must confess these are ways and strains that I have not been acquainted withal, either amongst men or Christians, which only serve as to my own particular to lead me to Christ's rule, which I desire more to attend in the case, To pray for him that thus despitefully uses and persecutes me, and to rejoice that I am counted worthy to suffer shame, and to have all manner of evil spoken against me falsely for his Names sake.  
Withal satisfying myself that Mr. Wills takes the ready way by these methods to promote the cause he opposes, for few that ever I heard of, that manage a good cause, are left to such foul miscarriages.  
H. D.   

The Antiquity of Believers, and Novelty of Infant's Baptism.  

GHAP. I. Wherein the Antiquity of Believers, and Novelty of Infant's Baptism is further confirmed; and that the Baptism after Faith was the only Baptism that was owned in the first Centuries, to be Christ's Ordinance and the Church's Practice, in full Answer to Mr. Wills his Vindiciae.  
THE main question discussed between Mr. Wills and me, has been, whether the Anabaptists (so called) or the Paedobaptists have most to plead from Antiquity for their Way; viz. Those that only Baptise Men and Women after Profession of Faith and Repentance, or those that Baptise Infants that are capable of neither.  
The former of which I first asserted in my Treatise, and since defended, in my Reply to Mr. Wills, Mr. Baxter, and others, viz. That the Anabaptists, notwithstanding the great Cry to the contrary, have the Antiquity of their side for the first Centuries.  
And which notwithstanding all the noise and clamour after the full discussion of that point on both hands, is now clearly manifested (if not by their own grants confirmed) to us. The which you may receive in the following brief Account.  

CENT. I.  

1. Cent. gives Examples only for Adult Baptism.  FIrst it is most manifest as is confessed on all hands, that the Scripture Story for the first Century gives us an account of no other Baptism, but that after Faith and Repentance, viz. Produceth Instances, or gives us Examples only for adult Believers, and not Infant's Baptism; As we have observed the magdeburg's themselves those Paedobaptists have so fully owned acknowledging, That they find Examples in the 2, 8, 10, 16, 19 of the Acts for the Baptising of adult Believers, hut of Baptising of Infants they read of no Example De Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem non leguntur: To which Mr. Wills subscribes, acknowledging, That there are no particular Examples for Infant's Baptism upon Record, p. 3. 53. vind. Mr. Whitston confessing the same as generally owned by them.  
As for the Allegation, That the Apostles Writings do not expressly exclude In●ants, as Mr. Wills and Mr. Whitston from the Magd. affirm is so weak and frivolous, that needs no Reply, which would establish Baptising of Bells, Chrysm, and what not of the Popish Inventions.  
And that if not asserted in Scripture, is yet found in the Writings of Origen and Cyprian to have been the Apostles practise, is as utterly insignificant; for as it has, and will further appear to you they have writ no such thing; nor secondly if they had, would what they writ in the third Age, upon their single Testimonies, prove such a matter of fact in the first Age, when as 'tis confessed the Scripture is wholly silent therein.  
Therefore I hope it cannot be denied, that for what appears in Scripture Story▪ our Enemies themselves being Judges, that Antiquity for the first Century is wholly on our side; so that no mention need be made of the Epistles of Clement and Ignatius in Confirmation thereof.   

CENT. II.  
SEcondly, as to the Second Century 
2. Cent. gives Examples only for Adult Baptism.  we find upon the fullest discussion, it produceth as few Examples for Infant's Baptism, as the first, and that only those are mentioned to have been Baptised in this Age, that first made a profession of Faith, and Repentance, as appears by that most remarkable account given us out of Justin Martyrs Apology, the most Authentic piece of Antiquity of this Age (not to mention what is said from Dionysius, and Clem●nt. Alexandrinus Treat. p. 49, 50. which is not gainsaid by our Antagonist, only Mr. Wills would insinuate, that the Magd. did suppose, That the Order Justin Martyr lays down, respected the reception of Aliens to Baptism, which would not hurt us, because all are Aliens till Converted, no mention being made of any that were otherwise received. But Justins own words are full for satisfaction in the point, as Treat p. 49. viz. I will declare unto you how we offer up ourselves to God after we are renewed through Christ, etc. Which respected the Order and Method observed by the Saints and Believers in the Church at that day, and how all of them had their admission therein.  
So that for the first 200 Years we carry it, having Examples as is confessed for the one, but none to be produced for the other: Whereby I should be sufficiently justified, (should we proceed no farther) in that assertion Mr. Wills so complains of, p. 2. vind. By affirming, That Antiquity itself is altogether for Believers, and not for Infant's Baptism. For if it be manifest, that there be 200 Years for the one before the other, well may I say, That there is Antiqity for the one, and not for the other; for if Antiquity be writ upon Believers Baptism, Novelty then must needs be writ upon Infant's Baptism. Nor but that I grant some that were called the Ancient Fathers of the 5th. Age, as Austin, Chrysostom, and others affirmed it; from whence Mr. Wills again and again upbraids me, and Mr. Whitston also, That I do contradict myself, in saying Antiquity was altogether for the one, and not for the other, they not considering, or willingly omit that I mean Primitive Antiquity; the Elder Brother was to carry away, as the dignity and preeminency, so the Inheritance from the Younger, much more the true born, from the base born Child.   

CENT. III.  
IN the 3d. Century we have as few Examples to be produced for Infant's Baptism, 
No Example for any but Adult Baptism in the 3. Cen.  as in the two former; but that they Baptised in this Age after the Profession of Faith, we have an ample account from Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian, and several others, as Treat. p. 51, etc. And which our Antagonists are so far from opposing, that they abundantly confirm, viz. Mr. Baxter, in his Saints Rest, p. 1. cap. 8. sect. 5. telling us, That Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, who lived (saith he) in the 2d. and 3d. Centuries, do all of them affirm, That in the Primitive times none were Baptised without an express Covenanting, wherein they renounced the World; Flesh, and Devil, and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him. And Mr. Wills also, 2. part. p. 6. of Infant's Baptism, acknowledgeth, That the magdeburg's do tell us, Thaet Tertullian in this age opposed himself to some that asserted Infants Baptism, affirming, That the Adult were only proper Subjects.  
So that it is manifest by what appears upon Record from any Authentic Story, that Believers Baptism carries the Antiquity of the Third Century also; there being not as yet one Infant upon Record that was actually Baptised, as any Ordinance of Christ, nor any thing appearing from good Authority by any Scripture Argument, that they ought so to be: What is pretended from Origen and Cyprian you have fully replied to afterwards, and the utter insignificancy of any thing that is urged from them to this end, whilst you have full mouthed Evidence, and undeniable Authority for the other.   

CENT. iv  
AS to the 4th. Century it doth not yet appear when and where any Infant was Baptised, as an Ordinance of Christ; 
Adult Baptism the general practice of the 4th. Age.  it is said indeed that some Sick Children were Baptised for their Health in this Age, and that some Dying Children might be Baptised to save them, as some other Dying Persons were; and that some Doctors in this Age inclined from Circumcision to bring it into the Church; but as yet none did pretend it to be necessary, none to have been a Precept of the Gospel, as Dr. Taylor Treat. p. 105. Whereas the Baptising of Believers after the Profession of Faith, was the general practice of the Age, and which appears from the Three Substantial Instances given by me in my Treatise, especially in the Reply, viz. From 1. the Say of Fathers. 
1st. From the Say of the Fathers.  2. Decrees of Councils. 3. Children of Believers unbaptised till aged, p. 4, etc. 1. From the Say of the Fathers, and greatest Men of this Century, both in 
(a) Athanasius and Arnobius.  Africa, 
(b) Basil, Nazianzen, Eph. Syrus, Epiphanius.  Asiae, and 
(c) Hillarii, Ambrose, Jerom, Marius Victorinus.  Europe, asserting the necessity of Confession of Faith before Baptism, both from Christ's Commission, Apostles Practise, and ends of the Ordinance.  
Which Mr. Wills little opposeth, only saith, That some of these Doctors were corrupt in other things, and so they were all, That some of them 3 or 4 asserted Infants Baptism; which I deny not, to save Dying Children; saith one of them, viz. Arnobius was spurious from Perkins; what then? the rest are genuine; and that Arnobius on the Psalms was ever Doubted is more than I heard before; but if he was, it signifies nothing; he also Doubts Basils' Proof, urged by me contra Eunomium, which he calls for, and which he'll find l. 2. p, 24. viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith, but Faith is the confession of the Deity; for First he ought to believe, and after to be Sealed with Baptism. Doubts whether Athanasius is rightly rendered, for which I give you my Authority▪ That what is urged for the necessity of Faith to precede Baptism, respected the Adult, very true: And that some were for the Baptism of Infants, who were not capable to make Confession; very true also; Si aliquid periculi immineat, If any danger happened otherwise, the necessity thereof from any precept of Christ was not yet enjoyed.  
2. As to the 3 Councils, 
2. Decrees of Council.  (viz. the Carthaginian, Laodicean, and Neocesarian) so positively decreeing, That Teaching, Confession of Faith, and free choice, aught to precede Baptism. He saith, That these Decrees respected the Adult; very true; therefore not Infants. That the Council of Carthage and Laodicea Decreed also for Exorcism, and giving the Eucharist to dying Persons, and Penance etc. What then, if they were corrupt in other things, were they not right here? Most of the Fathers were for these Corruptions also. And that as to the Neocesarean Council he saith, He had as much cause to question, whether there was any such Council, as I had to question Cyprians Council. But herein he will find himself much mistaken, whilst the Magdeburghs, Cent. 4 c. 9 p, 615. give the Bishop's Names who sat in this Council, the time when it sat, viz. Immediately after that of Anoyranus, which Helvicus makes to be about the 10 or 12 of Constantine. Together with the 14 Canons of which this is one expressed at large, and which Dr. Taylor gives us in the Original Greek, Determining as he saith, that none ought to be Baptised without giving an account of their Faith, and desiring the same, Whilst Mr. Wills can neither produce from any Ancient and Authentic Authority, when, or where Cyprians Council sat, or what they decreed or determined in that Council, but what is pretended from that Epistle, which for its corruption is so much questioned, whereof more hereafter.  
The 3d. Instance, viz. from 10 of the most eminent Men of the Age, who were not Baptised till aged, 
3. From 10 of the most eminent men, not Baptised till aged.  though the Children of Christian Parents, viz. Bazel, Gregory, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin, Nectarius, Constantine, Valentinian, and Theodosius. Concerning whom, excepting: Two of them, viz. Constantine and Austin. he tells me he will not contend with me, but for them he doubts whether their Parents were Christian, yet denies not but that Dr. Taylor and Mr. Baxter may have been of my mind, whilst some others with himself have denied it, which will be of great force with any considering persons; for if they had judged it an Ordinance of Christ, so many of the Chief of the Age would not so have neglected it.  
In the next place Mr. Wills quarrels with some of my modern Authors, who speak the same thing, viz. That in these fi●st times none were Baptised without prefession of Faith, viz. Strabo Rhevanus Rupertus Boemus Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, especially questions Rhenanus and Rupertus for Forgery; the first I grant you is not proper to prove only such were Baptised, that term only being not in it as in all the rest, but is no Forgery. As for Rupertus, 'tis no Forgery; the Treat. saith, They administered Baptism only to the Children of the Church at Easter; the Reply saith only the Cathechumen, which as I take it is one and the same, as it respects the Children of the Church, who it seems were not Baptised till aged.  
But concerning Mr. B. and my abusing him, respecting his witness, that Adult Baptism was the only necessary Baptism in these times, take his own words so lately given us in his More Proofs, p. 279. viz. Yet again I will confess, That the words of Tertullian and Nazianzen show, 
Mr. B's full grant against the Antiquity of Infant's Baptism.  that it was long before all were agreed of the very time, or of the necessity of Baptising Infants before any use of reason, in case they were like to live to Maturity, for I am persuaded, that the Apostles and first Ministers were so taken up with the Converting of Infidels, Jews and Gentiles, that the case of Infant Baptism was so postponed, and taken up as an Appendix to the Baptism of the Adult, as that it was thought less needful to give it a particular express mention in the Records and History of the Church.  
Thus Mr. baxter's own Pen has given himself the lie, and just rebuke for all his vain jangle about the point of Antiquity for Infant's Baptism, which now he is thus forced to confess the●e is no express mention in the Records and History of the Church for, and so also at once spoiled all Mr. Wills daubery, and silly Wranglings about this Point.  
Therefore I hope it will not now be denied us that the Anabaptists have the Antiquity on their side, not only for the first 200, but for the first 400 years, there being nothing in the Records of Church History, as is manifest, and confessed to us also, to prove any Infant was Baptised, as a Church Ordinance, or that they ought in point of necessity so to be; and therefore there is no cause to question the truth of Dr. Tailors, and Dr. Barlows positive assertions in concurrence herewith, and in confirmation hereof remarked to us: And it is worthy of consideration, that Dr. Barlow, in his Apologetical Lr. printed by Mr. Wills, doth not gainsay the Reason and Truth of what he formerly affirmed, but the indiscretion of writing, and unfaithfulness of printing the same.   

CENT. V  
THe Fifth Century, as we have at large proved Treat. p. 105, etc. brings in the necessity of Infant's Baptism 
5. Cent. Brings in and imposeth the necessity of Infant's Baptism.  to regenerate, take away sin, and to save the Soul of the Infant, and that without which there was no Salvation to be had for them, grounded upon John 3.5. as determined in the Milevitan, and afterwards in the Carthaginian Councils, by Pope Innocentius, afterwards confirmed by Pope Zozimus, and afterwards by Pope Boniface, etc. Never determined saith Dr. Taylor, till the Canon made in the Milevitan Council, so saith Strabo, Luther, Grotius, Treat. p. 107. which afterwards by degrees came generally to be received both East and West. Yet withal this is most remarkable in the enjoining thereof, that the appointing of Gossips to confess Faith, and profess repentance in the name and stead of the Child before Baptism, 
Gossips confirm the necessity of profession before Baptism.  and the practice thereof ever since to this our day, was a great Confirmation that the truth of the principle was owned, that Christ enjoined in the Commission, requiring Faith should precede, and a Witness of the ancient practice of personal profession in the former Centuries. This Invention being found out purposely to answer the Commission: And therefore saith Lud. Vives 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; the perfect Image whereof (saith he) we have yet in our Infant's Baptism; for it is asked of the Infant, wilt thou be Baptised? for whom the Sureties answer, I will. And so saith Strabo Treat. p. 63. and Boemus p. 73. And upon this account both Austin, Chrysostom, and the Doctors and Learned Men produced by me downwards through the Papacy to our day, spoke so much (from Christ's Commission, and primitive Saints practise) for the necessity of Faith and Repentance before Baptism, only by their Sureties. And therefore did I so loudly call upon Mr. Wills to prove Gossips to be an appointment of Christ, or else to allow me all those Paedobaptists for proper Witnesses for Believers, and against Infant Baptism, and to free me from the many Forgeries he loaded me with for the same. But instead of doing himself and me right therein, he only returns thus to me, p. 45. vind. Mr. Danvers brings Testimony for Adult Baptism foom Paedobaptists, and It seems astrange design to all that I have spoken with about the same, that he should offer to bring, Chrysostom, Austin, etc. against Infant Baptism, so making the Fathers to contradict themselves, and for which I rebuke him.  

Mr. Wills declines answering the material point about Gossips.  But he takes much pains to vindicate himself, in which undertaking I find him so full of Meanders, and tedious Circumlocutions, that I judge it not worth the while to follow him.  
By which his declining to answer so material a thing, we must take it for granted he cannot, and therefore must still apply all those Authorities from Paedobaptists, even from Austin to Mr. Baxter, in full Confirmation of the practice of the Anabaptists, in their Baptising only after profession, and in point blank contradiction to their own practice of Baptising Infants, who are so uncapable either to answer the Commission, primitive Saints practise, or the Spiritual ends of that great Ordinance, and so our whole Witness stands good, as not answered or owned by themselves. As to what he saith respecting those several falsehoods returned upon him; and the absurdities made out against him about Tradition, from p. 51. to 83. I only desire the Reader to examine the shortness and insufficiency of his Answers by the Reply, from p. 29 to 79. it being not worth while to trouble them with his silly wranglings animated by partiality, as Mr. B. phrases it. And it must be remembered to him that as to those Stories about John a Leyden, for which he reflected so much obliquy upon the way of Anabaptistry; which was returned upon him, and his great error and ignorance in Story evinced with his malicious slanders and false reports he therein published, not only against the Holland, but English Anabaptists discovered to him: Concerning all which he makes no return, and whose silence therein must be taken for his guilt, and bound upon him at least till he vindicate himself, or own his folly and injustice. As also in his saying nothing to the Arguments for dipping, against sprinkling or pouring, (about which he has made such a flourish heretofore) is because if he be not wholly convinced, yet that he is substantially silenced, and can say nothing thereto.  
And lastly, as to what he has said against our Positive Witnesses against Infant's Baptism, we must refer him to what is said to Mr. Baxter, after whose Copy he writes, and he having so fully granted us Tertullian, and Mr. Baxter having granted as before, that the Beringarians, Wickliffians, and Waldenses were against Baptising Infants for Salvation, Manichees were expressly against it, who were no other than Waldenses. The whole of the Book stands yet firm and untouched, and most of it confirmed and established by their own Pens.    

CHAP. II. Some Objections about Origen and Cyprian, and others, answered.  
Obj. 1 MR. Wills tells me, p. 4. That I silently pass by what the magdeburg's do expressly say was in use in the 3d. age. viz. That adult Persons of both Sexes, and also Infants were Baptised, Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124.  
Answ. That I have nor passed it by will easily be understood, when it is considered what I have said to the Authorities they give for the same in the said place, Cent. 3. p. 124. viz. origen's Hom. on Leviticus, and Cyprians Epist. to Fidus, neither of which proving, as I suppose, sufficient Authority upon the trial to make good the same. The Words of the magdeburg's are these, Baptizabantur autem in utroque sexu adulti simul & infants, That adult Persons of both Sexes and Infants were Baptised. Nam de Infantibus Baptizandis Origines Homil 8. in leviticum, Ecclesiam ait traditionem accepisse ab Apostolis: Et Cyprianus l. 3. Ep. 8. For concerning the Baptising of Children, origen's 8 Homily on Leviticus saith, That the Church received it as a Tradition from the Apopostles, and Cyprians 8 Epistle in his 3d. Book to Fidus. Contra quod tamen etiam Tertullian censuit in lib. de Bapt. Notwithstanding Tertullian thought otherwise in his Book of Baptism, (mind that.)  
The Arguments brought from Origen and Cyprian have been examined at large in my Treat. p. 124. to 151. and further in the Reply p. 84. to 97. where I prove that of origen's to be Spurious, 
1. origen's Testimony examined.  and not only that upon Levit. and Rom. which Mr. Wills cannot now deny, [whereby the magdeburg's proof is out of doors] but what he saith also upon Luke, with my grounds urged for the same from Vossius, Scultetus, Erasmus, Dr. Owen. (1) Because the Original is not extant. (2) Because what is therein pretended from Origen, viz. That Children must be Baptised to take away Original sin, (so contrary to his own judgement) he being the head of the Arrians. Therefore how fair this is for Mr. Wills to boast of this Antiquity, and yet decline Answering to their Arguments, I leave all Men to judge. Who is pleased without any one word of Answer to that which is so positively said to enervate what is pretended for Luke, yet in a scurilous and pedantic way to say p. 93 Vind. We see by what is said, That we have Infants Baptism owned, as from the Apostles, by Origen on Luke, what ever becomes on the Romans, and translated by 〈◊〉, etc. So that the Fabreck stands yet upright, never like to be demolished by Mr. Danvers, ●hat ever great Exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his Colonelship.  
Concerning which proof from Origen, you have Dr. Taylor in his liberty of Prophecy, p. 237. Thus, 
D. Tailors full witness against origen's Testimony.  viz. None of the reformed Churches can pretend this Argument for this opinion: Because they who reject Tradition, when it is against them, must not pretend it in the least for them; but if the Topick be allowed to be good, yet how will it be verified? For so far as can yet appear, it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen, for from him Austin had it, a Person whom all other Ages have condemned of Errors, and whose works have been judged so spurious. etc.  
And that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church, That Infants ought not to be Baptised, is clear, faith he, in the Canon of the Council of Neocesaria, determining, that none ought to be Baptised without giving an account of their Faith, and desiring the same. And agreeable hereto witnessing the the Doctor, spoke fully his own sense herein, take that parallel passage writ in one of his last pieces, in his Dissuasive against Popery, writ 1667. viz. That there is a Tradition to Baptise Ynfants 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 speak against, which he would not have done, if it bade been a Tradition Apostolical, and that it was not so, it is but too certain, if there be any Truth in the woriss of Lud. Vives, saying, that anciently none were Baptised but Persons of riper Ages.  

2. Cyprians Testimony furtheo examined.  Then as to Cyprians Ep. to Fidus, (which is so much leaned upon, the other proving but a broken Reed) supposing there was such a Council; (which yet no Author can tell us when, and where held, and what therein determined) and that this Epistle was genuine, (against which I have much to say, Stephens, Daylle, Erasmus, and others proving how much his Works as well as origen's have been abused, and things fathered upon him that were never his) yet the erroneous grounds upon which Infants Bahtism is asserted therein, takes away the Credit and Authority of the said Council, determining as one well saith children's Baptism, by such Childish Reasons.  
But the matter of Fact say they is clear, which witnessed, that the Church had then such a practice, and which all our three Adversaries much insist upon,  
As to matter of Fact in Antiquity, (if this should be granted, of which I see not much cause, for at best it was but advice, and that upon erroneous grounds too, no Precedent as yet apparing in the Case) it would signify little to create a practice from it. For that Children were Baptised for health, and Church Walls were also solemnly Baptised for dedication, and after that Bells &c. cannot be denied, shall we therefore be warranted to do the like from those Precedents? But in as much as here was no Example, or matter of Fact, nor any advice but upon corrupt and erroneous grounds, this can signify nothing; the grounds of the advice being rejected by the Paedobaptists, therefore the advice itself as to matter of Fact is rejected be them also; all that can be gathered from it, if true, is only that such a Custom was creeping in. We know giving the Sacrament to Infants is supposed to be very ancient, and continued very long in use 600 years, saith Maldonat on Jo. 6. and that amongst the Greeks as well as Latins, assisted by Austin, Innocent, & others, (if not by Cyprian also) & that it was Apostolical, or founded upon the Scriptures, but is not that rejected?  
But holy Cyprian, saith Mr. Baxter, tells us, as p. 276. More Proofs, was an eminent worthy, a great Father and Pillar of the Church, and ought not to be slighted. Yet by his leave Father Cyprian was not Father Paul, nor any Apostle to us, nor doth he give us any warranty from the Word of God, and Chrlsts Precept to ground such a practice upon, but the contrary, and that which Paedobaptists now a days reject, as very erroneous. And if he tells us, we should do any thing as Apostolical without a word, we must give as little credit to him, as when he tells us, Chrysm is so, (which the Magd. tell us he doth, Cent. 3. p. 82. out of Cyprian, l. 1. Ep. 12. though Mr. Wills denies the same) or as when he tells us of the necessity of Exorcisms, the Authority of Peter's Chair, Alms to take away sin, that the Administrator gives the Spirit in the act of Baptism, of Rebaptisation, by undoubted Councils confirmed, Perfusion of the Clinici, Diluting of Wine, or mingling Water with it in the Sacrament etc.  
I have been the larger upon these Two, Origen and Cyprian, because my Three Antagonists, and others, do lay so much stress upon them, to prove their Antiquity from, but how little they signify you now see.  
Thus we have ended the point of Antiquity; and which we shall conclude with an Appeal to the Learned 
An Appeal to the Learned.  of all persuasions, Whether there is not good cause to write Antiquity upon Believers, and Novelty upon Infant's Baptism; Nothing more appearing for it for the Four first Centuries, than has yet been brought forth by our opposites, And so much for the Antiquity of Believers Baptism.   

CHAP. III. Gives answer to Mr. Wills his Appeal in all the parts of it.  
THe better to help the Appellants (viz. the Baptists) to give a righteous judgement in the matters brought to their Bar, by Mr. Wills in his Appeal: And for the satisfaction of all men, I do hereby ●oyn issue with him in the candid examination thereof.  

Mr. Wills his Appeal to the Baptists, as you find, consists of 8 Complaints, the which I distinctly answer as followeth.  
1. His first Complaint against me is, 
1. Prevarication.  For leaving out part of what my Authors say, to make the Sentence more for my purpose; and for which he gives six Instances.  
In Reply whereto, I first say in general, 
Answered. 1. Generally.  That in the quoting of Authors we are obliged to give only what they speak to the thing in hand, without unnecessary repetitions. And therefore Mr. Wills in his own case, when I blamed him p. 48. Reply, for leaving out part of that remarkable Sentence out of Nazianzen, viz. where he brings him to affirm, That a Child may be Baptised, leaving out the next words, si aliquid periculi imminoat, if any thing of danger happened. And in Excuse thereof is pleased to make the following return Vind. p. 7. viz. That I do exclaim against him for Curtailing that Father. but (saith he) the Judicious Reader may understand, that he quarrels at me without cause; for my business was to prove, That Infant Baptism was owned in that Century as to matter of Fact, and not to discover the ground of it, or to inquire in what Cases it was done; and therefore he might have spared his frivolous Charge about that matter.  
Which Rule of his own, however it may serve to relieve him for leaving out that passage, (which I doubt, and is not now my business to dispute) to be sure it will justine me in all the 6 Particulars charged upon me under this head. Yet this by the way, as to the reason of his omitting that passage; because, saith he, in the former words the matter of fact is to be made good, (viz. That Infant Baptism was owned in this Century) is manifest. But he knows the Question is not, Whether an Infant might be Baptised; for at another time he can tell us, That e●ery Baptism is not the Baptism intended, but only that which is done in Christ's way in obedience to his Rule. So that if a Child was Dipped, which it might be accidentally by chance, or occasionally upon some emergency, or Medicinally to cure Diseases, (as some were in this Age) or superstitiously to save its dying Soul, which was only the fancy intended in this place, (and therefore should not have been omitted, for spoiling the scope) it would signify nothing, being no Baptism of Christ's appointment, the matter of fact being only to be made out, when the necessity of such a practice in obedience to Christ's Command in performing a Gospel Ordinance is proved. And which Mr. Baxter grants us, was not as yet to be proved by any Church Record; and never till the Milevitan Council, saith Dr. Taylor.  
In the next place, for your better satisfaction, 
2ly Particularly.  I shall speak to each Particular: And,  
First, as to the quotation out of Daille 
1. About Dailles.  l. 2. p 149. mentioned Treat. p. 62. My business was therein to discover, That the Ancients deferred Infants Baptism, therefore I gave the several Instances from him of those who had their Baptism de●erred till aged, viz. Ambrose, Nazianzen, Bazil, etc. who appear undeniably to have been the Children of Christian Parents, and that it was, as he saith, the opinion of some of the Fathers, That it is fit Infant's Baptism should be deferred: And how comes it to pass, that there is not the least tracing or footing of this Custom in the Church of Rome. Nay, whence is it besides, that they will not so much as endure the very mention of it, and would abhor the Man that should go about to practise it, (the Truth whereof we find also, and feel) etc.  
But saith Mr. Wills, Daille mentions the deferring the Baptism of other people also, and why did I leave that out? For the Reason Mr. Wills gives, because it was not so much ad rem. Though if I had, it would have done him no service, it Daille understood himself, who refers us to what he had before spoken about it, which we find in p. 72. where he tells us, That some were of opinion, That elder People should be deferred Baptism, as well as Infants, agreeing therein, saith he, with the Anabaptists, (which indeed is our Custom, waiting for fruits meet for Repentance in the first place, so deferring elder as well as younger.  

2. The Canon of the Council of Constant.  And as to the Second, about the Canon of the Council of Constant. I find upon search, that though the 2d Chapter, referred to by the Magd. and Mr. Wills mentions no more than what follows, viz. Si parvulus aegrotans ad quemlibet Presbyterum Baptismi gratia de cujuslibet parochia allatus fuerit, ei Baptismi Sacramentum nullo modo denegetur; siquis hoc munus petenti concedere detrectaverit, & ille parvulus absque Baptismi gratia mortuus fuerit noverit ille qui eum non Baptizavit pro ejus anima rationem redditurum. Yet the 7th. Chapter which neither point to, expresses what Mr. Wills repeats from the Magd. about it; and withal, it does now appear also, that that 7th. Chapter is one of the 9 Binius reckons to be spurious, in these words, Hi novem sequentes Canones falso adscribuntur sextae Synedo; sed quia pij cum primis esse videntur noluimus curiosum Lectorem eorum cognitione fraudare. Bin. Tom. 5. p. 361. And therefore upon the whole, though i● be sufficient to clear me, that the omitting the exception in that place was not with an intention to deceive, having in my Book twice mentioned it; yet I acknowledge, it should have been expressed, or rather the whole quotation omitted, and do now disown it.  

3. That out of calvin's Institutes.  Thirdly, As to that passage out of calvin's Institutes, wherein I bring him p. 91. Treat. to confess, That it is not where expressly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any one Child was by the Apostles hands Baptised; which he in●imates, was not calvin's sense, but expressed by him to have been the objection of Fools, the which Mr. Wills might blush to mention, when he knows Calvin himself to own it as the next words express, viz. Et si enim id nominatim ab Evangelistis non narratur, i. e. For although it is not by the Evangelists expressly mentioned: And is not that the making it his own? Concluding that their folly only lay in not receiving it, equivalent with Scripture, in as much as Infants were not excluded by Scripture, 
Guilty of what he accuseth.  and that whole Families are mentioned to be baptised: And therefore whether Mr. Wills did fairly in stopping his Translation where he did (that it might appear to those that understood not Latin to be so gross as he would make it, and thereby render himself to be guilty of the very thing be falsely accuseth me of, viz. To leave out part of the Author, that discovers he speaks quite otherwise than he is made to speak, Rom. 2.1.) is submitted to his Conscience, and the considerate Reader.  
Fourthly, As to what he complains to have been left out in Bellarmin, 
4ly. Bellarmine, and 6. Dr. Field.  viz. That Infant's Baptism was to be deduced out of Scripture, p. 95. And that out of Dr. Field, That the grounds of it were taken out of Scripture, p. 155, 1. Ed. were also omitted from his own grounds aforesaid: Because I there quoted both of them under the Head of Tradition, (they both with so much positiveness asserting Infants Baptism so to be) yet you'll find, that when I speak to that Head of Consequences from Scripture, I quote them bo●h, as Reply, p. 74. 
Lastly, Dr. owen's.   
And lastly, As to that of Dr. Owen, p. 175. which with Estius, Ainsworth and Ames, I brought to prove the Seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.7. respected the Spiritual Seed only, viz. the Elect, who were to partake of the Spiritual Promises, (and not the Carnal Seed, as Paedobaptists generally take it,) which the D●. doth so fully and at large evince: And therefore that Clause he excepts against, was by his own Rule well enough left out, that speaks to another thing. Though I confess, had I supposed that the omitting it, would have been any injury to the Dr. or just offence to any man, or any wrong to truth I should have mentioned it, and which I may well do without any prejudice to the cause I maintain. For if I had been to prove that Circumcision, tha● External Administration of the Covenant which the Jews had, belonged to their Carnal Seed, I should have mentioned that; but in as much as the other was the matter in hand, I know not that it was so heinous to omit it, Mr. Wills in his own Case being Judge. It is our belief that (as the Dr. says) the external Administration of the Covenant, viz. Circumcision did belong to Abraham, and his Carnal Seed (the Jews) under the legal Administration; yet it follows not therefore, that Baptism belongs to his Carnal Seed under the Gospel Dispensation. And therefore the omitting that Phrase, which is not at all disputed betwixt us, could not be from any injurious design. And therefore I conceive I deserve not the severe rebuke, he is pleased to give me for the same, viz. That I am therein guilty of much dishonesty, 
☜  and that it is such an unworthy carriage, that be never observed the like in any man. Though truly if I should have put it in, I know not what advantage Mr. Wills could make of it at another time, except he concludes, that the same ●ederal right to the Carnal Seed, is continued under the Gospel, as it was under the Law, and gives the same right to claim the same privileges now, as that did to the Jews before: If so, surely John Baptist did greatly mistake himself, when he forbade them Baptism upon that consideration, & bids them not to say within themselves, that they were the Children of Abraham, for that must not now serve their turns, it being only Fruits meet for Repentance, that that must qualify them for the Baptism of Repentance, (and Gospel-Ordinances and Privileges) and not their old Carnal Privilege to be Abraham's fleshly Seed, in which they mainly boasted, & whereon ●hey bolstered themselves. And suitable hereto doth Dr. Owen himself very excellently tell us in his 6. Exercit, on the Heb. p. 56 Tom. 1. viz.  
That the misapprehension hereof was the main thing that confirmed the Jews in their obstinacy and unbelief, that being only a peculiar Privilege to that fleshly Seed, for the bringing forth of the Messiah into the World, and that when he was come, that Privilege fell, and all Ordinances suited thereto, expired, and new Ordinances of Worship more suitable to the Gospel were appointed, etc. That whole Exercitation being written with so much Judgement and Spirituality, I would earnestly recommend it to Mr. Wills, and Mr. Whistons' Considerations, and all other of their minds, who would, upon like misapprehesions, have Gospel-Ordinances and Privileges still entailed upon the fleshly Seed, upon that old federal right which was only Typical, as well observed to us, and done away, (having done its business) when Christ came into the world, that greater Privileges, and better Ordinances suited to the Gospel dispensation might take place. Jesus Christ as the Dr. so well tells us in his Cat. p. 106. Requiring Regeneration as an indispensible condition in a Member of his Church, a Subject of his Kingdom: For his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. viz. Men spiritually, and savingly quickened, from their Death in sin by the Holy Ghost, (whereof they are partakers) made a meet Habitation for God, Eph. 2.21, 22. 1 Cor. 3.16. 2 Cor. 6.16. & pag. 103. God hath appointed Saints to be the seat and subject of all his Ordinances, having granted the right of them to them alone, 1 Tim. 3.15. But this by the By, which may not be unseasonable upon this occasion. Thus I have dispatched the first Head, not doubting but I have given ample satisfaction therein.   

II. His Second Complaint against me is, for adding to Authors 
Adding to Authors.  without the Distinction of a different Character, whereof he gives seven Instances.  

Answered. 1. Generally.  This is a Charge that I think may concern most Writers, and 'tis confessed, that many times it falls out, that through the inadvertency of Writers, or carelessness of Printers, that Quotations out of Authors are not always written in a different Character, whereby the Reader is at a loss many times, whether he reads his Author, or another Man that he refers to: And which is the fault, as Mr. Wills knows, of the magdeburg's, of the Bazil Impression, and the fault of Mr. Wills his present Book, which I could abundantly evidence, if I would be Critical, and trouble the Reader with such Impertinencies. And wherein any such omission has been in any of my Writings, I can truly say they have not been wilful, but my trouble to find, and of which I shall be more careful for the future, and so will I hope my Corrector. But to be more particular to your 7 Instances, viz.  
Those Two added to the magdeburg's are truly their own, 
2. Particularly.  though not so immediately following in that Page. That other of Chrysostom was purely my own and should have been distinguished. That which he calls my adding to Jerom, positively saying they are none of his words, though I tell you, that he saith it is, is Mr. Wills his grofs mistake; for he will find they are his own words in his Annot. upon Mat. 28. Tom. 9 Edit. Paris, Anno 1546. viz. Non enim potest fieri ut corpus Baptismi recipiat Sacramentum, nisi ante anima fidei susceperit veritatem, i. e. For it cannot be, that the Body should receive that Sacrament of Baptism, till the Soul hath before received the verity of Faith. That to Lydia is not an adding to the Scripture, but my own sense of the words, concluding, that only Believers in her Household were Baptised, of which I speak at large in my Reply, p. 184. That to Beza's is easily understood not to be his, by any ordinary Reader. And that to Ames very plainly. But what Injury done herein, and what the obstinacy calling for an Appeal, is left to all to judge.   


Forgery.  III. The Third Complaint is, For making Authors affirm one thing, when they affirm the directly contrary, yea, contradicting myself.  

Answered. 1. About Estius.  1. The first he mentions, is that of Estius for Calvin, heretofore owned by me, which savours nothing of Ingenuity, though in looking into my Book, I find I am not altogether so tardy as I took myself to be; for whoever pleases to look p. 176. in the end of that Quotation, will find, that I put Estius Ann. Gen. 17.7. and by what mistake Calvin came to be mentioned in the beginning of it, I know not, therefore how fair Mr. Wills was in that Cavil, and since, by his unmerciful inculcating the same, is left to the Reader.  

2. Dr. Hamond on Joh. 13.10.  2. The second is, for mistaking, (as he saith) a Quotation out of Dr. Hamond, quite contrary to what he affirms, with his remark upon it, viz. No wonder Mr. D mistakes Latin Authors so often, when he cannot rightly understand those that are in English. But what cause there is for the same, and that it ought rather to be turned upon himself, will appear by the following Parallel.  
Dan. Treat. p. 194. Dr. hamond's An. on Joh. 13.10. printed for R. Royston, 1653 Mr. Wills saith, that Dr. Hamond saith, Dr. Hamond upon Joh. 13.10 tells us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion, or washing the whole body, and which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament. The Heb. had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former, (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) washing of the whole body, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other of the hands or feet, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctifying. The Heb. had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the former (that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the washing of the whole body, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other two (that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the hands or feet.  
And then has the confidence to say, Mr. D. tells us, the Dr. saith Baptismos signifies an Immersion, or washing of the whole Body, and answers to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas indeed he tells us, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the washing of the whole Body, and answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now that this was exactly agreeable to the Drs. Writings elsewhere in the said Book, as well as the truth, the Reader is desired to peruse him upon Mark 7.4. p. 172. where he saith, That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. which belongs to the hands or feet) signifies the washing of the whole body. Thus 'tis said of Eupolis (which wrote the Tragedy called Baptae against Alcibiades) that being taken and thrown into the Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so the Baptisms of Cups, etc. in the end of this Verse is putting into water all over, rincing them: Two words there are used by the Hebrews for washing. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word used for washing hands and feet only, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here; And 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immersion of the whole body, to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers. And upon Mat. 3.1. p. 14. As the Jews call those Lakes wherein they wash themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so in the Christian Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Vessel which contained the Baptismal Water is oft called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a swimming or diving place.— And further, John in token of the resolved change of the Jews, put them into the Water, and dipped them all over, and so took them out again; And upon the sincerity of their change, promised them remission of sins. And now whether it be Mr. Wills or I that have abused Mr. Hamond, is submitted to the unprejudiced Reader.  

3. About the Pope's Name Deus dedit.  As to the Third I grant, Deus dedit appearing to me two words, and not the Name of a Man; I rendered it Deo dans, or God's gift, not considering, as Mr. Wills observes, that there had been a Pope of that Name, which since I find in the Catalogue of Popes, and therefore acknowledge it to be my error.  

4. Quotation out of Walden.  Fourthly, as to the Quotation out of Walden, I acknowledge Mr. Wills hath truly rectified to our advantage, which confirms more fully, that Wickliff, and his followers, were against Infant's Baptism, in agreement with the Albegois, and Sylvester in Scotland, though different from Pelagius and Vicentius Victor, which was my mistake, who (as it is said) held Infants Baptism, and thereby reproved himself for asserting the quite contrary, viz. That Walden affirms, That Wickliff held Infant's Baptism, p. 45. of his Vind.  
The words of Walden relating to Wickliff are, Nostri Wiclivistae Baptismum Ecclesiasticum inutile judicant parvulis, which [parvulis] Mr. Wills very unworthily leaves out, to insinuate to his Reader, that they rejected all Baptism, whereas that term expressly limits it to little ones; nor can I seriously conjecture, but it's rather a lapsus mentis then error Calami or Typographi: Nor does he take notice of the reason assigned there for their denying Infant's Baptism, which is the very same Mr. Wills, and those of his mind, produce for its practice, viz. sufficienter eos aiunt esse mundatos & sanctos, quia de sanctis parentibus & Christianis nascuntur, i. e. They deem them sufficiently cleansed and holy, because they are born of Holy and Christian Parents. And now whether Mr. Wills his Curtailing this Quotation, or my harmless and unndesigned mistake of asserting Wickliff to agree with Pelagius be the more , I humbly submit to consideration.  
The Fifth is no contradiction, 
5. That of 1. Cor. 7.14  which is only an Allusion to those in Ezra's time that put away their strange Wives, Similes not running of all four, as Mr. Wills would stretch it.  
The Sixth is no Contradiction, 
6. Quotation out of Frank.  for Infant's Baptism might be universally received, and yet in many places little esteemed, has it not been so heretofore here in England, as to that as well as other things I could mention? 1. Because persons may little esteem things they receive. 2. By universal, I explain myself to mean the Greek and Latin Churches, (which admitted of exception) viz. Those that submitted to the Pope, and those that were under the Patriarches.  

7. An Assertion of my own.  The Seventh is no Contradiction, which in the former Chapter I have so fully cleared; there being Antiquity for Believers Baptism in the first Centuries, but no Record for Infant Baptism, as Mr. Baxter grants, in the Church Histories. So that no primitive Antiquity for the same, though the Ancients in after Ages did assert it.  
So that what ezceptions he has made hitherto, are but slender, and not of that Moment, nor so persisted in, as to deserve an Appeal.   


False Translation.  iv He chargeth me with perverting the sense of Authors by the falseness of Translations, whereof he gives Nine Instances.  


Answered.  
1. Generally.   As to Translations, I conceive there is a great liberty allowed, provided the scope and intention of the Author be well heeded; and therefore saith Mr. Marshal in his Defence, p. 16. Translations are various, some affect in their Translations to follow their Author Kata poda, to have the very footsteps of the words they translate; other Translations are Metaphrastical, or by way of Paraphrase they expound as they translate; thus several men have their several fancies though they adhere to to the Author which they translate, even when they keep not in all things to his words; Jerom gives Instances in the Septuagint translations, whose Testimony I need not name to you. But to the particulars.  
As to the first of bullinger's, 

2. Particularly.  
1. bullinger's.   I did not translate it, but transcribed it word for word out of that Author, called, A very plain and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptism. p. 14. mentioned by me p. 9 It is true, I confess, I should have expressed it, or rather have searched the original myself, and so should Mr. Wills, when he so mistakenly quoted one from Dr. Holmes, and did neither, and another from the magdeburg's about Erasmus.  
As to the Second, about Nazianzen, 
2. Nazianzen.  Baptizandos peccatae sua confiteri solitos, I own it should be rendered, The Baptised were wont to confess their sins. Nor did I give it as a translation, verbatim; but what I apprehended to be the consequential sense, which I deduce thus: [the Baptised] being an indefinite term, and equipolent with an universal, is as much, as if all the Baptised did so; and if all did confess their sins, than none but such we●e Baptised in the first times, which is concurrent with the sense of so many Authors, so positively affirming the same thing; and if that be not the meaning, I humbly conceive the expression (otherwise understood) may be somewhat impertinent, it being owned of all hands, that the Adult in all Ages so to do.  
The Third is of Olympiodorus, 
3. Olympiodorus.  a mere quibble, and catching at words; the word [Born] by the words going before, viz. Spiritual Li●e, being easily understood to be [born again] however the word [again] came to be omitted.  
The Fourth of Albertus, is of like Import; 
4. Albertus  for if Baptism cannot through the incapacity of the subject operate upon them, it may be truly said in a Paraphrastical Translation, That it is not proper to admit Infants thereto: For if it cannot operate in any other but the Adult, who are illuminated and called, who can draw Virtue from Christ's Death and Resurrection, than Baptism not proper for other.  

5. Albinus.  Neither is the Fifth from Albinus ill rendered or perverting the sense if you take the scope, and former words, which speak the thing he excepts against; and which Mr. Wills leaves out, a liberty being granted to paraphrase, keeping to the sense, though contracting the words.  
The Sixth is no perverting or misrepresenting the Magdeb. in saying, They tell us, That in the latter end of the Fourth Cent. they Baptise Children, giving it from the testimony of Athanasius, who writ in the latter part of the 4th. Cent. That Contra Arianos being writ, as saith Helvicus, Anno 360 But I have since made appear, that the Magdeb. tell us therein an untruth; for that pretended account was from Athanasius' supposed Questions, which they themselves afterwards confess to be spurious, as I have told Mr. Wills, and he confesseth to be true, and therefore wonder, that he should have the Confidence to put this under the notion of misrepresentation, or mistranslation, it being neither. Had I given a translation of the former part of the sentence, respecting Origen and Cyprian (before refuted by me, and which I cencerned not with myself, then) and not rendered [in Ecclesiijs Affricaenis] in the African Churches, there might be some ground of Cavil; but whereas I did not, I hope I may be excused. The words are, Hoc vero seculo eundem [viz. Baptismum] durasse ex Athanasio constat, quaest. 124. i. e. It appears from Athanasius 124. question, that it (viz. Infant Baptism) was in this Age. So that what I say respects the time, and not whether all or part of the African Churches. But if to say in the African Churches they Baptised Children, pleases Mr. Wills, I am contented it should be so; and let him make the most of it.  
The 7th. concerning the Milevitan Decree, 
7. About the Milevitan Canon.  viz. That first part of the Canon, That all that affirm, that young Children receive Everlasting life, albeit they be not by the Sacrament of Grace or Baptism renewed. I made it not, nor abused that Council, nor mis-translated their words, for in the Verse before going, as the magdeburg's express it, p. 835. they represent the crime of those they censure in these words, Non opitulari parvulis ad consequendam vitam Aeternam Christianae gratiae Sacramentum, viz. That the Sacrament of Christian Grace (or Baptism) profits not little Children to Everlasting Life. The same also is expressed by the whole Council to Innocentius, in their Synodical Epistle, p. 842. in these words, pueros qu●que parvulos si nullis innoventur, & gratiae Sacramentis, habituros vitam Aeternam. The same is also in Innocents' Decretal Letter, p. 845. which he reiurned to the Council in these words, Illud vero quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare, parvulos Aeternae Vitae praemijs, etiam sine Baptismatis gratia, posse donari perfatuum est; And to meet with those Heretics, (as they counted them) was the decree I mentioned, made, and which is to be found in Regia Collect. Tom. 4. p. 559. immediately after the words recited by Mr. Wills ex Pervetusto codices, out of a very ancient Copy, thus. Item placuit, ut siquis dicit ideo dixisse Dominum, in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt, ut intelligatur, quia in regno Caelorum erit aliquis medius, aut ullus alicubi locus, ubi beat vivant parvuli, qui sine Baptismo ex hac vita migrarunt, sine quo in regno Caelorum quod est vita aeterna intrare non possunt Anathema sit; and which is the very thing I affirmed: and therefore I hope will justify me from this Charge, giving only an Epitome, and not the whole of the Decree, out of the Decretals themselves, not the magdeburg's. 'Tis true, the Canon has not this Appendix to it, where recited by the magdeburg's, nor in Reg. Collect. p. 362. though properly belonging to it; but where the African Canons are collected, repeated, and confirmed under Caelestinus Pope, and Theodosius Emperor, Anno 424. it is annexed. And then this 2d. Canon of the Milevitan Council, with this annexed, is made the 77th African Canon. And I must further inform the Reader, that the Mag'd. confounded these two Milevitan Councils together, putting the latter, which was in the year 416, under the year 402. which was the first Milevitan Council in Numidia in Africa; and both held under Innocent Pope, and Theodosius Emperor; which mistake is taken notice of in Regia Collectione, with the grounds thereof. And in p. 541. you'll find these words beginning the Collection, Sequuntur Concilia Affricana sub Innocentio habita: which includes the Canon I cite in p. 559. aforesaid.  

1. About P. Innocents' Blasphemy.  That the 8th. is no misrepresentation, in saying, That P. Innocentius attributed divine Honour to the Popedom, will be easily conceived, inasmuch, as he singled out Peter, and attributed Divine Honour to him, put confidence in him, and desired help from him in conjunction with God himself; and whether he did it as to Pope Peter, or St. Peter, is not much material, the former is probable. And therefore doth Fox 2 Vol. p. 1020. etc. tell us in how many things the Popes blasphemously match themselves with God himself.  
The 9th. out of Vossius, 
9 Quotation out of Vossius.  giving the Reasons from the Ancients, why they Baptised Men and Women naked, is a full and clear Translation, as fully made good from those particular instances given out of Vossius from Cyril, Chrysostom, Cretensis, Anselm, Ambrose, etc. his being a miserable trifle in his Appeal to the Reader, whether the Reasons given, were not because their naked Bodies were to be Baptised, and not the , as I ignorantly (as he saith) affirm, whereas I give those Reasons, why they Baptised their naked Bodies, and not the , viz. That they might be, as in the state of Innocency; and as in their first Birth, and as they expect to be in Heaven, or as Christ was was nailed to the Cross. From the Ancients, which they expressly make out in p. 32.  
Therefore it is left to the Reader to judge, where there is the least misrepresentation, or false Translation in all these Particulars, and what cause to make an Appeal for the same.   

V 
Forgery.  The Fifth thing he complains against me for is, For fathering upon Authors that which they indeed say not, at least in the places, by me quoted; whereof he gives 8 Instances.  

Answered. 1: Quotation out of Luther.  The first as to a Quotation out of Luther de Sacrament. Tom. 3. fol. 168. I transcribed it out of the same Author before mentioned, the plain and well grounded Treatise, p. 25. I have since examined that Tome, but cannot there find it; supposing, they either misquoted the Tome, or else quoted it out of another Edition, concluding, so large a Quotation was not fathered upon him, he speaking much that Language in other places.  

2. Out of Bazil.  To the Second, as to the Quotation of Bazil, contra Eunom. who only say, That he saith, lib. 3. That Baptism is the Seal of Faith. But he will find the rest of the Sentence in that Book of Bazil they refer to, viz. lib. 3. p 84. Baptism is the Seal of Faith; but Faith, the Confession of the Deity: for first he ought to believe, and after to be sealed with Baptism. 
* Nam credere prius oportet ac postea Baptismate designari.   

3. Magdeb.  To the Third, where he saith, That the magdeburg's do not say, it was the universal practice to Baptise the Adult under the 4th. Cent. as I affirm they do. I say, That I have made it appear, they do by those Instances mentioned by them, from the say of the Doctors, and the Decrees of Councils, that Decreed only for Adult Baptism; and for which, I refer you to the former Chapter for further proof, that I did not  them therein. If I speak their sense, though vary in words, and contract what they say at large, I do them no injury. But so they do express it.  

4. Arnobius.  To the 4th, That I quote Arnobius, a spurious Author, whilst I blame him for such, and which I say, I take out of the Magd. whereas the magdeburg's have it not.  
To which I say first, I do not know, that Arnobius upon the Psalms, is a spurious Author, should I have quoted him out of Perkins, who (Mr. Wills saith) tells us, it is spurious, as he did Athanasius' questions out of the Magdeb. which they said was so, I had been liable to like Reproof. Neither 2dly. did I say, I took Arnobius out of the magdeburg's; I said the Magd. did give some of those that followed, not all, he being mentioned upon the 146. Psalms, and not from any Book or Page in the magdeburg's.  
The Fifth, 
5. Out of Aquinus.  it is true, is a mistake as placed by the Printer, but not intended, as easily discerned by the Reader, being put down as an additional Proof out of Albertus, having Inserted 3 before, the Printer putting Aquinus before the last of them, and so made that which I had put, viz. [And again] to belong to Aquinus, and not to Albertus. Which Venial mistake he makes equivolent with that grand one of Bazil for Nazianzen, which he so egregiously abused me for, and boasted what great acquaintance he had with Father Bazil, putting it down as a great remark 3 several times: This of mine being a proof for him, viz. to prove Infant's Baptism; therefore it matters not much, whether from one or the other, they both speaking the same thing, that of his, wholly against me.  
As to the 6th. the Magd. tell us, 
6. Out of the Magd.  That Infants as well as the Adult, were Baptised; and instance only in a Queen than Baptised, whom Zonaras calls Rossorum Reginam. And that's all (I confess) that Zonaras is concerned in it.  
The 7th. is such another trifle. I say, 
7. Out of Vossius.  Vossius saith, (for he was a Collector from Authors; and those he quotes, we may in propriety of speech attribute to him) That Nectarius was made Bishop of Constantinople before he was Baptised, he says, he was but appointed so, the stress of the proof lying, That he was a Believer at age before he was Baptised, there being no such great difference, betwixt being made and appointed Bishop in the Case. And Beza there gives instances, not of obscure persons, but of persons, as he says, that had the eyes of all upon them Baptised at Age, viz. Constantine, Nectarius, and Nazianzen.  

8. One of Mr. B.  The 8th. is much like his fellows, in a Quotation from Mr. Baxter, proving against the Popish Doctrine, ex opere operato, to work Grace by the deed done, I brought him to say, That Baptism of itself cannot give Grace or Regeneration, nor can work any such cause; for Water, he saith, is not a subject either capable of receiving or conveying Grace to the Soul. But he saith, I abuse Mr. Baxter's words, who saith, That Baptism can be no such cause, whereby I do, as he saith, attribute Nonsense and Absurdity to him; and that there is neither Innocency nor Truth in so affixing it. If to work no such cause, be such an error, it is a venial one, and I can say, not wilful; but certainly this Man would make notable work with me, if he had matter to work upon. But what just cause of Complaint or Appeal in all this, I profess seriously, I see not.   


Misplacing Quotations  VI The 6th is, for picking out of Authors here and there, and joining them together, as if they were one entire Sentence, whereof he gives four Instances.  
To the 3 first, viz. Mr. Baxter, Dr. Owen, 
Answered.  and Dr. Taylor, I say, I have put down nothing but their own, and what is congruous, one thing answering properly and naturally with another, which if it did not, we should, I presume, have heard of.  
And for what relates to himself, which is the 4th. I have done him no wrong, the Pages mentioned by me, viz. p. 36, 38, 101, 131, 132. I have particularly examined, and desire the Reader so to do; and let him judge betwixt us, whether he doth not in those Pages compared again and again say, 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 Infant Baptised, each Page I would have put down, but that I would not burden the Reader; which you find expressed by me in my Reply, p. 63. and the several Pages particularly expressed, I refer to. And what good cause is given to complain of me in this, I see as little as the former.   

VII. The 7th. is, for asserting notorious untruths, 
Notorious untruths.  giving Instances of Eight.  
The first for affirming, 
1. Answered.  That Antiquity itself, so much boasted of, is altogether for Believers, and not for Infant's Baptism, 
1. About Antiquity for Infant Baptism.  an Assertion, as he saith, so notoriously false, that I have confuted myself in owning the ancients asserted it.  
This is already answered again and again, I hope to satisfaction, viz. That primitive Antiquity is only for Believers, and not for Infant's Baptism; and the Ancients in latter, not former Centuries, only for Infant's Baptism.  

2. About Christening a Dead Child.  The Second for saying, That a Child that died unbaptised, was taken up and Christened, putting in the Margin a dead Child Christened; the Boy was not taken up and Baptised Dead; but after he came to life again, he was Baptised.  
In the first place, I conceive there is no untruth in my rendering the words, Is puerum sine Baptismo mortuum resuscitarit ex mortuis, & tandem Baptizarit, That a Child that died unbaptised, was taken up and Christened; being not exclusive of the sense Mr. Wills would have it bear. But 'tis the Margin that saith [a dead Child Christened] he mainly quarrels at, which indeed is wholly mine, and therefore my sense or explanation of my own words, is to be received, which admits of a Two fold, or double Interpretation, viz. either that Child that was Dead, now Christened, and so not to be blamed in Mr. Wills own sense: Or if I should intent the Child then dead when Christened, I know no reason, but I may have my liberty of Conjecture, as well as Mr. Wills: And the rather, because, though resuscitare be generally understood, to raise to life, yet the phrase here, may, without any such palpable absurdity, be understood, a taking up from among the Dead, or out of the Grave; especially, because such an Interpretation so exactly agrees with their (then usual) practise to Baptise the Dead that died unbaptised; which certainly is more likely, and far more agreeable to truth, then that such a Miracle was wrought of raising to life. Besides, why may not the Dead be sometimes used for the Grave, as the Grave is often (Metonymically) used for the Dead, and Death? as I could instance with great variety, had it been necessary. So that this latter (should I persist in it) is so far from being , that it is indeed very probable; and therefore Reader, take it which way you will, no such notorious untruth as he talks of can hence be justly chargeable upon me.  
The third notorious untruth he saith I assert, is from the magdeburg's, Cent: 13. p: 419. viz. That the Magd: do say, 
3 About Gulielmus blasphemy.  that as to the form of Baptism, Gulielmus added to the Father. Son, and Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, viz. I baptise thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Blessed Virgin Mary; which saith he, is another notorious untruth; for the magdeburg's say nothing of the Virgin Mary; but which of us speak truth, let the Reader judge: The words of the magdeburg's are these in the Cent: and p: abovesaid, viz: Male Gulielmus ad Formam Baptismi addidit Mariam, 
〈…〉  Baptizo te in Nomine Patris Omnipotentis, & Filii & Spiritus Sancti, & Beatae Mariae Virgins. De Bapt: & ejus part. c. 2. Magd. Cent: 13. c: 419. i: e. Gulielmus wickedly added Mary to the form of Baptism: I Baptise thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Blessed Virgin Mary in his 2. ch: of Bapt. and its parts. Therefore if this be not daring temerity, I know not what is.  
To the 4th. that the Donatists were against Infant-Baptism, 
4 About the Donatists.  which, he saith, is as true, as that a Dead Child was Baptised, and that Pope Innocent was the first Inventor of Baptism, and Antiquity altogether for Believers, and not for Infant's Baptism.  
What ground I had to affirm the Donatists were against Infant's Baptism, I have given at large enough at least, if not to make it good, yet to free me from a Forger. Whether the Child taken up was living or dead, when Baptised (what I writ being capable of being interpreted either way) is left to better judgement; that I any where have said that Pope Innocent was the first Invetor of Infant's Baptism, is I presume Mr. Wills his Invention not to be ma●e good from my writings. I do indeed say, p. 111. And this was that Innocent who was the first great Patron and Imposer of this Invention viz. In his Canon in the Milevitan Council; and so says Dr. Taylor Grotius, Strabo, p. 107. as well as myself, that Infant's Baptism was never determined, nor en●oyned nor imposed till th●n. And whether Antiquity, viz. of the first Centuries was not for Be ievers, and not for Infant's Baptism; Let Mr. Baxter himself, with what hath been said, determine.  

5 About Lanfrank.  The 5th about Lanfranks Testimony, one of my witnesses to prove Berengarius denied Infants Baptism, is, I fully acknowledge my mistake, which (a Person of quality) a worthy Friend of mine several months since helped me to discover, in examining that Story of Berengarius with me out of the magdeburg's, and who is my witness of my intended resolution to rectify the same, and which I concluded to have done, though not discovered by them. And the ground of that my mistake was truly this▪ I finding that in the Hypothesis of the erroneous Dogm's charged upon Berengarius; they gather up 5 or 6 Particulars, the first 4 respecting Transubstantiation, the 5th. and 6th. Infant's Baptism, and Marriage, then superficially casting my Eye to the end of the Story, I found it said, ad quintum & sextum opponit Doctrinam perpetuam & consensientem Ecclesiae Dei, To the 5●h. and 6th. he therein opposes the perpetual and agreeing Doctrine of the Church of God; Quoting Lanfrank of the Sacraments, and his Book de Scintill: concluding it did respect those 5 or 6 Particulars before mentioned, but afterwards examining it with the aforesaid Friend, I found that those 5 or 6 Particulars did not include those first mentioned, but were 6 other Particulars discoursed about Transubstantiation, betwixt Lanfrank and him Yet this I must remark by the way, that though I mistook myself in this, yet the rest of my Testimonies to prove Berengarius did deny Infant's Baptism hold good, as you'll find before in p. 92. 2d. Rep. Guitmond being one of them, who asserts that he did affirm Baptism did not profit little ones.  
7. As to the Canon of Illerdon in Spain, 
7 Illerdon Canon.  I quote it out of the Dutch Book of Martyrs, for which they Cite their Authorities at large, page 189. 1 Book. And if they have mistaken it, let them be accountable for it, and me, no more than Mr. Wills desires to be, for quoting the magdeburg's in their mistake about Erasmus.  
6. Amongst my notorious untruths he puts my calling Circumcision a legal Ordinance, 
6 About Circumcisin.  when as he saith, it was instituted 400 Years before the Law. What then? so were Sacrifices 2000 Years before it; were they not therefore legal also, being enjoined by God as well as the other under the Law? and therefore 'tis said of Circumcision, though of the Fathers, yet it was given by Moses, John 7.22. and which was so legal, that it bound to the keeping of the whole Law, Gal: 2.3. and so typical and shadowy, that it was to be done away when Christ came, Gal: 2.2. and of such great stress that there was no entering into the Jewish Church without it, & whoever eat the Passeover uncircumcised must be cut off: And that the Paedo-Baptists Arguments from Circumcision are begged, not proved: See my Reason's p: And how all my Arguments are begged or stolen, is begging still till proved, which will be best understood by his Answers, to which these are referred.  

Sericius, for Hincmarus.  8: The mistake of the name Sericius for Hincmarus I own; but what Decrees were made by P: Sericius so immediately proceeding Innocentius for Infant's Baptism as Mr: Wills supposeth, I find not, when he produceth them I'll blot out Innocent, and put Sericius the first Imposer of it.   


Strange Doctrines.  VIII. The last he charges is strange Doctrines.  
The first for calling the National Church of the Jews, 

Answered.  
1 About the Jewish Church.   made up of the Carnal Seed, a Carnal Church, who had Carnal Ordinances, which he saith is Blasphemy to affirm. But that Balsphemy the Holy Spirit will acquit me of whilst he calls their Ordinances of their Church by that Name, and what Salvo Mr: Wills gives for their Ordinances, will serve for the Church also, which is to be understood (saith he) Comparatively; and so say I to the more Spiritua Church and Ordinances in the New Testament.  
But that Baptism doth as much Initiate the carnal seed in the Gospel-Church, as circumcision under the Law, is I presume Mr. Wills strange Doctrine, God enjoining the Infant-male or Carnal Seed to be circumcised; but so hath he not that under the Gospel they should be baptised: and touching which I refer you to Dr: Owen for better Information, as before.  
2. False Doctrine, That I do with Dr. Taylor say, Infants have neither Habitual nor actual Faith, nor are Disciples of Christ, and uncapable of Regeneration, 
2 About Infant's Faith and Regeneration.  so consequently of Salvation.  
That they are uncapable of that Faith and Regeneration spoken by James 1.18. 1 Pet: 1.2, 3. John 1.12, 13. And as Dr: Owen has defined Regeneration is all I say, viz. begotten by the Preaching, Hearing, and Receiving of the Word, renewed in knowledge, changed and Converted thereby, is all that I affirm, page 213. That they are capable of Salvation by Christ's purchase and the Application of his Blood and Spi it to them, who doubts it? I am sure I never affirmed the contrary.  
3. The next false Doctrine is for affirming nothing to be a Seal of the New Covenant, 
3 Baptism no seal.  but the Holy Spirit, a strange Paradox! But when Mr. Wills, or any body else proves the contrary, I shall be content to alter my judgement.  
4. That Infants are neither capable to perform Duties, 
4 Infants capacity.  nor enjoy Privileges, viz. Church-priviledges, as I have sufficiently explained myself page viz. Baptism, Lord's Supper Hearing the Word, Church-watch, etc.  

5 About Baptism.  5. For owning Baptism to be the gate of Sacraments, viz. ini sensu sano viz. The first entrance into the Church, where the Holy things in Christ's order and way are duly administered, not in the Popish sense of Sacraments.  

6 New Test. Church.  6. That the New-Testament Church is by Christ's appointment to be a separated people, consisting only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; but he saith, Hypocrites and wicked persons are in it. But whether will he call that Christ's, or the Devil● appointment, who sows the Tares? of which Point Dr. Owen has well spoke, to whom I refer him as before.  

7 About the Order of Baptism.  7. That the Mystery should go before  Symbol. Had Mr: Ws. represented the quotation truly, the very perusing it would clear me from this charge; but he (very unworthily) leaves out the Parenthesis which explicates the expression, and without which the words seem to import, a harsh Doctrine. The words a●e, If the Mystery goes not before the Symbol, (which it does when the Symbols are consignations of Grace, as the Sacraments are) [this Parenthesis he lea●es out] yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time I do not deny but a man may be Baptised if he proof es Faith and repentance though not in truth, and in him the Mystery goes not before the Symbol; but coming afterwards really to believe and repent, it may follow in order of time, but then the Symbol to him when Baptised was no consignation of Grace. And now let the world judge whether Mr: Ws. dealt honestly in skiping over those words which were laid in on purpose to obviate such a Cavil as he makes; it may be truly sai● o● him, that if he cannot find a hole, he'll make one.  
8. No visible Church-member before Conversion: 
8. About Church-Membership  I say none ought to be so, and so saith Dr: Owen.  
9 That I make a Believer and Dipping to be the right matter and form of Baptism, 
9 About the matter and form of Faptism.  which I have proved against Mr: Blinman, and neither by Mr: Wills nor him yet answered.  
10 That nothing now but Fruits meet for Repentance, 
10. About receiving to Baptism.  can give right to the baptism of Repentance, and nothing short of the Spirits birth can orderly admit to Waterbaptism, and Spiritual Ordinances, a Doctrine apparently false, instancing in John, baptising the Jews upon confession of sin and repentance, which was not Fruits, and the 3000 Baptised. Acts 2. And were they not pricked at heart, and received the word gladly, and confessed Christ to be the Messiah, whom they and were not those Fruits meet for Repentance and amen meant of life? etc.   

THE CONCLUSION  
THus I have given a Candid return to each Particular charged in this Appeal, publicly acknowledging what of Error or Mistake I am convinced of, and justifying my Innocency and Integrity in the rest; for as yet I see cause to own no more (not accounting a few immaterial over sights which Ingenious men would scorn to dwell upon) than the mis-naming two or three, viz. Aquinas for Albertus, Sericius for Hincmarus, not hitting the Pope Deus dedit's name, and not taking a Quotation out of Walden to so good advantage as I ought, that of Austin 3 and 4 Book being left out, Lanfrank being before owned to Mr. Baxter.  
Concluding that as none of which can be supposed to be wilful, so neither can there be any obstinacy in the Case, having never heard of them before.  
Therefore upon the whole, I join issue with Mr. Wills, freely submitting it to the Bar he has brought it; not doubting upon the due examination of his Complaint, and my defence, that if they find me guilty of the Crimes he lays to my Charge; but they will, as he desires, discharge duty to me as becomes them, to bring me to the acknowledgement of my evil, or to disown me if obstinate, as a person unworthy to be countenanced amongst them.  
But if on the contrary Mr: Wills his Appeal appears to be faulty, and the Particulars thereof not true, then that his said Appeal shall, as he desires, as unjust, reflect the blame of the charge upon himself, according to the righteous Law of the Lord.  
Deut: 19.16, 17, 18, 19 If a false Witness rise up against any man, and testify against him that which is wrong, then both the men before whom the Controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, and the Judges which shall be in those days. And the Judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his Brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother: So shalt thou put the evil away from amongst you: And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.    

CHAP. IU. An Appeal to Mr Will's Conscience.  
Sir,  
I Having at your Groundless and injurious summons, given this full Account of myself, in my just vindication: And so far as I am convinced made (as you charitably suggest I would, Pref. App.) a Candid and public acknowledgement of what of error or mistake is made out against me by yourself or others, may therefore with more freedom apply to your Conscience herein, especially since I offer you nothing, but what I conceive carries demonstration with it, and backed with Scripture evidence, for your better consideration and conviction.  
Therefore in the first place, I desire you to consider, whether you are not notoriously guilty of Backbiting, 
1. Reproachful Backbiting.  by taking up reproaches from others, and Tale-bearer like, spreading and publishing the same to the defaming your Neighbour, without enquiring into the Truth thereof from himself; nay, refusing all due information and satisfaction, when friendly tendered to you.  
For, have you not taken up these following things upon report and Hear-say from others, against one that is a mere stranger to you, & published the same to my disgrace, to promote thereby your Cause, viz.  
First, That, as you have heard, I own not so much Scholarship to compose such a Book, though my solitary life has given me opportunity enough to study, Pref. Inf. Bapt.  
Secondly, That I have only fixed my Name to the Book, that another chief has most Reason to own himlself to be the Author of, Pref. Ibid.  
Thirdly, That, as you have heard, I have Ixion like, fallen in love with my own shadow, puffed up with the Excellency of my own performance, Ibid.  
Fourthly, That I am a very tenacious Person, as you have heard, Vind. P.  
Fifthly, That I am fain to call in the Wits of our Party, to help me to deal with you, Pref. Vind.  
Sixtly, That I am of a Selfconceited scornful Genius, unbecoming a Christian, Infants Bapt. a g. 86.  
Seventhly, Insinuating that I am of such a (pugnatious or) fight temper, that though my hands are tied behind me, yet will do it with Tongue and Pen, Pref. Inf. Bapt.  
But, how agreeable such actings are with the following Scriptures, I leave you to judge.  
Exod. 23.1. Thou shalt not receive a false Report: Put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous Witness.  
Levit. 19.16. Thou shalt not go up and down as a Tale-bearer among thy people.  
Psal. 15.3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doth evil to his Neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his Neighbour.  
Prov. 18.8. The words of a Tale-bearer are as wounds, etc. 20.10. Where no Tale-bearer is, the strife ceaseth.  
Jer. 20.10. I have heard the defamation of many Report, say they, and we will report, etc.  
And to these add the Golden Rule, so highly infringed thereby, Math. 7.12. Therefore all things whatsoever you would that Men should do unto you, do even so unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. And would you be so dealt with by me and others, ask your own heart? Pray, read Mr. B. Rules to this Point, in his Christian Directory; some of which are given you in p. 158. 2. Reply. And amongst the rest, this is one:  
If you know it not to be true, or there be no sufficient evidence to prove it, you are guilty of lying and slandering interpretatively, though it should prove true, because it might have been a lie for aught you know.  
Secondly, are you not evidently guilty of Bitter Scoffing and Reviling both Person and Book, and notoriously guilty of Railing.  
1. As to Scoffing and jeering at my Person, 
2. Scoffing and Railing.  Have you not deridingly called me the Antisignanus, the Goliath, one that is Philantia nimis inflatus; viz. a proud conceited fellow, one guilty of notorious Plagiarism or Thievery, and shameful Oscitancy or heedlessness, all in the Preface of Inf. Bapt. And scoffingly to tell me, Bernardus non vidit omnia; That I am not such a seer as taken to be, Inf. Bapt. p. 89. A Hagiomastix, a sever Lasher, Ibid. That I am a Xanthippe, and a Momus, a mere Carper, Vind. Scoffingly reflecting upon the Exploits or Feats done in the days of my Colonelship, Ibid. p. 93. That you have discovered my Mummery, and plucked off the mask of my Vizard, Pref. Vind. and much more of this kind.  
2. As to my Book, That it is a pompous Piece, very fallacious and contradictious, heaped up with forgeries and prevarications, swelled with Sesquipedalia verba; viz. Words of a foot and half long or ridiculous stuff, p. 35. Inf. Bapt. The non-such, the Arguments therein consisting only of Trite outworn things that have been trampled upon, and confuted again and again, Pref. Inf. Bapt.  
And thirdly, Whether in a Railing reviling manner you have not called me, One possessed with a maleveleant Spirit, and filled with envy, p. 11. Inf. Bapt. An unworthy Caviler, p. 13. Ibid. Of so much disingenuity as to traduce the say of worthy Men, p. Ibid. Impudent, silly, ridiculous, p. 16. 2. part. Ibid. One that will not refuse the most sordid and shameful ways to promote my opinion, p. 57 Ibid. A daring Champion; and again, A daring Person indeed, p. 72. Ibid. That I discover the ebulition of a malicious Spirit, p. 106. Ibid. Reflect the Munster Venarian Spirit upon me as one that is under Satanical delusion, p. 99 Ibid. One that prevaricates to free myself from prevarication, p. 2. Vind. That I have added contumacy to my mistakes, Pref. Vind. And that never Writer did more prevaricate and shown more falsehood than I have done, p. 34. Inf. Bapt.  
But, how such language can stand before the following Scriptures? is submitted to your Conscience; viz.  
Eph. 4.31. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger and clamour, and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice, and be kind one to another, tender hearted.  
Prov. 15.1. A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.  
Tit. 3.2. Speak evil of no Man; Tim. 33. not a brawler; 1. Cor. 5 10. If any that is called a Brother be a railer, with such a one do not eat.  
Matth. 3.22. Whosoever is angry with his Brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the Judgement; and whosoever shall say unto his brother Racha, shall be in danger of the Council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire.  
Thirdly, I desire you to consider whether you are not evidently guilty of False accusation, and notorious false speaking. 
3. False accusation, and speaking.   
First, in that general charge, That never Writer did more prevaricate, or was guilty of more falsehood than myself (what! none of the Popish Legendaries?) whereas in both your Books you have not been able to make out any one that is significant; for after you have done your utmost to make good such a thing, what doth it amount more then to discover the mistaking of 2 or 3 Names, and not rendering that passage in Walden, so much to my advantage as it was, none of which can possibly be judged wilful mistakes, nor be truly charged with forgery or prevarication, which must needs therefore return upon you, according to the Rule Deut. 19.16, etc.  
Secondly, in those many particular falsehoods you have so positively charged upon me; viz. 1. That I misrepresented Dr. Taylor, and dealt deceitfully in those Quotations out of his liberty of Prophecy, as p. 35. Inf. Bapt. whereas the quite contrary is manifest, as p. 51, etc. of my Reply.  
Secondly, That I produced Durandus, a persecutor of Anabaptists, as a Witness for them, p. 143. Inf. Bapt. when it is most manifest I do the quite contrary, p. 242, Treaty.  
Thirdly, that I do bring Jerom, to say such words upon the 28. Matth.; whereas you say, they are words of my own adding, and none of Jeroms; and yet I tell you he saith it, p. 166. Vind. whereas I have made good to you they are verbatim Jeroms own words upon that place.  
Fourthly, That I produce Gulielmus from the magdeburg's, for saying the Virgin Mary should be added to the words of Baptism; which you say is a notorious untruth, and that the magdeburg's say nothing of the Virgin Mary, p. 185 Vind. And which I have expressly proved, and made good to a tittle as before.  
Fifthly, you accuse me for abusing Dr. Hamond in that Quotation, on the 13. of John 10, making him speak quite otherwise then he doth; Satyricaliy deriding me for the same, p. 171. of your Vind. whereas I have made good to you that I did the Doctor no injury, but quoted his words truly and faithfully.  
Sixthly, You accuse me, for saying, that the magdeburg's say, that the Apostles only Baptised the adult or aged, Ch. 7. p. 2. Inf. Bapt. which you say is false; whereas I said no such thing, as p. 31. of Reply is demonstrated: and though I called for satisfaction again and again, yet you in your Preface to your Appeal justified, yourself and severely reprove me for a tenacious and unreasonable Person, for not falling under your charge, what an evidence it is of my obstinacy; whereas my words were only these, That the magdeburg's tell us, that they find the adult or aged were only Baptised; viz. in the Scripture Instances and Examples that they produce: And yet there you have the confidence to tell me it is alone, nay makes more against me; To which I say let it make for or against me, that is nothing to the falsehood you fathred upon me, I say, none of these words, neither doth it make at all against me; for they may find Scripture Instances only for the adult, and yet believe, as you grant, they did Baptise others than the adult, being two different things; but you tell me the word [they find only such] employed their certainty of the assertion, which they were so far from believing that they tell us, it appeared from the Apostles Writings, that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism; and at another time, p. 53. Vind. you tell me they say that Origen and Cyprian tell us, that Infants were Baptised in the Apostles days; but what then do either of those Instances produce any Scripture Example for the Baptising of an Infant or any other, but the adult; which serves only to evince that had I said, what you would have me say I had not so fairly represented them; viz. that they did only Baptise the adult, they believing with you, though upon as little ground, that Baptised the Infants also. But in as much as I said they said they found (viz. in those Scripture Instances) Examples only for the one, and not for the other; I faithfully and truly represented them, and you did injuriously and untruly represent me, and for which instead of giving me satisfaction, you still justify yourself; and for your better conviction read what I have further said hereof before.  
Seventhly, For your false and injurious charging me for producing Munz'r and John of Leyden from my Witnesses, to prove against Infant's Baptism, scoffingly telling me, that you will quietly permit me to enjoy the comfort and honour of such Witnesses, p. 154. Vind. whereas I produce them not as any of my Witnesses, but reflect upon their story, as I tell you p. 145. Reply: First, to show the unreasonableness of charging the Innocent with the crimes of such as are guilty. And secondly, to Examine that matter of fact, and how proved, upon which so much obliquity hath been cast upon the Anabaptists, and there way ever since; and both of which I conceive was fairly and modestly done by me in that 4. Chapter.  
Eightly, You scoffingly tell me, that my invention will not serve me, to say any thing against one of the Waldenses Confessions for Infant's Baptism, viz. that of Angrogue An. 1535. viz. As we promised when we were Baptised, being little ones, p. 121. which is a notorious falsehood, for I expressly speak to it, Treaty p. 310.: And which afterwards he is fain to confess, p. 122. Vind. saying, that Mr. D. tells us p. 313, that these words being Baptised when little ones were foisted into the Article, which I also there make good.  

4. Slandering Foreign Anabaptists.  Secondly, You so falsely and slanderously accusing the Anabaptists, both foreign and domestic, that you might the better bring contempt upon them, and their cause, viz.  
First, as to the Foreign Anabaptists, you charge those first Commotions, in Swevia, and Munster, to be Anabaptistical, p. 102, &c of you Inf. Bapt. the quite contrary upon due Examination is manifested, p. 146 of my Reply, and now unanswered by you.  
Secondly, That the Anabaptists., who were burnt, drowned and starved in Switzerland, was for perjury, disobedience, and sedition; and not for Anabaptistry, p. 79. Inf. Bapt. the contrary whereto is fully manifested from the Decrees themselves, which are word for word given you, and by what Gastius and Hornberk say in confirmation thereof; viz. for their judgement of Rebaptisation, as appears p. 152 of Rep. and Treat. p. 260. where the Edicts themselves are expressed.  
Thirdly, For charging those in Germany to be so universally wicked and immoral, p. 200. whereas the contrary was made good to you from Bezas' words, viz. That many of the Anabaptists are good Men, Servants of God, Martyrs of Christ; and our most dear Bn. in his Ep. to the Gallo-belgic Churches at Embden, as Repl. p. 151. Besides the account of many 1000 of them that as Faithful Martyrs sealed the truth with their Blood, as Treat. 256, etc. appears to you.  
Fourthly, That their principles were heretical and blasphemous, p. 94. etc. whereas from their confessions of Faith themselves, it is manifest they held the same with the Waldenses, as appears p. 154. Rep.  
Fifthly, That the Minists, those Holland Anabaptists were for resistance of in affinity with the Munster satanical delusion, which put them upon such exorbitances, p. 99 whereas the quite contrary is said of them, and known to be their constant practice, refusing to bear Arms, or to carry so much as a Gun in their Ships, as p. 147, etc.  
Secondly, as to our English Anabaptists, have you not in like manner poured reproach upon them, by your notorious false accusations, viz.  
First, You stick not to say, 
2. Slandering English Anabaptists.  that those who are inclinable to their way, are now grown so politic as not to profess their Faith till warm weather; scoffingly telling us, that many last Summer were dipped in our parts, and in all likelihood we may hear of many more this Summer, Preface to Infants Bapt.  
The falsehood and slander whereof is refuted by known experience.  
Secondly, neither are you ashamed to lay blasphemy and immorality to the charge of divers Anabaptists in our own Nation, p. 95. implying, as I told you in my Reply p. 151. that the rest ●ore with them, otherwise, why is it mentioned, as I told you, challenging you to produce one Man of those divers Persons that is truly to be charged with your due proofs for the same; or else to be esteemed as truly you ought to be a false accuser of the Brethren, which notwithstanding you have neither done in your last Book, nor taken shame for your sin and folly therein.  
Thirdly, and that above all you have not been afraid to charge the Principle of Anabaptistry itself, viz. To be of a dangerous nature: Your words are these, That you may safely affirm that is a Doctrine to be suspected false, which is usually attended with gross miscarriages in the Professors of it; for that bespeaks it ominous and like a spiritual Judgement of God upon it: And, I hearty wish, say you, there were no ground to say that of such a nature is the Doctrine of Baptising grown Persons, in opposition to that of the Inft. Seed of Believers, for not to insist upon. The horrid errors and wicked lives of those in Germany, and blasphemies and immoralities of divers in our own Nation. [that being taken for granted, it seems to be undoubted proof in confirmation hereof] And that as some Men hold it (viz. that Baptism is a boundary of Communion) is of such a disquieting tendancy, that it is not fit for any age or state of the Church. And as soon as Men become Baptists (as they call themselves, affecting as you say that name) they fall off from Godly Ministers, &c as an effect (as you reflect) of ignorance and pride, and to the scandal and shame of Christian Religion, p. 94, 95. And in your Preface you tell us with Mr. Sydnham, that the opinion of Antipaedobaptism hath been always ominous, and of a wonderful strange influence, to destroy Unity and Peace amongst Christians, accompanied also with the most retinue of errors, since the first Embryo of it was brought forth, whether by a secret judgement of God, or from the natural and secret connexion with other Principles of darkness, will not with Mr. Sydnnham determine (oh wonderful Charity!) only God hath showed same black Characters of it in exery Nation, where it hath prevailed.  
And, Men of this opinion so inflexible, that never any of them was heard to change his opinion, unless to some worse error, (and how can that well be, if this be true that you have affirmed?) But, what can be spoken more venanous, more false, and repugnant to truth and common honesty, and more savouring of a malicious mind, is left to your Conscience to determine; Entreating you seriously to consider how such dealing can stand before these following Scriptures.  
Exod. 20 16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbour.  
23 1. Thou shalt not receive a false report, put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.  
It being one of the things the Lord hates and abominates, as viz. Prov. 6.19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and him that soweth discord amongst Brethren.  
Prov. 15.18. He that beareth false witness against his Neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and and a sharp Arrow.  
Prov. 19.9. A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.  
Deut. 19, 16, 18. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong— the Judges shall make diligent search; and behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his Brother, then shall you do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you: Which I shall conclude with that serious word, Dr. Stubs speaks to Mr. B. upon like occasion, and which I desire you to lay to heart: If he be a slanderer, who wrongs his Neighbour's credit, either by unjust raising, or upholding an evil report against him, surely you have cause to lay your hand upon your heart, and to took shame to you self. And if this be the mark of those that shall dwell in the Lord's Tabernacle, that they are such that neither raise nor take up a reproach against their Neighbour, Psal. 15, 3. What will become of You [Mr. Wills] and where, & with whom must you dwell to Eternity, if God do not humble you, for your slanderous and lying Tongue and Pen?  

●. Prevarication.  Fourthly, are you not truly found guilty of Prevarication, in many particulars, the thing you so notoriously and falsely charge upon me, which is according to your own definition, p. 7. Vind. To coneeal what ought to have been declared on purpose to deceive: And of which I shall give you a few of many Instances that might be produced, viz.  
First, Is it not manifest, as I have undeniably proved (and in your own word by Mathematical Demonstration) that you left out so many of the most considerable passages of the Waldensian Confessions, as p. 45. 2 part Inf. Bapt. and for which you have given no satisfaction, though you was so earnestly called upon by myself, as well as Mr. Tombs for the same.  
Secondly, by leaving out part of that Confession you took out of Bishop Usher, p. 119. Vind. which Hoveden calls the Waldenses, I the Popish Inquisitors, you only taking part of it, which declares for Infant Baptism to save them; and yet you can tell us at another time, that the Waldenses affirmed that it profited them not for salvation. That the better to hid the cheat can now tell us in their excuse, that this was a dark time 500 years since; but in the mean time conceal that other part, which bespeaks it wholly Popish; viz. for the Mass, Popish-Priesthood, Real presence, Penance, etc. which Usher is so faithful to give, and which I have at large discovered to Mr. B. your Partner, in that evil; p. 84. 2 Reply.  
Thirdly, by repeating every syllable of that Quotation p. 169. Vind. called calvin's; yet leaving out the last Clause Estius Annot. on Gen. 17.7. which you know is there, as Treaty p. 176. Vind. And yet so often upraid me for not calling it Estius'; not only in your first Book, but 3 times, and very unmercifully too in your last.  
Fourthly, by Concealing so much of the Translation of that out of calvin's Institu●es, that you might the better deceive your English Reader, and make him believe it was the Objection of Fools, and not owned by Calvin himself, which his next words, as I have demonstrated and you very well knew, doth.  
Fifthly, by that injurious dealing with me in that Quotation of mine from Spanhaemius, and Osiander p. 326. of my Treat you only take notice of what Spanhaemius speaks to part leave out what I say Osrander saith to the rest, and reprove me for my mistake, p. 104. juf. Bapt. and though I called upon you in my Reply●, for satisfaction, Pref. and p. 148. yet you return ne not one syllable in your last.  
Sixthly, by that injurious leaving out what you in your first p. quot from my 20. p. of Reply, which speaks it to be quite an other thing than you make it to be, and thereupon charge me with prevarication, if not madness and contradiction, which was an ill beginning that you should so stumble at the threfhold; as though I quoted Austin, and those Ancients downwards to prove that the practice of Inf. Bapt. was not in those Centuries, when I say the quite contrary, and tell you expressly that I quote them only for their say, which speak so fully for Adult Baptism only, contrary to their express practice. And then by affirming again and again that I contradict myself in owning the Ancients were for Infant's Baptism, and denying there was Antiquity for it: whereas the foregoing words in my 19 p. enumerates them from Austin, and not the Ancients of the former Centuries, whom I claim for Beleivers Bapt. only.  
Seventhly, by the like injurious dealing with me, p. 57 Vind. taking part of a saying of mine in Treat. p. 101. and leaving out the next following words in p. 102. rendering me thereby ridiculous, and then call me at your pleasure, when I am so wholly innocent in the matter; viz. I justify myself in my Reply p. 36. from that falsehood you charge upon me, supposing me to say, that dipping was changed into Sprinkling the 3. Centurie, when I only say that the Magdeb. do tell us, that many corruptions about Bapt. was creeping in amongst the rest I mentioned (as I saw cause) that of Cyprians Letter to Magnus about Sprinkling, for dipping. But withal do say, they tell us they do not find any one person was then Baptised with any of their corrupt Ceremonies, having indeed, as they soy, no authentik proof of the Baptising of any one person; whereby I say it may be conjectured their corruptions were then more in the notion then practise, which afterwards came all of them to be in use.  
You are pleased to repeat my former words about their beginning to alter the form from dippin to spinkling, and leave out all my latter words both what I so fully speak in the Treat. and my Rep. also. And then as p. 51. I suppose, Reader, thou hast seldom met with the like ridiculous contradiction in any Author— So that he is the Man that hath cause to be ashamed, and is found very unfaithful in speaking forwards and backwards at his pleasure; yea, that which is manifestly false, and then denying in the same breath, so adding one salsehood to another.  
And therefore whilst you judge me so worthy of reproof for prevarication (though not at all proved by you) and you yourself so guilty thereof, as so fully evidenced, doth not this following Scripture concern you?  
Rom. 2.1.23. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O Man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doth the same thing.  
But, we are sure the judgement of God is according to truth against them, which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O Man, that judges them, which do such things and doth the same, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God,  
Verse 21. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself, thou that preachest, a Man should not steal, dost thou steal. So thou that teachest a Man should not prevaricate, why art thou guilty of so much prevarication, and so self judged and condemned therein?  
And fifthly, is it not evident that you are hanously guilty of Forgery; 
5. Forgery.  viz. pretending Authors say so and so, when they say no such thing, or the quite contrary.  
Of which I shall give you few Instances.  
First, do not you affirm p. 45. Vind. that Walden showeth from Wickliffs' works that he was for Infant's Baptism; whereas he abundantly saith the quite contrary, and your own Pen is constrained at another time to acknowledge, as p. 125, 172. Vind.  
Secondly, do not you positively affirm, tha● Austin saith in bis third Book De Anima, c. 13. that Vincentius Victor his opinion was that Infants that died Baptised went immediately to Heaven; whereas there is no such thing said, either in that or any other Chapter that I can find.  
Thirdly, do not you say that Rainerius in the Catalogue of the Waldensian errors brings not one word of their denying Inf. Bapt. as p. 67. Inf. Bapt. whereas he expressly saith in that Catalogue, that they affirmed Inf. Bapt. was nothing worth, and that Gossips that undertook for them knew not what they did; for which see Rep. p. 125.131.  
Fourthly, do now affirm that Dr. Taylor in his Book called Consideration of the Practice of the Church, and Dr. Hamond in his Letter of Resolutions, had given answer to those Arguments produced by me, out of his Liberty of Prophecy against Infant's Baptism, as p. 36, 37, 98 of your Infant's Baptism; whereas in p. 53, etc. of my Reply, it is fully made out from both their words, that they do confirm those Arguments to be good that are therein brought against the principle Arguments, the Paedobaptists bring for that their practice.  
Fifthly, do not you produce Basil, to be an Eminent wotness for Infant's Baptism in the fourth Century, as p. 136. Whereas there is never such a word to be found in any of Basils' writings that doth yet appear.  
Sixthly, you do positively affirm from the acquaintance you had with Father Basil that he in his third Book Contr. Vnomiam in the very next lines after those words I had repeated of that quotation, declared himself to be for Infant's Baptism. And for my omitting the same, call upon the Reader to have a ca●e henceforwards how they true t my quotations f●r the palpable abuse done to that Father, and for a fallacy and falsehood upon the Reader, p. 13. Inf. Bapt. And again in his Preface, charging me for curtailing and leaving out part of that Sentence of Basils'. About which I got a Friend first to write to you, to know where to find it: to which you replied, that 
* You charged me not for misquoting, but for partially quoting and misapply- it, but could not direct to the page.  for which manifest injury done to Basil and me, also in that your severe Reflection, I called for satisfaction, as p. 48. Reply. But all that I can get yet from you is this, that you mistake only a name Basil for Naziazen, p. 61. Vind. Equilizing my mistake of Albertus for Aquinus with it, p. 183.  
Which I cannot take for due pay: First, because it was not a bare slip in haste, but a thing justified by you in cooled blood when I gave you time to deliberate upon it, by sending so civility to you that you might have an opportunity to rectify it, or clear yourself.  
Secondly, by your extenuating it, as though it was just like my mistaking, Albertus for Aquiquinas, which I can by no means admit for that was a quotation for you to prove for Infant Bapt. which cannot demonstrate any wilfulness in me; nor that I could have any end in the mistake, nor was it improved to your prejudice; whereas that of yours was a great proof against me, highly boasted of by you to discover your reading and acquaintance with that Father, and improved much to my disgrace, and often and very severely inculcated upon me. Therefore I do expect from you more fuller satisfaction therein, and your due humiliation for such a notorious miscarriage.  
As well for your vainglorious boast as your trampling so upon me.  
Seventhly, in like manner was your dealing about what you own to be your mistake, only of a Century respectiong Peter Bruis p. 53. Inf. Bapt. out of Osiander, which was not only so, but the sever lashes you gave me about it; viz. That you see by this that when Men are engaged in a Cause, and wedded ●o an opinion, they will not refuse the most sordid and shameful ways to promote it fall in with slanderous Papists, and take up what they say to defend their opinions, witness my Antagonist. And at this rate you go on chastising of me, and all upon your own gross forgery and mistake: For which Sir, I expect your repentance, you did not mistake a Century only, but Christianity, Civility, and Common Honesty also; and you did not only abuse me, but Osiander Cluniacensis, Peter Bruis, and yet have you the confidence to tell me p. 131. that you could retort upon me, that I belied Calvin, I belied the Truth, and by that forgery, I would cover, and hid, and abuse the World with a cheat, and much more, my own Conscience, by that piece of folly and falsehood.  
Whereas is now manifestly appears that I did put Estius his name to the Quotation; and therefore there could be neither cheat, abusing of the World, forgery, nor falsehood in the matter; which doth but heighten your crime, and makes more work for Repentance, which I also duly call far from you.  
And therefore to further, the same desire you to read and consider the following Scriptures.  
Leu. 19.11. Ye shall not lie one to another.  
Prov. 14.5. A faithful witness will not lie, but a false witness uttereth lies.  
Eph. 4.25. Wherefore putting away lying speak every Man truth with his Neighbour.  
Col. 39 Lie not one to another.  
Psalm. 119.69. The proud hath forged lies.  
Jer. 9, 3. They bend their tongues like bows for lies, but are not valiant for the truth.  
With the Scriptures before mentioned, Rom. 2.1, 2, 3, 21. Because you have proclaimed me such a forger, and judged me for the same, but has yet made no proof thereof.  
And sixthly, are not you guilty of Mistranslation, 
6. Mistranslation.  and Misrendring Authors. For Instance;  
First, That notorious passage about the Minists, which you translate quite contrary to Truth; viz. that they were for Resistance in the Munster way, and for destroying the wicked by force of Arms, in order to the setting up the Kingdom of Christ, p. 99 of Inf. Bapt. when the quite contrary is there said and the constant knowledge of their principles and practice evinceth.  
Secondly, for Misrendring that passage out of calvin's Institutes, before accounted for in the appeal to be the objection of fools, when Calvin owns the same to be his Judgement.  
Thirdly, for Misrendring a passage out of Augustine's 3. B. de Anima, fathring that upon Vincentius Victor, that is not there said of him.  
fourthly, for translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify only an Infant without understanding, p. 11. Inf. Bapt. when the contrary is true, as appears 2 Tim. 3, 4. Thou hast known the holy Scriptures a Child, there is the same word.  
Lastly, whether your solemn Appeal to the Searcher of hearts, 
7. Hypocrisy.  that you have no malignity to my Person, having ground to hope I am a Godly Man; and in your Preface to Vind. that you love me as a Brother though erring, and had much rather convince than shame me, can be well reconciled to sincerity, and not rather speaking lies in hypocrisy: when it is considered, First, how you have declined all fair Brotherly ways of receiving satisfaction, choosing rather in this public manner to reproach and slander me upon hear-say: 2. Jeer and Scoff at me: 3. to Rail upon and Revile me in that unchristian manner you have done, speaking so much evil of me falsely: 4. proclaiming me with your Associates in the Gazette and in the Catalogues (where you know I cannot follow you for my vindication) 5. And at last so groundlessly, disorderly, not to say maliciously, to Appeal to the Baptist● against me, as a person that has added contumacy to my mistakes and evils.  
All which is recommended to your Conscience in the sight of God, (and all that are conscientiously concerned with you) leaving it to your choice, which of your promises you will keep, whether that in the conclusion of your first Pref. Vind. To answer me by silence, because you will not gape against an Oven: Or that in the end of your last Preface, viz. That if I can make it appear that you have wronged me herein, as you can truly say you did it not willingly: So you faithfully promise to make me public satisfaction, by acknowledging your mistakes.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 8. l. ult. r. enjoined, p. 10. l. 28. r. Rhenanus, p. 14. l. 32. r. obloquy, p. 18. l. 13. deal the, and the Comma at Doctor, l. 23. r. to speak, l. 26. r. words, p. 19 l. 28. r. by them, p, 21, l, 15, deal that, p. 35. l. 27 r. aught so to do, p. 38 l. 1. r. codice, p. 41. l. 16 & 19 r. Aquinas, p, 51, l, 19, r, philautia, p. 52. l. 8, r, malevolent, l, 17, r. Munster and, p, 55, l, 21, r, that they, l, 32, r, for, p. 65. l. 23. deal of, p, 67, l, 19, r, every, l, 25, r, venomous, p, 70, l, 12, r, Osiander, p. 73. l. 8. for do now r. do not you, l. 27. r. Eunomium. p, 74, l, 8, r, Nazianzen, equalizing, l, 9, and 18, r, Aquinas.  
I desire the Reader, where I mention to Mr. Will's (in p, 2, Pref. and p. 51, & 53,) the mistakes I own, not to understand it exclusive of those few slight and immaterial ones not mentioned there, as that of the Canon of Constant, which I myself found to be spurious, that of Chrysostom's not being in a different Character, my translating the passage of Nazianzen, metaphrastically, putting Zonaras for the magdeburg's; that of Mr. Baxters, work, for be no such cause.   

A POSTSCRIPT by H. D.  
FOR the Readers better and more full satisfaction (after the great cry against me for Forgery and prevarication by my Antagonists) I have here given you together, this brief account of all the mistakes of moment that I have met with from any hand. And which the Reader is desired to correct in the Treatise as he meets with them; which are as followeth, viz.  

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