Second Reply to Baxter

The heads of each of those 13. Chapters, and Mr. Baxter's confirmation thereof, here follows in order, viz. CHAP. I.

PRoves from the order of Christ's Commission and Institution of Baptism, Math. 28.18.19. that persons are first to be taught in the faith or made disciples or believers, and then afterwards to be baptized, and not first baptized and made Disciples after, whereby adult persons capable of instruction are necessarily understood to be the only proper subjects of that ordinance, and not ignorant babes that have no knowledge nor understanding (there being but one commission for our one baptism) Treat. of Baptism, p. 1. 2. 3. 4.

In confirmation whereof you have Mr. Baxter thus expressing himself, In his 2. disputation of right to Sacraments. p. 149. 150.

This saith he speaking of this Text is not like some occasional historical mention of Baptism; but it is the very commission itself of Christ to his Disciples, for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders.

The first task is to make disciples which are by Mark called believers.

The second work is, to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation.

The third work is, to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ.

To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order, for where can we expect to find it, if not here, I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith even saving that must go before baptism, and the profession whereof the Minister must expect; but is it possible that an ignorant babe can observe this order and answer this expectation; of which see what is to this purpose cited by Calvin and Piscator: viz. Calvin upon Mat. 3.6. saith, Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to baptism, confession of sin, is required, otherwise the whole action is nothing else but sport. Piscator, upon Mark: 1.4. saith, it is called the Baptism of repentance for remission of sins because John preached the remission of sins to the penitent believers.

CHAP. II.

Proves that the Apostles and disciples of Christ in obedience to this commission did teach repentance and faith as the necessary pre-requisites and qualifications to everyone that was to be baptized, Act. 2.37.8.36.37.10.42.16.29. treat. baptism. p. 5. 6.

To which Mr. Baxter thus assents in the 2. dispute. p. 54. 55. 56. viz. If John the Baptist required the profession of true repentance in men before he would baptize them, then so must we, but John did so Mark. 1.3.4. Math. 3.6. and thus Jesus Christ did by preaching repentance prepare men for Baptism, and for his kingdom, as John before; as appears. John 3.21. John 4.1. Math. 3.17. Mark. 1.15.

And to that end he sent his Apostles and other preachers Mark. 6.12. Act. 17.30. Lu. 24.47. That repentance and remission of sins might be preached to all nations in his name, And Baptism which is for the obsignation of remission of sins according to God's appointment comes after repentance; as Act. 2.37. when the Jews were pricked in their heart (which was a preparatory repentance) and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do, Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

So that we must require and expect true evangelical repentance to be professed before Baptism for verse. 41. it is added then, they that gladly received the word were baptized; so that he baptized none that to outward appearance did not gladly receive the word, which could not be without a profession of repentance: and he that persuades them to repent and be baptized, doth in the next chapter v. 19. require them to repent, &c. And as the work of general preaching to the unbelieving world is sometime called a discipling of nations which goeth before baptizing them, preaching of repentance and commanding all men everywhere to repent Act. 17.30. an opening of men's eyes & turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. verse. 20. And it was the sum of Peters preaching to the unbaptized, repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Act. 20.21. So that 'tis apparent, that they took the profession or appearance both of faith and repentance as prerequesite to Baptism.

CHAP. III.

Evidenceth believers Baptism to be the only Baptism from the example and practice of the primitive saints, Act. 8.12.18, 8, 22, 14. Treat. p. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The truth whereof is most fully and amply confirmed by Mr Baxter in his 2d dispute, p. 149. &c. thus.

If there can be no example given in scripture of any one that was Baptized without the profession of a saving faith, nor any precept for so doing, then must not we baptize any without it: but the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the consequent, which he thus proves.

1. John required the profession of true repentance before Baptism as before.

2. Christ in his preaching and commission enjoined faith and repentance as a prerequisite thereto.

3. That saving faith was required of the Jews, is shown already for Act. 2.38.41.

4. The Samaritans believed and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Act. 8.12.

5. Upon no other condition was the Eunuch baptized Act 8.37.

6. Paul was baptized after true conversion, Act. 9.18.

7. The holy ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized, Act. 10.44.

8. Lydia's heart was opened before she was baptized.

9. The example of the Jailor is very full to the resolution of the question in hand. Act. 16.30.31.33.34.

10. Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized.

11. Those in Act. 19.5. were baptized after they believed in Jesus Christ, and what all the Churches were supposed to be to whom the Apostle wrote, I have shown before.

In a word I know of no one word in scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the profession of a saving faith, or that giveth the least encouragement to baptize any upon any other faith.

CHAP. IV.

Maintains believers to be the only subjects of Baptism from the spiritual ends of the ordinance, viz. To evidence repentance; figure out present regeneration; to ratify the covenant betwixt God and the believer; to testify a good conscience; to represent the union betwixt Christ and the believers; and to give the due orderly admission into the visible Church. Treat. of Baptism p. 11. to p. 26.

The verity whereof is substantially made good in each particular by Mr Baxter in his 2d dispute. p. 56. &c.

1. That the testifying repentance was one great end he thus proves; If Jesus Christ hath by scriptures, precept and example, directed us to baptize those that profess true repentance and no other, then we must baptize them and no other, but the antecedent is true, so is the consequent which is made good Math. 4.17. Mark. 1.16. Act. 17.30. Lu. 24.47.

2. That the figuring present regeneration is another, he thus confirms, p. 117. 118. Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present regeneration, therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administered but to such; the Major is plain, John 3.5. Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; and so in Titus. 3.5. where it is called the laver of Regeneration.

3. To represent the covenant entered into betwixt God and man thereby, which he thus proves, p. 68. That it is the Instituted nature of Baptism, to be in general a professing sign, as well as an engaging sign for the future, that it is essential to it to be significant & obligatory on our part, as well as on God's part is commonly confessed, for first the minister doth baptize him in the name of the father, son, and holy Ghost; and the party doth consent thereto; as first, by voluntarily offering himself to be so baptized, 2ly voluntarily receiving that Baptism; and his offering of himself hereto goeth before the Ministers baptizing him, and his reception of that Baptism is essential to it: so that Baptism essentially containeth on his part a signal profession of consent to that which is meant in the form used by the Minister, viz. I baptize thee in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit; and that is, that God the father, son and holy spirit be mine and I be theirs in the relati • ns in which they are offered in the gospel to mankind, and which is here sealed, and so a mutual consent, which the signs are instituted by Christ to signify, Christ offereth himself to be related to me as my Jesus Christ; and by offering myself to be baptized, and by voluntary receiving of it, I do actually profess my acceptation of his offer that is of himself so offered, and so the father and holy spirit in like manner, so that it is a most clear case, that Baptism as Baptism according to its instituted nature and use, doth contain the persons actual signal profession of present assent to the truth of the Gospel and acceptation of God the Father, son and holy Ghost as therein offered, and it containeth an actual signal profession that we then presently consecrate or devote or dedicate ourselves to the Father son and holy spirit in the aforesaid relations.

Secondly, another part of Baptism is the Ministers washing the person, and the person first offering himself to be washed, and after actually receiving, it doth thereby signally profess his consent; now this washing doth essentially signify our washing from our former filth of sin, together with the guilt, our putting away the old man which is corrupt, according to deceitful lusts, &c.

4. The answer of a good conscience another great end of Baptism, he thus confirms. 2d Dispute. p. 159. viz.

If according to the institution, the answer of a good conscience must be joined with Baptism for the attaining of its end, then must we admit of none that profess not the answer of a good conscience; but the former is certain from the text, for Baptism is said to save, that is its appointed use, yet not the external washing, but the answer of a good conscience doth it; therefore this is the necessary conjunction, & without it Baptism cannot attain its end but it is to be received only in order to the attainment of its end, and therefore never in a way by which the end is apparently not attainable, [but how an infant is capable to be in the exercise of a good conscience herein to the attaining of this end of Baptism will be Mr. Baxter's part to discover, if he hath not wholly renounced infants Baptism].

What the answer of a good conscience is, the common expositors (as he tells us) fully confirm, viz. The Assemblies annotations saith, that by the answer of a good conscience we may understand that unfeigned faith whereof they made confession at their Baptism, and whereby their consciences were purified, and received remission of their sins.

And some (he saith) understand by the answer of a good conscience, that covenant whereunto they entered at their Baptism, the embracing whereof they testified by their unfeigned confession of their faith.

5. Another end of Baptism is to represent a believers union with Christ, which he thus ratifyes. 2. dispute. p. 98.

If it be the appointed use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our marriage with Christ, or to seal or confirm our union with him or ingrafting into him, then must we Baptize none that profess not justifying faith, because this is necessarily prerequisite, and no other can pretend to union, marriage or ingrafting into Christ: both the antecedent and consequence are evident in Gal. 3.27.28.29. for as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and if you be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise: here we see that it is an accidental or seperable thing, for Baptism to be our visible entrance into Christ, our puting him on our admittance by solemnization into the state of those children and heirs according to the promise, for (as all own) if we be truly baptized we are baptized into Christ, then are we Christ's and have put on Christ and are alone in Christ, and Abraham's seed according to promise.

6. That other end of Baptism, of being an orderly entrance into the visible Church, he also maketh good, viz. Plain scripture proof, p. 24.

As a soldier before listing, and a king before Crowning and taking his oath; so are we Church-members before Baptism: but as everyone that must be admitted solemnly into the army must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging sign, so everyone that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church, must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism; is proved thus.

If we have neither precept nor example in scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members, but only by Baptism, then, all that must be admitted visible members, must ordinarily be baptized; but since Baptism was instituted (or established) we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way (but a constant precept and example for admitting this way, therefore all that must be admitted visible members must be Baptized.

I know not what in show of reason can be said to this, by those that renounce not scripture, for what man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both, yet they that will admit members into the visible Church without Baptism do so.

CHAP. V.

Proves the Baptism of believers to be the only Baptism from the new testament dispensation so different from the old, the Church under the old, consisting of the carnal seed, and wherein the ignorant and ungodly, the impenitent and unbeliever and their seed were esteemed members and subjects of circumcission, and to partake of the carnal ordinances under the law as well as the godly and their seed, whcreas the believer and penitent ones, the spiritual seed of Abraham were to be reputed the only right subjects of Baptism and members of the gospel Church.

In confirmation whereof you have Mr Baxter in his 3d dispute. p. 303. expressing himself after this manner, viz. In answer to Mr Blake's 7th argument, that the children of notorious ungodly Parents had right to circumcision before Christ's Incarnation whereof he mentions Hezekiah the son of wicked Amon, and Josiah the son of wiched Manasseh, therefore the children of notorious ungodly parents, have right to Baptism, to which Mr. Baxter saith,

It is certain, that the fabric of the Jewish polity especially the grounds and reasons of all God's Institutions of those times, are so imperfectly known by us, that it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel arguments to one dark one, from those laws: For it is a most certain rule, that in all our disquisitions we must reduce uncertainties to certainties, and not certainties to uncertainties, our arguments must be, notioribus ad minus nota, it being very dangerous, as Mr. Blake confesseth, to argue from mere analogy, and not from the ground of the Institution. And how dark are those grounds in some cases to us?

Yet afterwards in discussing of that question whom must we take for notoriously ungodly? p. 326. Mr. Baxter seems in his critical way of distinction not only to come about to Mr. Blake, but hath given great advantage to a profane spirit, and for which Dr Peirce severely reproves him in his New Discoverer p. 62. for affirming that to be notoriously ungodly or unsanctified, a man must be guilty of more sin then Peter was in denying and forswearing Christ; of more sin then Lot was, who was drunk two nights together, and committed incest with his own daughters, and a greater sinner then Solomon with his 700. wives and 300 Concubines, and gross Idolotries, when his heart was turned away from the Lord God of Israel.

CHAP. VI.

Proves believers, to be the only subjects of Baptism from the constitution of the primitive Churches, none being admitted in them but such as by baptism were joined thereto, and whereof an account is from most of the Churches mentioned in the new testament.

As to Mr. Baxter's confirmation of this Chapter, we need only to remember you, how fully he hath already proved, that there is neither precept nor example for any that were baptized in the new testament, but such as made profession of faith and repentance, and that there was neither precept nor example that any were admitted as visible members into the Churches but by baptism; and for instances thereof mentions particularly most of the Churches in the new testament, as before; and which we shall conclude with his citation out of Calvin, to which he subscribes, p. 205. viz. That baptism as received is the seal of our faith as it is the seal of God's promise, as administered. 2ly. That the constant order is, that baptism follow faith. 3ly. And that it is no better then an impious profanation of it, if it go without faith; that is saith Mr. Baxter, 1st. if the party seek it without the presence of faith. 2ly. if the pastor administer it without the profession of faith.

CHAP. VII.

Proves from antiquity that instruction and profession of faith and repentance was necessary to precede Baptism, and that the Children of Christians had their Baptism deferred till they were able to give an account of their own faith.

Which Mr. Baxter fully confirms, by the account he gives us in his Saints rest, c. 8. sect. 8. out of Justin Martyrs 2d. Ap. That the practice of the saints and Churches in the 2d. Cent. was to baptize after the profession of faith and repentance. And which (saith Mr Baxter ) is you see no new way. And that only such as made profession thereof were then to be baptized, he further instanceth in his Saints Rest; p. 1. c. 8. Saying, that Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian who lived (as he saith) in the 2d. and 3d. Cent. do all of them affirm, that in the primitive times none were baptized without an express covenant, wherein they renounced the world, the flesh and devil, and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him.

And that children of Christians were not baptized till they were able to give an account of their faith in those first Cent.: he tells us in his Christian Direct. p. 827. affirming that Austin and many children of Christian parents were baptized at age. And in his Confirmation p. 26. The constant practice of the Church hath given us by infallible tradition as full assurance of the order of Baptism, and in particular of an express profession and oovenant then made, as of any point that by the hands of the Church can be received by us. The 2d. part disproves Infants-Baptism and that it is no ordinance of Jesus Christ, in 7. Chapters.

Section I. Tertullian's Witness justified.

THe first witness he opposeth is that of Tertullian my first witness; to justify whose denial of Infants Baptism as an ordinance of Christ I have produced a 7-fold Argument, and the concurring Testimony of diverse learned men, viz. Illiricus and his companions, Beatus Rhenanus, Scultetus, Daille, and Dr. Barlow, who concluded, that he denied Infants Baptism as unwarrantable and Irrationall.

To which Mr. Baxter in substance saith these two things, first, that it appears by Tertullian's opposing it, that it was de facto in use, and that some did practice it in that century, thereby contradicting myself, in affirming that it doth not appear to have been practiced, till the following century; and demands why that has not been answered? Secondly, that what Tertullian spoke about the matter, it was only in point of conveniency, about deferring of Baptism in Children and others also, but concludes not against baptizing of Infants, being himself for it, in case of danger of death.

To both which in my answer to Mr. Wills, I have largely spoke, though Mr. Baxter is pleased to overlook it, and not at all to regard what I have said.

Having as to the first affirmed with Dr. Barlow, that the notion of the thing as urged from divine authority, came into the world before the practice of it; the arguments about which are thus early (in its first appearance) and most substantially refuted by this great Doctor Tertullian; not only as to the mistaken, Scripture then and ever since pretended for it, viz. suffer little children to come to me, &c. but also the utter in capacity of Children, or any but grown persons, to perform that great ordinance aright; the folly of Witnesses so unwarrantably to undertake for children, the great Basis upon which afterwards it was built, the danger of profaning an ordinance of Christ, the insignificancy of the ends pretended to take away sin; which was a witness with a witness, striking at the root and foundation of all the pretensions to it, as more at large is there shown.

And as to Tertullian's being nevertheless for it, it is an utter mistake, as I have demonstrated, who was only, upon the superstitious conceit then it seems fancied: for the baptizing of dying persons, as some were in after times when Austin caused his dying distracted friend to be baptized, Tom. 7. Col. 89. Amicus quidam Augustinus etiam nescius baptizatur: Protogenes also caused sick children, to be baptized for their health, as before. But what is this to the baptizing of children, as an ordinance of Christ, to admit them into the Church, and the privileges thereof, the thing pretended to and pleaded for?

And therefore, Is not Mr. Baxter worthy of blame to pretend to answer books, and take no more regard to what is said by his opposite? which when he or anybody else replys to, respecting what hath been said to this witness, they may expect an Answer; but in the mean time let what hath been said suffice.

SECT. II. The Donatists witness, justified.

The next witness he contradicts, is that of the Donatists, (and which he doth with great contempt, ignominy and reproach); concerning whose denying Infants Baptism, I have first, from antiquity produced Austin's writings, (there being little else to be found concerning them but what is reported by their greatest enemies, as I have observed) viz. In those his Arguments for Infants Baptism, in that his book of Baptism against the D • natists, as also to Vincentius Victor a leading man amongst them.

Secondly, from the concurrent testimony of several modern authors, viz. Walden, Vicecomes, Fuller, Frank, Twisk, especially Spanhemius, who so positively affirms from Austin's writings, and from the decree of the Milevitan Council, that they did positively deny Infants Baptism.

To which Mr. Baxter opposeth himself with bitter rage, affirming, that I have belied Austin, belied Vincentius Victor, and denies that the Modern Authors have spoken anything to such purpose, whose words are these, p. 241. viz. Mr. Bagshaw is quite overdone in the quality of untruths: Reader, either this man had seen and read the bock of Austin mentioned by him, or he had not: if not, doth he use God's Church, and the Souls of poor Ignorant people w • th any tendern • ss of Conscience, sobriety, or humanity, to talk at this rate, of books that he never saw or read, which are so common amongst us to be seen? If he understands not Latin, how unfit is he to give us the History of these Antiquities, and how audacious t talk thus of what he knoweth not? If he understand it, what cruelty is it to the Church, to venture on such untruths to save him the labor of opening and reading the books he talks of? But if he hath read them, then I can scarce match him again amongst all the falsefyers that I know of in the w • rld. I dare not be so uncharitable to him, as to think that ever he read them.

To which I say fir • t, As to that unhandsom insinuation and vile reflection upon that worthy confessor deceased, whom he could not be content so to abuse living, and immediately also after his death, but mu • t still thus unworthily trample upon his ashes; I doubt not but since he thus ranks us together, and makes me so much to outdo him, that the discovery of the measure he metes out to me herein, may be some vindication of that eminent Worthy also, he so often in his book vilifies, whose memory will live and be of precious savor amongst the just, whilst others will rot and perish.

But to the matter of my own reproach: in the first place, to put Mr. Baxter out of doubt, he must know, that before I put down these Quotations out of Austin, I did read them, and have yet so much Latin left after 30. years discontinuance from the University, as to understand (as I conceive) what I read therein, and therefore I shall put it to the trial whether I be such a falsifyer as is not to be matched in the world: And if the great Jansen who read Austin's works 30. times over, did so mistake him, as Mr. B. in his late Catholic Theology tells us, it may not be so wondered at, if I should mistake him also.

That Austin did in his book of Baptism against the Donatists write diverse Arguments for Infants Baptism, from supposed Antiquity before; universal consent, (as he says) of the Church then, as well as by Arguments from the Scriptures, particularly from the Analogy that Baptism might have with circumcision, to save the Infants: and from John. 3.5. o be baptized or born of water for salvation, Mr. Baxter cannot deny, and therefore I shall not need to produce the words; but upon what grounds he denies it to be properly urged, we shall discourse afterwards.

And that I read also what Austin wrote to Vincentius Victor, in the quotation mentioned. Lib. 3. de anima Ch. 13.14. concerning his denying Infants Baptism (as the denying of Infants Baptism went in those days) viz. that Children might be saved without it, though Mr. Baxter saith, there is not a word of truth in it; there being no such matter in that Chapter or the whole book: le • the following words of Austin vindicate me Tom. 7. p. 1284. Tu autem, & originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteri, & tamen eos sine lavacro Regenerationis absolvis & in paradisum mittis, & postea etiam Regnum coelorum intrare: But thou who acknowledges that Children are guilty of Original sin (which it seems the Donatists did) yet without Baptism absolves them and permits them to go into paradise, and afterwards into the kingdom of Heaven: Haec multum aperteque perversa & fidei catholicae adversa, &c. Which manifestly appears to be perverse and against the Catholic faith: And therefore in another place tells him that he thereby did eontemn what is said, Joh. 3.5. He that is not born of water and the spirit shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, writing also his whole book to Renatus against him for this Doctrine.

And therefore it is that Walden in so many places (who charges Wycliffe with the same doctrine) doth so accuse him by several quotations out of Austin, and particularly Tom. 2. Ch. 101. fol. 104. Audax Vincentius concedit parvulos trahere primaevum delictum; sed, si non Sacramentaliter Baptizantur, intraturos in regnum Coelorum &c. Audacious Vincent, acknowledgeth, that Infants are guilty of Original sin, but, though not Sacramentally baptized, to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whom he Judges and condemns for the same 20. times in the said Book.

And therefore it is, that Vicecomes in the Catalogue of those that denied Infants Baptism [Baptismum parvulorum qui negarunt,] ranks Vincentius victor the Donatist, apud St. August. Vincentium victorem de Anima, l. 3. ch. 14.

And that his brethren the Donatists were one with him herein, Dr Fredrick Spanhaemius, no friend (as is well known) to the Anabaptists, doth in his book which in English is entitled, England's Warning, ch. 4. p. 48. speaking of the erroneous opinions of the Anabaptists, saith, That with the Donatists, Eunomians, and other Heretics they do condemn children's Baptism. And quotes Austin contra Donatistas, and the 2d. Canon of the Council of Milevitan to make it good: and that with the Catharists and Donatists they will not have the Lord's Supper administered but to pure ones.

Besides the concurring Testimony of so many other Authors, viz. Bullenger, Fuller, Twisk, Franke, &c.

Therefore you see I am neither so gross a forger, nor so notorious a falsifyer, as Mr Baxter would render me, having faithfully given you my Authorities for the same; valeant quantum valere possunt, Let them signify what they will:

Obj. But 'tis urged as the grand objection against this, That suppose the Donatists did with Vincentius Victor affirm, that Infants that were not sacramentally baptized might be saved, what is that to their denying Infants Baptism, the thing affirmed from it? For who almost amongst the Protestants that own Infants Baptism, but do affirm the same thing? must it therefore be fathered upon them that they deny it also?

Answer. It is true, that many of our Protestants may and do affirm now, that children may be saved who die unbaptized, and yet not be deniers, but may be, and are, owners and practicers of Infants Baptism: but this is no reason that they who so affirmed formerly, might and did so also: Because Infants Baptism was held then upon clear other grounds, and to other ends than now.

The principal and chief ground upon which it was asserted and imposed in Austin's time, was, To save the Infant, and that without it an Infant could not be saved, and that whoever denied Infants salvation by it, were therefore as deniers of Infants Baptism to be Anathematized; and the chief scripture urged for the same was, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water (which was Baptismal water as they concluded) he should not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. In proof whereof I could give you diverse quotations out of Austin, but let one suffice for all; in his book de fide ad Petrum. ch. 27. Firmissime tene & null • tenus dubites, non solum homines jam ration utentes verum etiam parvulos qui▪ sive in utris matrum vivere incipiant & ibi moriuntur sive jam de matribus nati sine sacramento sancti baptismatis quod datur in nomine patris, & filii & spiritus sancti, de hoc seculo transeunt, ignis aeterni sempiterno supplicio puniendos quia: etsi peccatum propriae actionis nullum habuerint, originalis peccati damnationem carnali conceptione & nativitate traxerunt: & siquem contrarium his dogmatizare cognoveris tanquam pestem fuge & tanquam haereticum abjice & inimicum fidei Christianae, at{que} ex omnibus Catholicis Anathematizandum. Firmly do thou hold, and by no means doubt, that not only men that are come to the use of reason, but also children whether beginning to live in their mothers womb, and there dying, or, being newly born of their Mothers, die without the holy Sacrament of Baptism, which is given In the name of the father son and holy spirit, do go into everlasting fire, eternally to be punished; because though they have no actual sin of their own, yet they have the guilt of Original sin, through the carnal conception in their nativity: and if thou knowest any to teach contrary hereto, shun him as the Plague, and reject him as a Heretic and, as an enemy to the Christian faith, let him be excommunicated by all Catholic Christians. And in pursuance of this doctrine, there were several Canons in several Councils made, to Anathematize any that should deny Baptism to little ones for their salvation, which you may read in the Treat. of Baptism, p. 106. 107. We shall only mention that 2d. Canon, of the 2d. Milevitan Council, which Spanhemius observes was made purposely against the Donatists, who granted, that children had Original sin, but affirmed they might be saved without Baptism. Item placuit, ut si quis dicit ideo dixisse Dominum, In domo patris mei mansiones multae, sane ut intelligatur, quia in Regno coelorum erit aliquis medius aut ullus alicubi locus ubi beati vivant parvuli, qui sine baptismo ex hac vita migrarunt, sine quo in Regno coelorum, quod est vita aeterna, intrare, non possunt, Anathema sit. Nam cum dominus dicit, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu sancto non intrabit in Regnum coelorum: quis Catholicus dubitet participem fore diaboli evm qui cohaeres esse non meruit Christi? qui enim dextra caret sinistram procul dubio partem incurret. And in the 5th. General Council of Carthage, it was decreed in these words, We will, that whoever deny that little Children by Baptism are freed from perdition and Eternally saved, that they be accursed. And that these Canons respected the Donatists is clear, because they owned Children had original sin, but said, they might be saved without Baptism: but the Pelagians denied them to have Original sin, but said, they might be baptized to enter into the kingdom of Heaven: as saith Austin, Tom. 7. Ep. ad Bonifac: p. 878. Parvulis videlicet Baptismum necessarium, non propter remissionem peccatorum sed tantummodo propter regnum Coelorum. So that you see whoever affirmed, that Children might be saved without Baptism, denied the principal ground for the which they were to be baptized in those days.

For we read of no such thing as a faederal holiness to entitle them to salvation or qualify them for Baptism, which hath be • n since set a foot from Gen. 17.7.

Circumcision being denied by the fathers to be a seal of the righteousness of faith to any but to Abraham the father of all: It being only a sign as they said to the Jews that they were Abraham's seed, but not a seal of the righteousness of faith, as all the Jews also were not the fathers of many nations: as Chrysostom and Theophylact. Treat. of Baptism p. 171.

Obj. But do not the fathers reason from Circumcision for Infants Baptism, as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Austin, &c? and doth it not betray the Anabaptists ignorance, as saith Mr. Wills to deny that the Ancients founded the practice upon Scripture-Arguments?

Ans. It is true, they do reason for Infants-Baptism from the analogy that it ought to hold with Circumcision, but how? not as the Protestants argue from the Covenant, but from a mistaken apprehension, concluding that as Circumcision was appointed to take away Original sin, so saith Cyprians Epistle. Ambrose. de Abraham. c. 11. &c. and to save them also, as saith Austin. Tom. 7. lib. 4. c. 24. contra Donatistas.

That therefore Baptism was appointed to that very end for Infants, to take away Original guilt, and to save them, and to that end it must therefore be applied to all, both the Children of the bad as well as of the good, if they brought them to it: because the Children of wicked Ammon and Manasseh were to be circumcised as well as those of Hezekiah and Josiah, and that reprobate Esau and Ishmael, being circumcised as well as elect Isaac and Jacob; That Baptism should be administered without any respect to faederal holiness: and therefore saith Austin in his book de Peccat. Merit. l. 1. c. 28. Infants are therefore to be baptized for the remission of sins, that in Regeneration they may be cleansed from that filth they had contracted in generation: Upon which words of Austin, Bishop Davenant in his Ep. p. 12. saith, Neque hic Electorum aut non Electorum discrimen ullum admittitur, &c. Neither did they admit of the distinction of the Elect or not Elect, as to the partaking of the benefit of Baptism, mentioning to that purpose a clause out of one of the Synodical Epistles, That Esau himself was freed from Original sin in his receiving the Sacrament of Circumcision. Esau, accepto sacramento, reatu peccati Originalis caruit.

The great Argument now for faederal holiness from the 1 Cor. 7.14. to qualify for Baptism, is not owned by the Ancients. Jerome saith, Because of God's appointment, marriage is holy. Ambrose, that the Children are holy because they are born of lawful marriage.

Austin in lib. 3. c. 15. de Bapt. parvulorum: Illud sine dubitatione tenendum est; quaecunque illa sanctificatio est, &c. It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that sanctification was, it was n • t of power to make Christians, or remit sins, &c. for nothing could do that but the Act of Baptism as to Children: and in his book de verb. Apost. c. 24. The question being, whether the Children of the Baptized Christians were holy, he saith, not, because as the Circumcised beget only the uncircumcised, so neither did the Baptized beget Baptized ones, or holy or regenerate ones, for the terms were equivalent, and the reason he gives, is this, Quia nemo renatus antequam natus, None is new born before he is born. And gives two illustrations to prove it, viz. 1. that the purest wheat, that is most purged from chaff and husk, yet being sowd, brings forth grain that has chaff and husk; and the best grapes that are sown bring forth wild grapes.

Neither did the Ancients esteem the children of the faithful Church-members or disciples, or believers, by which they had right to Baptism as Mr Baxter, and many others affirm, for Austin in his 66. Epistle to Dard. saith, that those that go to make Infants Disciples, do not only lose their pains, but expose themselves to laughter.

And that they are not otherwise believers than by Baptism, wherein they have life given them, and are related to Christ. Lib. de Bap. parv. c. 30. Qui habet filium habet vitam, qui non habet filium non habet vitam: non igitur solum Regnum caelorum sed nec vitam, parvuli habebunt si filium non habebunt; quem nisi per Baptismum ejus habere non possunt; He that hath the son hath life, he that hath not the son hath not life. And therefore children neither have the kingdom of heaven nor life if they have not the Son, whom if they partake not of Baptism, nither can they have.

And therefore in his book de fide ad Pet. c. 40. That children who cannot by themselves believe nor are not capable to testify repentance for their Original sin; by the Sacrament of faith and repentance, which is holy Baptism, they have both for their Salvation.

And in another place though they have neither reason, capacity or understanding of themselves, yet our holy Mother the Church lends them ears, feet, and tongues, whereby they profess faith, confess, and renounce the Devil. And to that end Walden. Tom. 1. de Sacram. Fol. 107. That there is to be three Sureties; one for each person in the Trinity to undertake for the child.

Yet when they have said all they can from Old Testament-analogy and Scripture-allusion, Austin in his 10th. Book de Gen. c. 23. saith, That Infants Baptism is not otherwise to be believed but as it was an Apostolical Tradition. Nec omnino credenda est, nisi Apostolica esset, Traditio. Which notwithstanding many of our Protestant Paedobaptists disown, pretending rather scripture-Authority for the same. Thus you see upon what different grounds the Fathers and those in latter times have asserted Infants Baptism, not only upon different Scriptures but to different ends; and therefore you see hereby the reason why that which went for denying Infants Baptism formerly, may now well consist with the practicing of it by the new grounds since taken up.

But you will say, When was it that these old Arguments were given up of baptizing children for their salvation, to take away original sin, to regenerate them, and to make them members of Christ, ex opere operato, by the deed done? And when did the new Arguments upon Faederal right from Gen. 17.7. 1 Cor. 7.14. and the seed of believers Infants Church membership and discipleship, as the seed of believers, giving them right to Baptism, come in?

To which I say, I have already given you some account in the Treat. of Baptism p. 159. viz. That the first writer of note that gives us any of these new Arguments, as Mr Tombes that great searcher into this controversy informs us, was Zwinglius about 120. years since; and that he went a new way, his own words in the beginning of his book of Baptism imports, which are these, viz. Tom. 2.57. Illud mihi ingenue circa libri initium dicendum est: fere omnes eos quotquot ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus, de Baptismo scribere instituerunt, non in paucis (quod pace omnium hominum dictum esse velim) à scopo aberravisse, that is, In the beginning of my book (saith he) I must ingenuously profess, that almost all those that have undertaken to write of Baptism even from the very times of the Apostles have (which I desire may be spoken with the favor of all) not in a few things erred from the scope (or true scripture-sense): who doth therefore in his said book manage the Arguments of Infants Baptism from Faederal right; for when the unsoundness and rottenness of that ancient ground did appear to those Reformers that turned from other parts of Popery, they being loath to part with this Tradition, endeavored to build it upon this new foundation; for when it was discovered that Infants might be saved without Baptism, and that they were not damned if they died without it; and that the Sacrament did not give grace by the bare work done, nor took not away Original sin, nor that Gossips were any appointment of Christ; It was high time to lay a new Foundation for it, or else it would have fallen: therefore is this new way of Covenant-holiness found out, which is not above 150 years since, for Zwinglius wrote his book of Baptism about 1525.

And that this is the new way appeareth, because the Papists as it is well known kept Austin's way all along, and so continue to do to this very day, and to that degree that they (as Austin and those Councils served the Donatists ) have served those that go this new way, who deny Infants to be baptized for salvation.

Neither do we find amongst the Waldenses, Lollards, or Wickliffists the great impugners of popery, one word to favor this new way of faederal Covenant-holiness to baptize Infants upon, in any of their Ancient writings or confessions, but the contrary, as we have and shall further make appear. And particularly we find in them, as Walden. Tom. 3. fol. 118. that the Lollards and Wickliffists, both in Scotland and England, were so far from bringing this new Argument from covenant-holiness for Infants-baptism that they improved it to the quite contrary, pleading that therefore they should not be baptized, his words are these: Quod faetus à fidelibus propagatus non sit sacramentaliter Baptizandus imo parvulis dixerunt inutiliter baptisma conferri. And that they were holy, they produced that text, 1 Cor. 7.14. (though mistakenly) to prove it.

And which very tenet we find held by those Lollards also taken at Colchester and burnt after at Norwich, Anno. 1428. who asserted that the Children of baptized believers needed not to be baptized; and that if they died without Baptism, they might be saved. Fox, Martyr vol. 1. p. 867. 868. And further Walden tells us that the Wickliffists did in his day reason with them, that, if Children might be baptized by the faith of others, they might also be saved by the faith of others; and therefore it was needless to baptize them for Salvation. Walden. Tom. 2. fol. And that the Novatians were the same with the Donatists, I no ways doubt, from the reasons before expressed, and to which I shall add what I meet with in Gabriel Prateolus, de vit. sect. concerning the Novatians, p. 123. viz. That they affirmed, that Infants did not stand in need of Baptism, Infantes non egere Baptismo.

To the clearing of which, I have been the larger, not only to make this point of the Donatists more manifest, but, more fully to evidence, what we have to say, respecting our other Witnesses in this particular.

Object. But Mr B. tells us, that Austin's Arguments in his Book against the Donatists for Infants Baptism, mentioned by me, are rather so many Arguments they held it, than that they denied it; because he therein urgeth Arguments from the tenet of the Universal Church, & every Christian for it.

Answ. To which I say: that, if this be Mr. Baxter's chiefest ground (as indeed it is) why he concludes me such a notorious falsifyer, I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether it be not very hard measure to be so severely dealt with, upon no better demonstration than upon his single apprehension, and no better proved; and I appeal to Mr. Baxter, whether, if I should deal so with him, I should not render myself both immodest and unchristian therein.

But to his proof: I am the most notorious falsifier in the world. Because I affirm Austin contended against the Donatists, for denying Infants Baptism in those Arguments in the 4th. Book. 24 Chapter. whereas therein (as he saith) Austin affirms the quite contrary, viz. that the Donatists did own it, and the reason is, because he affirms, that none of the universal Church disowned it then or at any other time, nor that any Christian disowned it. But the Donatists he consents to be of the universal Church, and Christians also, therefore this serves only to prove that they did not deny it.

Now it is either true or false what Austin affirms, that all the universal Church, then, and before also, did own Infants Baptism, and that he also owned the Donatists to be members of the Church, and Christians also: if not, that Mr Baxter argues weakly, and his undue reflections return upon himself.

To the first, that some of the universal Church in the ages before Austin, did disown, and not practice Infants-Baptism, is evident from undeniable Authority. Was not Tertullian of the universal Church or a Christian, who judged it so unwarrantable and irrational as Dr Barlow tells us? and all those in the 2d, and 3d, and 4th. Age that baptized only the adult, neither of the universal Church nor Christians? then, What will Mr Baxter say to his own assertion before mentioned? where he tells us, that Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, who lived in the. 2d. and 3d. Cent. do all of them affirm, that in the primitive times, none were baptized without an express Covenant, wherein they renounced the world, flesh, and devil; and engaged themselves to Christ and professed to obey him; and, if there were no other but sueh, surely some in those days must deny Infants Baptism; confirmed also by so many Authorityes given in the Treat. of Baptism, from p. 55. to. p. 65. and p. 102. And, What will Mr Baxter say to that other assertion that he gives us, viz. That Christians had liberty in those first ages to let their Children stay till age before they baptized them? And that Austin himself and many Children of Christian Parents were baptized at age? And was that because they owned or disowned their baptizing in Infancy? He knows who had need of a good memory.

Were the Parents of Gregory Nazianzen, though his father a Bishop at his birth, and Basil also, neither members of the universal Church, nor Christians, &c? We might mention divers others, but let these suffice to prove Austin rash, and Mr Baxter forgetful; to say no more.

And that some Christians did not own it in Austin's days, is very clear: otherwise; what means all his Arguments he writes in 20. of his books to prove it? and that book he particularly writes upon that point, de Baptismo Parvulorum, and the great heat and rigor he useth therein? And all the decrees of Councils for it, and many of them procured by his means; were they only to convince heathens? Mr Marshal in his sermon tells us p. 5. that some in those times did question Infants Baptism, as Austin grants in his sermon, de verbis Apostolorum. But, were none of those, Christians or members of the Church? It may be, in Austin's account they were not; because his censures are so heavy, that they should be excommunicated, Anathematized, and shunned as the Plague, as you have heard.

But, saith Mr Baxter, he owned the Donatists to be members of the Church, and Christians: And owned their Baptism to be valid. It is true in many places he seemeth so to speak.

But, what he truly thought of their membership, Christianity and Baptism you will better judge, when you hear him speak.

First to their Church state: it was so good that as Mr Baxter grants. p. 245. Austin questioned whether salvation was among them; and by his Ep. to Bonif • ce, the soldier, instigates him to provoke the Emperor to cut them off, or banish them. Which he did effectually as Mr Baxter grants p. 244. who procured that bloody decree from Honorius.

And how well he approved of their Baptism he expresseth in his book, de Baptismo cont. Don. Quod sit autem perniciosius, utram omnino non Baptizari aut Rebaptizari, judicare difficile est. Which is most pernicious, either not at all to baptize, or to Rebaptize, is very hard to judge: so that their Baptism was as good as no Baptism, and which, in his own account, rendered them next to heathens: and Tom. 2. Col. 91. Baptismus apud haereticos datus, ad vitam aeternam non sufficit; That, Baptism given amongst the heretics, doth not profit to life eternal. So that, if he did own their Baptism, it was no other then the Baptism of heretics, and not so good as the Baptism of an old woman, or of an heathen; who in case of necessity or danger of death, did baptize, pronouncing the words of Baptism which they approved of, to salvation.

So that, Austin's thus reasoning with the Donatists, those Anabaptists then, doth no more prove them approvers of Infants Baptism, than, if Mr. Baxter should use the same words with the Anabaptists now (whom, he saith, he owns to be members of the Universal Church, and good Christians too, which is more than Austin did) will prove, in another age, that Mr. Baxter did thereby demonstrate they owned Infants Baptism; though only guilty, with the Donatists, of rebaptization and sinful separation.

Another of his Arguments why the Donatists were not against Infants Baptism is; Because, he saith, they were for Episcopacy; and had ordained-Bishops amongst them, pag. 243.251. But, what is that to the purpose? are not the Anabaptists for Episcopacy? and have not they ordained-Bishops, or Elders, amongst them now? But, it is true they have no Lord-Bishops, nor Diocesan-Bishops amongst them: And no more, had they then that I can find.

And then, after all, concludes with a scoffing Jeer, as though his former Injuries had not been enough, p. 252. viz. And now if John Becold will say, they were of his side, we must believe him. But how well such Sareasms become one that would be thought so mortified and grave a Divine; and who is, as he tells us, in the constant sense of his being upon the brink of Eternity, and who hath with no better Arguments opposed his Antagonist; is recommended to the Judgment of the unbiased Reader. &c.

SECT. III. Of the Ancient Britain's.

THe next Witness he quarrels with, is, that of the Ancient Britain's: for which he reproaches me at no small rate, saying, That this is a witness of great import, if true; but, it's all false still; And, Must our own Country, and all our Christian-Ancestors, be thus slander'd? pa. 255. And again, pa. 257. But thus, the honor of our Ancestors, and the history of the Church, and the souls of poor ignorant Christians among us, must all be heinously wronged by the falsehoods of rash presuming ignorant men.

But, What cause there is for this Calumnious railing and shameful detraction; let the considerate-Reader judge. And for whose better information, and my just vindication in this parricular, I desire it may be observed:

That, First, what I offer from some Christians amongst the Britain's, to this particular, I have given my Authorities, grounds, and reasons for the same; which will, amongst all sober just men, free me from being a Forger.

Secondly, That it is a testimony that I lay the least stress upon; but, from the probability thereof, through the many concurring circumstances, attending it, have brought it in, amongst so many other witnesses that speak so fully, and positively to the point: yet,

Thirdly, That I may vindicate my own integrity, and the reasons offered by me in this matter, I shall do these things;

1st, Give you a brief account what I have said in my treatise about it:

2dly, The substance of Mr Wills his Objections, and my answer.

3dly, What further Mr Baxter hath either added before he saw my answer to Wills; or, Rejoind thereto since.

First, That, amongst the Ancient Britain's there were Christians that denied Infants Baptism; I first gave my grounds, and after vindicated the same from Mr Wills cavils: which was, briefly, thus;

That finding, in Mr Fox those three Demands which Austin made to the Britain's, about Keeping of Easter, Baptism, and Preaching, after the manner, usage and custom of Rome; I took notice (among other authors he quoted to make good the same) what Robert Fabian said about it, being one of our English Historians, who wrote in Hen. 6. or Hen. the Seventh's time; who tells us the story expressly, as I have mentioned (i. e.) pag 227.

And that as to Baptism, It was, that they should give Christendom to Children (which it seems they had omitted) but they refused the same: and would none of his Hests, as he tells us. And, that he was not mistaken in that particular, I gave six Arguments from several Circumstances about the same, as you have in pag. 228.

To which Mr Wills answers pa. 121; opposing that of Fabian to the account that Bede gives of the story, which he repeats, giving his reasons from thence, why the Britain's did not deny Infants Baptism.

And to which I replied pa. 139, &c. making it good from Bedes words that Fabian was right. And that they did deny Infants-Baptism; which seems plain from the following reasons, viz.

Because Bede affirms that Austin should tell the Monks of Bangor, that they had done contrary to the custom of the Church of Rome, as well as the universal Church [then] and Apostolical Church [before]; and, amongst the rest, mentions that of Baptism to be one; and which must needs be, in their refusing to baptize children.

First, Because as to the baptizing of the Adult, they were not contrary to the Church of Rome, the universal, and Apostolical Church; as, pag. 288.

Secondly, Neither could it respect the particular mode, Rite, or ceremony, of Baptism: for the custom of the Romish Church therein, was not universal, being so much opposed by the Greek and Eastern Churches, some of the Western not fully agreeing with them therein at that time; and not at all to be made out, to be Apostolical.

Thirdly, It must needs therefore respect Infants-Baptism;

First, Because the Church of Rome had particularly enjoined and imposed it, to beget Infants to Regeneration that they might be born of God, as the words of the Canon demonstrate; and which words carry the reason and ends of it: and that they intended the substance, and not the particular ceremony of the ordinance;

Secondly, Because Infants-Baptism was universally received in this seventh age, in other parts of the World, to this end here mentioned;

Thirdly, Because it was received and enjoined to be an Apostolical practice;

Fourthly, It would have been Childish and ridiculous, to have said, Baptism in general was Apostolical which none ever denied, and was so fully before received by them.

Therefore, Austin could intend nothing else, nor Mr Bedes words import anything else, which therefore Fabian did so fully and significantly represent in saying, give Christendom to children; let them as the Church of Rome has received and enjoin'd it, be born of God by Baptism, and become Christians as so generally, now received by other Churches also; and which you have been in the neglect of. But they refused the same, which was one reason of their destruction that immediately followed. Which was the substance of my answer to Mr Wills: only that I proved largely against him, that Pelagius was not one of the Monks of Bangor; and that, if he had been one of that society, he had sadly declined both from their principle and practice, p. 141. As to what I said to Mr Wills upon Bede's words, Mr Bax. thus rejoyns, on his behalf, viz.

Repeating and defending Fabians foppery, he argueth, that it could be nothing else in which they are said to contradict the Apostolical Catholic Church [but Infants-Baptism].

Answ. 1st. If Bede say, that Austin tells them that in many things they do contrary to the Roman Catholic and Apostolical Church; doth it follow, that the 3. things, in which he requireth their concurrence, were all parts of those many? To preach the Gospel to the Saxons was one; is that a point that they differed from all the Apostolic Church in? when it seemeth to be from no other reason than t • at they would not own the Saxons that had conquered them; nor the Papal power, that would usurp upon them: and on the same reasons, they might as well refuse to baptize the Saxons children.

Answ. To which I answer: that this about Infants-Baptism doth appear to be one of the many things that they did, contrary to the Roman, as well as to the then universal -Church; appears from the grounds before given, not yet answered; and which is sufficient to my purpose, though it would be good in neither of the other two. But, as to the Monks of Bangor 's preaching then, to the Saxons, who appear to be laymen and unordained; to be sure, they therein did contrary to the Roman and universal, however they did to the Apostolical, Church: and, for refusing the Papal ordination, without which they could not be admitted to preach with them, to the Saxons; they did as well so to do, as to refuse Christendom to children; one being as little Apostolical, as the other. Neither doth it appear, that though the Saxons had conquered them a hundred years before, that they did refuse to preach to them, or baptize them; there being no cause for the same, upon any score of reason or truth, as Mr Baxter vainly imagines;

But, 2ly, saith he; There is no such thing in the words of Bede as (he saith) he hath shown [but according to the manner of Rome]: and who knows not, that the Church of Rome and all in its Communion, then called the universal Church, used in Baptism the white-Garment, milk, and honey, as an Apostolical Tradition, or such as they know no original of Tertullian and Epiphanius are full witnesses of this, if there were no more. To which second answer of his, I say; that, the reason why Chrism, and Exorcism, could not be the only thing then intended; I have before given my grounds, whereof he takes no notice; and, that the universal Church is put in distinction to the Roman, let Bedes own words speak, viz. Nostrae consuetudini, that is, the Roman custom as Mr Wills owns; immo universalis Ecclesiae, there is the custom of the universal Church;

And it is well known, that the Geeek Church, in this age, did as much differ, from the Latin in those abominations, as the Monks of Bangor did from the Roman Christnings and ordination, and for which they Excommunicated one another, and rebaptized each other.

What good thoughts Mr B. has of Chrism and Exorcism, those horrid execrable blasphemies as Homius calls them; and, how fain he would persuade us, that they are Apostolical from his full witness he tells us of, we shall tell him of, and reckon with him for, hereafter.

In the next place, we shall give you some return to the answer Mr B. makes to my six reasons why they denied Infants-Baptism.

The First was, because they received the gospel so early in the Apostles-times; there being no such thing as Infants-Baptism to be found in the Apostles practice, nor heard of, in the Asiatic Churches for some ages, as I proved: and for their so early receiving the Gospel, I made good from Gildas, their own Historian, viz. in the days of Tiberius Caesar, and that Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Chrysostom, makes early mention of their Christianity.

To which Mr. B. saith, that, they did not so early receive the Gospel, and, that it was by the Roman Soldiers, when they did; who built a Temple in Kent: But weakens none of my Authorities.

2dly, He saith, that the Asia • Church had Infants-Baptism amongst them, in Gregory's time, of which no man doubts; But what is that, to the first Centuries we speak of? wherein we hear of as little Infants-Baptism at Rome, as at Jerusalem.

The Second Reason he opposeth, was this, viz. Because, it appears they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures, both for Doctrine, and Discipline; wherein, no such thing is to be found, as hath been mentioned and confessed.

[ 1] To which he saith three things; First, that I would thereby insinuate, that there is no such thing to be found in Scripture.

Answ. Which I do indeed, till somebody make it appear; and which never was yet done, notwithstanding the vain-glorious boast of plain-scripture-proof, and since, More proofs.

[ 2] 2dly, That, as much as the Ancient Britain's cleaved to the Scripture; yet were there all Impietyes and wickedness in the Nation, as saith Gildas in his Complaint.

No doubt of it: for, I quote his very words, that there was but some amongst them that received the precepts of Christ entirely, whilst others of them, less sincerely; and the generality, very formally, p. 332. I, respecting only the true Church amongst them, the generality of the Nation being vicious and wicked, as other Nations were; Christ's flock being but a little flock.

[ 3] 3dly, That, by the same Argument, all that cleave to the Scripture should be against it also, both in former and latter times: No doubt, but it should be so: Especially amongst them that renounce Tradition, and tells us, that what is practiced in the Worship of God, without some express precept, or practice in the Word to warrant it, is Will-worship and Idolatry; ought Naturally to shun such a practice as is to be made out by neither, as confessed by themselves.

The Third was, Because they did so vehemently respect human tradition, as the worship of God; especially all Roman Inventions, Rites, and Ceremonies: this, as before undeniably appearing to come from Rome's Ordination and Imposition.

To which he demands of me, Whether I will not confess, that Cyprian's Carthaginian Council, Basil, and Austin, were for Infants-Baptism; were these Papists or Romans, and can I prove any Roman ordination before these?

To which I say, That Cyprian's letter (as is said) to Fidus, declares for it, to take away original guilt: and, because children pray in their crying, none doubt. That Basil doth anywhere assert it, I am yet to learn; or, that it was judged necessary; or, it was ever ordained with imposition, till Pope Innocents Canon in the Carthaginian Council ( Austin presiding in that Council ); I am yet to be informed, having many learned men of my side; And, if those Canons were not Romish, let all men judge.

2dly, He demands of me, Whether the Britain's were against Traditions and ceremonies? and, Had they not Bishops, and Monks, &c?

To which I say, they were against traditions & ceremonies especially Romish; and that serves our turn, for Infants-baptism. But, as to their Bishops; if he mean Elders, so have we: and so had the Donatists. But that they had Prelates or Lord-Bishops, doth not yet appear. And as for the Monkery; no Romish Monks (saith Fuller in his Church-history) being Abbey-laborers, not Abbey lubbers; who labored with their own hands, and preached the Gospel; much in the way the Waldenses were in; being together in colleges, having all things in common amongst them, in imitation of the primitive times.

3dly, He demands of me, Whether Independents are not more against Tradition, than the Britain's?

I say, Not whilst they hold Infants-Baptism: and, though they are against Traditions in word, yet not, in deed, in this thing; as I make appear by many Arguments in my answer to Mr Wills; which I earnestly recommend to all their considerations, pa. 72. to 79.

4. Reason, Because Constantine the son of Helen was not baptized till aged. He denies Constantius Chlorus, the Father of Constantine, to have been a Christian but only a favourer of them; or, that Helen, his mother, was so at Constantine's Birth: and whether he was born in England, doubtful. For proof whereof, I must refer you to our Chronicles; who general lie tells us, He was born in England; and, that his Father was a Christian, Eusebius tells us, Bonus à bono, Pius à pio: and, that his mother was so at his Birth, I must recommend you to Grotius and Dailley, better Historians than Mr B. or myself, to answer you;

A fifth Reason was, from the correspondency and unity, that was betwixt the French Christians and them, afterwards called the Waldenses, who had colleges like them, communicated with them, in the ministry, &c. both in preaching and Baptism, viz. Germanus and Lupus. About which he makes a great dust; especially relating to Germanus and Lupus, cut of the legends in Baronius and Prosper, how that some would have them come from the Pope, and their Miracles they wrought with relics; others, from the Bishops in France: Therefore, not from the French-Christians.

And, that the Waldenses were not a people now; nor, were any known of that judgment, till long after; And which if I could make good, I should do them Knights-service against the Papists, in the Question of the perpetual visibility of the Church, this being anno. 429.

Concerning which, what Knights-service it may do, I leave him to improve it: But, I conceive I have fully made appear, that the Churches of the Lyonists, or poor people of Lions or Waldenses, are already made out to us, throughout most of the Centuryes. Eusebius tells us of the suffering of their Churches under Antoninus Verus, anno 179. made out also by Morland, Scultetus, Beza; Confest by the Papists themselves, Rainerius, Belvedre, and Riberia, as Treat. p. 333. 340. 341. to 345.

Jeffery Munmouth tells us, that, as long as the British Churches possessed the Country, they kept themselves sound in the faith, and pure in the Worship order and discipline of Christ, as it was delivered to them from the Apostles and the Evangelists; who were not conquered, till about 455. as Peter Heylins Cosmography shows. p. 310.

Beza tells us, That, Constance upon the Revelations showeth, that the Reformation of the Church in the West parts of the world, began in France; and that from their source, it spread itself through the rest of Europe;

And, That the French Christians, as well as other of the Western Churches, baptized only the adult; I conceive the famous Hilary, Bishop of Poictu, tells us, in his sermon upon the 25. of Math. His words are these, Venturi ad baptismum, priùs confitentur credere se in Dei Filio, & in Passione, & in Resurrectione ejus, that whoever comes to Baptism must first confess That they believe in the son of God, in his death and Resurrecti • n, &c. This I added to my Reasons, in my reply; whereof M. B. takes no notice: And, That it was long before the French-Christians did generally baptize children; appears by Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations upon Tertullian, who saith, That the old custom was, that those that were come to their full growth, were Baptized with the bath of Regeneration: which custom was observed, until the time of Charles the great, and Lodowick, Emperors, (as by the statutes by them established appeareth) who ordained and gave express Commandment, that the Priests should not baptize any but at the feast of Easter, and Pentecost; except in the Extremity of sickness, and danger of death. As a Dutch Author (called, A plain and well grounded treatise of Baptism) hath it, p. 18. And which Basil tells us, was also the custom of the Eastern Churches in that Age, in his Exhortation to Baptism, Non alios quam catechumenos baptizatos esse, That no other were baptized but the Catechumens. And, in his 3d book against Eunomius, Must the faithful be sealed with Baptism? Faith must needs precede, or go before. And Fuller in his Church-History. p 28. tells us, out of Eucherius ad Hilarium, that this Lupus, the French-Apostle, was a near kinsman of Hilary's; and their baptizing in Rivers discovers, It was not a work for children; and that they had not many Children with them in that work.

And further, Under this head, he tells us (as an Argument, that these Britain's were not against Infants Baptism) that Pelagius, one of the Britain's, was for Infants-Baptism: concerning which I must yet refer you to what I have already said to Mr Wills, whereof Mr Baxter takes no notice.

The Sixth and last reason was, because Austin himself (upon the discourses, it seems, he met with, upon this point in Britain ) writes to Pope Gregory, that sent him, To know, how long the baptizing of a child might be deferred, there being no danger of death, Which he greatly scorns, and saith, He is ashamed that he has meddled with such a Collector, à Baculo ad Angulum: And, doth it not rather imply, that there was no controversy betwixt him and the Britain's, about Infants-Baptism, seeing he never mentioned any such thing? The quite contrary seems to be: for if they had not so discoursed the point [deferring Children's-Baptism till they came to Age that they might answer for themselves before Baptism] and gravelled him about it; What needed he to have sent to Rome for better Information about it? Then doth our scornful adversary p. 226. conclude like himself, viz. Reader, will not this kind of Arguing make thee an Anabaptist? or else, make thee pity the seduced party? Oh! what a Temptation to popery do such men lay before the people, when men see that every such a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wise in his own eyes, shall thus pour out falsehoods to cheat mankind; and the ignorant know not, but it may be all true. It tempteth men, to think that there must be some Authorized men, whom the ignorant must believe before such seducers; or else, confusion and falsehood will t • ke place of truth, and the people will be as children tossed up and down, and carried to and fro, with every wind of doctrine. And indeed, a Concordant Ministry is to be preferred, though it infer not a Roman infallibility.

But, whether Mr B. may deserve to be one of these Authorized men and Concordant Ministers, to save us from popery, and seducing, and from being tossed to and fro, will be better understood when you have read some of the following Chapters.

Some particular Witnesses, justified; taken out of the Dutch Book of Martyrs. SECT. IV. My Integrity in those quotations out of the Dutch Book of Martyrs, vindicated.

IN the next place he falls very foul upon me, for some Quotations out of the Dutch Martyrology: and of about forty particular witnesses, for believers only, or, against Infants-Baptism; he excepts but against eight, or nine, viz. The Missalians, (as he calls them,) Faustus Regiensis, Albanus; Apamen; Adrian; Egyptian-Divines; Birinus, Hincmarus, & Smaragdus. All which in his usual civility he is pleased to tell me Are my gross slanders, forged Fables, or deceitful falsifications;

In return whereto, it will be necessary to speak something in general respecting the Quotations I have given out of that Book; and then give you a particular account of these that he hath picked out, to make his Exceptions against.

First, as to those quotations; you will find them to be of these several sorts; 1st. Either of such confessors or Martyrs that they have recorded in the latter centuries for denying Infants-baptism, whereof their own testimonies may be as Authentic, as our renowned Fox, for our protestant Martyrs, and Confessors. Though the Papists who had their hands in those bloody persecutions, have not more slighted and contemned that our worthy Historian, than Mr B. who hath had so great a hand to help forward the persecution of the Anabaptists (as I shall hereafter make appear) hath unduly contemned, and slighted, our Dutch Historians, for that their worthy Collection, of those renowned Sufferers, and Confessors. )

2dly. Or such Martyrs or Confessors in former times, for which they quote their Century writers sometimes mentioning the Antiquities recorded by them, and sometimes not. As, we many times qnote the Magdeburgenses, Fox, Scultetus, Osiander, Baronius, Usher, without mentioning the antiquities they refer to: So, do they their Twisk, Frank, Merningus, Montanus &c. who learnedly collected from antiquity those stories and passages they refer to, without mentioning always their Ancient authorities, for the same; Concerning whom I may shortly be able to give a better account having sent for the books themselves.

3dly. I desire it may be taken notice of, That neither those particular instances that Mr B. excepts against, nor any other that I know of, taken out of that book, do I produce as positive testimony in the first place to prove anything, but as collateral witnesses to confirm something before proved: as for instance, If I prove the Waldenses did deny Infants- baptism, and produce for the same Eckbertus Cluniacensis, Racnarius & others from antiquity to make it good; and add, for confirmation, either such modern Authors of our own, witnessing to the same, or some of these our Dutch Historians out of that collection; it may go as far as modern Authority may reach, so that if they prove lame or not so pertinent, the matter is the less. But if I produce, with their Country-writers, their antiquities also; that will go for original proof

4thly. That, what I say from them, I producing faithfully their Authorities to make it good, will not, I presume, in common justice be reputed my forgery, fable, or falsehood, if their's should prove so; which is the measure Mr B. metes out to me; it being so much the work of Cavilers, If they cannot find a hole, they will endeavor to make one.

All which being premised; we shall examine what cause there is for his heinous reflections upon these few of those many witnesses mentioned from them; and, whether they are not fairly to be justified from his injurious Cavils.

The first of them he mentions, is, My forgeries, and false stories, of the Messalians, as he calls them, viz. those eminent men Dadoes, and his companions, who in the 4th Century were reckoned in the Romish Catalogue of Heretics, For having an ill opinion of Infants-baptism, and, for saying, Prayers without baptism, signified nothing; and that, it was prayer, not Exercism, that profited to expel the Devil. For which they quote Sebastian Frank that wrote the Chronicle of the Romish heretics or Ketters: and the Tripartite History, from which I presume he collected it.

Mr Baxter, to detect the forgery, quotes part of the Tripartite History and very partially also; telling us that these Messalians were filthy Heretitks, who did affirm, That Prayer was all, and that baptism and the Lord's supper was nothing, and so might indeed deny Infants-baptism; as heathens do, who deny all baptism, p. 267.

But if you look into the Tripartite History, (so called because gathered from Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates ) you will find that these called Messalians are put upon record for the Eutichian -heresy, as denying the S • craments: And advancing prayer above what was meet, and which you will find to be upon this very account, viz. There being two erroneous things asserted at this day about the Sacraments, especially in administering of them to little ones; The one, that Baptism was profitable by the act done, to take away sin, save the soul, and to drive away the Devil: In opposition whereto, they are said to assert thus; viz. Nullam quidem utilitatem ex sancto baptismate baptizatis accidere; sed solam studio sam orationem inhabitantem Daemonem fugare. That by the act of Baptism no good comes to the baptized; and that fervent prayer only expels the Devil; in opposition to their Exorcisms or su • l • ations. And, that this was the true meaning, the Margent of the Book over against this passage, confirms; Haeresis negantium gratiam in baptismo conferri, The Heresy of those that denied graee to be conferred in Baptism. The other, was about the Eucharist; it being affirmed at this day as by Austin and others afterwards, (from Jo. 6. Except a man eat the flesh of Christ, &c.) that it was necessary to give children that Sacrament also, for their Salvation. They are affirmed to say thus, viz. Divinum cibum nihil nec prodesse, nec laedere, That the divine meat (viz. in the outward eating of it) neither did profit nor hurt (viz. to little-ones as to salvation or damnation) though, say their enemies, De quo, Dominus dixit Christus, Qui comedit carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum vivet in aeternum, Concerning whom the Lord Christ hath said, he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, shall live eternally. And from whence their Adversaries did infer, that they made prayer all and undervalued both the Ordinances as nothing, and therefore called them the Eutichcans, or praying Heretics, and the Enthusiasts. Though I do not know, that It is so heretical to say, Prayer is all, in some sense; for, it is so all, that without personal and spiritual prayers, there is no regeneration, it being the principal sign thereof, Acts. 9. And so by consequence, no ordinance to profit without it; So fully excluding infants from partaking in either of those Ordinances. The like nick names and reproaches they gave the Waldenses after, for witnessing against their Breaden-God; and for saying that Grace was not confer'd by the act of Baptism; That therefore, they denied both those Sacraments; and laid them under the like calumnies, as unclean, filthy dreamers; as they did these very men. Which was also reflected upon the Priscillianists, and Novatians, to this day also: And Thomas Walden, I find calls the Wickliffists Messalians, whom he accused for denying infants- baptism ). See Historia Ecclesiast. Tripartit. l. 7. c. 11. p. 406. 407.

The next is, Faustus Rhegiensis; which he saith is my slander. Concerning whom I tell you what they say from Merningus history of Baptism, who I presume quotes it from the Authority itself; which it is true I did not mention and for which he quarrels me; though, as to the words, said to be his, he owns: being, as he saith, so agreeable to his own sentiments, viz. That personal and actual desire was requisite in everyone that was to be baptized; for which they quote, Lib. 2. de Arbit. c. 8. Jacob Merning p. 415. Therefore, I hope the Reader will aequit me of the slander in this particular, as we shall acquit Mr B. of contradicting Reason, Scripture, and sense, when he reconciles this position with Infants baptism.

The 3d is, Albanus: which he chargeth as my deceit; for whose Martyrdom for asserting believers & denying Infants-baptism, I mention their Quotation from Twisk Frank and Baronius. Concerning whom he saith, he can find no such particular persons in his book (viz. Baronius only,) that there was some trouble given to the Anabaptists about that time which he supposed respected only the Donatists for Rebaptization; But why my deceit, or theirs either, I see not. They say, that Albanus was martyred at Mainz, out of the history of Andrew Hondorff p. 143. And also, quote the bloody Decree of Theodosius for Death and banishment, for baptizing otherwise than the Church appointed, out of Baronius which Mr Baxter's modesty calls, some trouble to the Anabaptists.

The 4th mentioned by him, is, My gross falsification of Nicephorus, and slander, as he calls it of Apamen, and concerning whom I tell you what they mention from Twisk Chron. and the Magdeburgs, how that Apamen and Zoroaras in Syria, were Anabaptists, which they take in a modern sense: but Mr B. conceives it respected both old and young, and not only those that had been baptized in infancy. But, whether he hath therefore such cause to censure them for thinking otherwise; and me also, as a falsifyer for quoting them; is submitted to better Judgment.

The 5th is, My false story, as he calls it, of Adrianus Bishop of Corinth; concerning whom, I acquaint you what they mention from Mirningus, Montanus, Frank and the Magdeburgs, viz. That he denied Infants-Baptism, suffered young Children to die without it, and gave so great trouble in it also, that occasioned the decree of the Council of Bracerence, to confirm it.

As to which Mr. B. acknowledges that Adrian was indeed accused that some Infants, by his means, died without Baptism; but saith, it was a malevolent accusation; and that it was only, for delaying the baptizing of the infants of some excommunicated persons. But, whether so, or no, or that that-Canon of the 2d Bracerence Council for baptizing Children, was made upon that account of his denying it, as affirmed by them, is left to Judgment. You have my tale, and my tales-master, and for me to be reputed a forger if it prove otherwise would be hard measure. Mr. Wills, it seems, saw so much cause to believe it, that he confesseth Adrianus was a competent witness in the case.

The next he quarrels me for, is Birinus: concerning whom I only tell you, what he gathers from Bede, l. 3. c. 7. l. 4. c. 16. viz. That he professed, Instruction to be so necessary before Baptism, that, without it, Baptism ought not to be administered to high or low, as p. 2 • 2.

For which, Mr. B. p. 272. compared with his contents, severely reproves me for fiction, and for falsification of Bede, 1st. Because Bede, he saith, only tells us of one Bernwin who preached, converted, and baptized; and what was that, to the purpose? but, not a word of Birinus, that so professed. 2dly. Nor was the business done, as he saith, in lower Saxony but in the Isle of Wight: so little is there that hath the least kin to truth, in this lamentable reporter.

To which I say, First, that, I have quoted my Authorities right, let them be accountable for the fictions and falsifications, not I, if there be any: it being injustice to make me guilty of both, as Mr. B. doth.

But 2dly. If my Author has acquitted himself in both, What doth Mr. B. deserve for such temerity, rash and injurious Censure? And, that he hath so done, let the Reader Judge. My Dutch Author mentions two places out of Bede as before; the first, tells us of Birinus preaching to the people of lower or West Saxony, and to their King Kinigilsus, who embracing the faith of the Gospel, did after he had taken an account of the faith of the King, and several of the people, baptize them. Bedes words are these, l. 3. c. 7. Eo tempore, Gens Occidentalium Saxonum, qui antiquitùs Gevissae v cabantur, praedicante illis verbum Byrino, Regnante Cynigilso, fidem Christi suscepit. Itaque, Evangelizante illo in praefectu Provinciarum, Rex ipse catechizatus, fonte Baptismi cum suâ gente ablueretur. The other l. 4. c. 16. mentions Brenwin's preaching and baptizing in the Isle of Wight in the like manner. So that here is neither fiction nor falsification of Bede; here is Birinus preaching in lower Saxony, baptizing only such as made a profession of faith; neither doth Brenwin, the other instance refer'd to in their quotation, baptize any other that is mentioned. But, saith Mr. Baxter, the Isle of Wight is not in lower Saxony, where Brenwin preached; but, if it was not, it is enough that it appears that Birinus preached and baptized in lower Saxony which is without dispute. And, that the Isle of Wight did also belong to the kingdom of west Saxony, is manifest; because Hampshire, Sussex, Southampton, &c. whereof the Isle of Weight is a member, was within the compass of it, as Peter Heylin in his Cosmography in the description of Britain p. • 11. tells us, and Mr Fox his Mapp of west Saxony 1 Vol. p. 141. So little is there that hath the least kin to truth in this our lamentable reprover.

The 7th. is My Table (as he calls it) about the Egyptian Divines: con erning whom, I tell you what they say from Pamelsus upon Tertullian, and Vicecomes, viz. How that they in opposition to the Church of Rome, taught, that Teaching and faith should go before Baptism.

To which he saith, p. 237. That some indeed in Egypt did, he grants, separate from the Church of Rome, but supposeth that this might respect only the Adult; which all the Christian world, he saith, owns.

In answer whereto, I say; It is true, the Christian world do so, when some of the Heathen-World, as they call them, viz. Jews or Pagans, come amongst them for it (which is very rare): But this, it seems, as they tell us, was Doctrine contrary to the Church of Rome; which must therefore, as they conceive, be respecting the baptizing of Infants; whom they, Mr. B. and other; of the Christian world, baptize without personal Teaching, and Faith preceding it. Therefore, what a Fabler I am here, let it be judged also.

The next is, My Forgery, as his contents calls it, about Hincmarus Laudunensis, of whom we also tell you what they say from the Bib. Pat. Magdeb. Montanus, and Vicecomes: viz. That he denied Baptism to little ones, suffering them to die without it, and for which the Bishop of Reims opposed him with both the Authority of the Canon, and Scripture-Law, viz. Jo. 3.5. p. 233.

To which Mr B. saith, that All that I can find upon a cursory perusal of the Bib. Pat. is, that, he was accused for letting some infants die without it, which he supposeth might be as before in Adrianus his case. p. 273.

But how far his supposition in the case will prevail to make me a forger, and will refute the evidence of the Authorities mentioned; is submitted to the judicious Reader, who withal must know that Vicecomes lib. 2. c. 1. (no friend to the Anabaptists ) doth rank Hincmarus of Laudum in the Catalogue of those that deny infants-baptism, and quotes for it the bishop of Reims letter to make it good. And also, it must be remembered (by Mr Baxter's leave) that his brother Wills saw so much truth and equity in the case, as to allow me Hincmarus, as well as Adrianus, for another witness against Infants-Baptism: but, now I must be a forger for the same.

There is another, viz. Smaragdus, put in his postscript; concerning whom I tell you what they say, viz. That he was first a defender, then afterwards an opposer of Infants-Baptism; affirming, that he taught, that they were first to teach, then afterwards to baptize those so taught. Concerning whose doctrine, about Infants-baptism Mr Baxter doth give us many Instances, p. 407. &c. And withal tells, that Smaragdus knew how to reconcile this saying to Infants-Baptism also.

Which when Mr B. can do in his own case, we may the better believe Smaragdus might do so also: but till then, if he did as Mr B. tells us, assert this doctrine at the same time he did Infants-Baptism, we must suppose he did then as much contradict both himself and the plain evidence of the Scripture, as Mr B. doth now: who sometimes tells us, that the Commission in the 28. of Mat. doth respect the Adult only; and sometimes, Parents doing it for the children in their names and steads.

Thus I have gone through these few of the exceptions he makes of the many witnesses I have mentioned from the Dutch book of Martyrs. Which, I suppose, may be sufficient to aequit me from his virulent charge concerning them, if not justify my Authors also from his severe censures: for, what I presume he hath not himself justified, their antiquities will. Withall claiming so much justice, that those many he hath not excepted against, may favourably be allowed me; at least, till he or somebody else, give any just exception against them; his silence in the mean time, giving-in his consent thereto: these he has picked out, being only such as he supposed he had the greatest advantage against.

SECT. V. The Waldensian witness justified.

IN the next place, we shall hear what he hath to say to the witness born by the Waldenses, my principal witness against Infants-baptism. And which we must gather up in that method I gave it you in, and which you will find to be under 4. Heads, viz. 1st, From their confessions of faith: 2dly, From their most eminent leading men, who have denied it. 3ly, From the evidence of it, from many learned men who opposed them in it; and decrees of Councils against them for it; 4ly, From the footsteps they left of it, in the several Countries where they were dispersed.

SECT. II.

THe next false accusation he accuseth me of is for saying he was for and against Non conformity, viz. sometimes for Non-conformity (in whose tents he hath seemed to shelter himself in the storm, and with their Indulgence to come forth of his hole) and yet at length so highly to disgrace the same.

To which he saith p. 299. Let him show you, if he can, where or when I have changed my judgment, since 1640. Necessity having forced me so long ago to study those controversies so hard as fixed me: and that I never heard anything since, which had considerably alt • red me therein, which also being so visible in that my dispute of Liturgy and ceremonies written 1658. leaves no cloak for this man's calumnies.

Alas, what shall we say to such temerity and daring presumption! First, to act and talk at such a rate for Non-conformity as the former Section evidenceth, and then to make such a shameful head against it, and yet to have the confidence thus to out-face the Sun, and with the Apostates in Malachi's time ask, Wherein? Mal. 3.8.13. What, write, and fight, and contend so furiously for Non-conformity, and Non-conformists, as he hath done; and not only to run into that conformity he hath so spew'd upon, but so to load it with all manner of reproach, as the worst of sins which pulls down the greatest of Judgments; but to pour out so much scorn and contempt, upon all the Conscientious in the 3. Nations, whether Independents, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, who separate from Parish-Assemblies and worship, and keep not pace with him in his retreat, as peevish, ignorant, self-conceited persons, pulling down Judgments upon their heads. But whither will not a man, left to himself, run? And yet to say, you disgrace no Non-conformity but such as mine, who am as he saith such a Non-conformist to truth, Christian Duty, and common honesty. But since he reproaches the whole Interest, and is so set in the seat of the scorner, I may not wonder to have my share; only this I shall say, it will be the Reader's part to judge betwixt Mr Baxter and myself, who is the most Non-conformist herein, he or I: with whom I leave it.

But saith Mr B. what doth he mean by sheltering myself in the storm in their tents, and coming out of my hole with them; I cannot imagine what, unless sense and truth at once forsook him.

That truth and sense were both with me therein, is easily demonstrated to those that have not quit both; for, doth not he know that in his seeming to take up the Cross with them, in becoming their advocate under those costly circumstances at the Savoy, being first silenced as he tells us, preaching in private holes or conventicles, persecuted, imprisoned, disgraced, that he hereby seemed to cast in his lot amongst them, and was willing to share of what protection God's promise and providence might afford such a state; and which, if we can believe his word, has not only Tent, or sanctuary, but Tower, shelter, and protection in it, as Isaiah. 8.12.13.14. Ezek. 11.16. Pro. 18.20. Rev. 3.10. The sense and truth of which word however Mr B. hath not understood; yet others, through grace, have experienced, and can seal to, in the storm that has been upon us.

And, That, from his preaching in holies or private Conventicles in houses, he came forth with the Non-conformists, to public Preaching and Lectures, who can deny it? But to this he must say something, when his hand was in, be it right or wrong, whilst he takes the liberty to say almost anything, viz. what hole was it, that I came out of with their Indulgence? are such men as this, vindicators of God's truth and the Christian world, that pour out untruths at such a rate, in despite of the most public notoriety of fact; And whereof I say again, let all the world judge; witness Shooe-lane, Pell-mell Meeting-place, and Glass-house-Lecture, &c.

SECT. III.

The next charge he gives me of injustice to his writings, is, for affirming him to have been sometime a friend to Calvin and then agreater to Arminius. To which he saith p. 301. Did he tell the Reader, where, by one I did contradict the other? As though Arminianism doth not contradict Calvinism, but hath only a difference in sound of words, and not in sense, as our great Casuist is pleased now to tell us concerning this controversy, as well as the Popish doctrines, that have caused so much contention for many hundred years: having found out the new way of reconciling Christ and Antichrist that was never yet discovered. But concerning the nature of those controversies, it is not at all my work to engage in at this time (which are substantially done by many, notwithstanding his dreams, and are like to be done by more, with shame enough to his rash erroneous and giddy undertaking;) my work being only to show, that he was a man given to change almost in everything, and amongst the rest in these controverted points amongst Protestants. And, to make that good, he has in his Cath. Theol. in his Preface, sufficiently acknowledged the same; so that we need say no more thereto.

Then further, in a quibling way, to show what a wordy Doctor he is; see (saith he) the misery of a Sectarian spirit, that taketh it to be a contradiction, to be a friend to Calvin and Arminius both? he would, as this inferreth, take it ill, to be thought a friend to Anabaptists and Paedobaptists, &c. p. 302. as though I spoke of his friendship to the person of Calvin and Arminius, dead so long before he was born, especially the former; and not, their doctrines only.

SECT. IV.

The next thing he quarrels me for, is, for affirming that he was sometimes a great defender of the Parliament, and their cause; and then none more ready to renounce the same, and be-traitor them for their pains.

To which he saith, Was there never but one Parliament and one cause, running the changes of Rump, little Parliament, Protectors, &c?

Answ. It is enough that he hath so contradicted himself in that Parliament cause, which he owned, stated and 4 years fought for, and which when he or anybody in his behalf shall presume to deny, I am sufficiently prepared to make good, and to that degree, that will make the Readers ears to tingle, especially in that part, for which he hath so much betraytor d them, and would be thought to be so innocent. But a word to the wise, is enough.

SECT. V.

The next thing he calls me to account for, is, for affirming that he is sometimes a great opposer of Tradition, and anon a great defender thereof.

To which he saith, That if I take Tradition equivocally I do calumniate by Equivocation; but, if [by thereof] I mean [the same Tradition] my falsehood hath no Cloak of an Equivocation. Bidding me prove what I say, by any words of his. And further saith, Did I write a Book to prove the Tradition of Adult Baptism from Christ's time to ours, and when I have done renounce and scorn it? calling upon the Reader to see how I value my own work.

To which I answer (and to the last first): I say; I mention not Tradition of any human-Authority, to prove Adult Baptism of which there is no need, being so undeniably done by Scripture-Authority, upon which we only lay weight for probation; which I have again and again told you in the treatise. But because there hath been so much stress laid upon it by the Paedobaptists, I have endeavored out of their own Books, and from the very Authorities themselves have urged, proved the contrary to what they have affirmed; and, which is Argumentum ad hominem, and good against themselves, making it good from their own Prophets, that Adult Baptism by human Authority is confirmed in every age) and that there is no good Authority out of primitive antiquity for Infants-Baptism. But withal we affirm, that it is only Scripture-evidence, not Tradition, that can authorize any ordinance of Christ. Therefore Mr B. mistakes himself in saying that I do renounce and scorn it, and undervalue my own work; which by no means I do, because I say, as a testimony of his instability, that he is sometimes for, and sometimes against Tradition, and do illustrate the truth of believers, and detect the error of Infants-Baptism thereby; which yet stands firm and good for the end I brought it, as much as if I should endeavor to convince a Turk of his mistake out of his own Alcoran and a Jew out of their Talmud, and yet believe neither to be of much force, for the confirmation of a scripture-verity to a Christian.

But in the next place, as to the first; I doubt not to make it good against Mr B. from his own words, viz. That he has affirmed the same Tradition that he has before denied, and for which I might give him several Instances, but shall crave leave to do it, especially from one of a latter date it being freshest in memory, and of greatest remark; viz. That about his asserting the Creed to be writ by the Apostles 12 years before any book of the New Testament was writ advancing thereby Tradition above the Scripture and denying its sufficiency so much in contradiction to what himself had formerly written.

Therefore in the first place I shall show you how Mr B. hath opposed Tradition in general as held by the papist and what in particular, respecting the Tradition about the Creed as popish also: And then what in opposition to both he hath also affirmed.

First, as to his opposing of Tradition, read his Saints Rest, p. 235. where he tells us, That the Papists sinfully plead Tradition against the sufficiency of scripture. And in his Key for Catholics, p. 93. That it is in our eyes an abominable impiety for you to equal your Traditions with the holy Scripture till you have enumerated and proved them; And it makes us the more to suspect your Traditions, when we perceive that they or their Patrons have such an Enmity to the holy Scripture, that they cannot be rightly defended, without casting some reproach upon the Scripture: But this we do not much wonder at, for it is no new thing with the applauders of Tradition.

And again in his Right Method, p. 205. That it was the Devil that opened a gap for human additions [or Traditions] at which he might afterwards bring in more at his pleasure.

And in his Key for Catholics p. 454. Scripture (saith he) is the Test of Christianity, and must show us sound in the faith; though the Church may show us peaceable; therefore to seek for unity, verity, or felicity, by the loss or destruction of sanctity, Religion or charity, is really to renounce, oppose and lose them, viz. Sanctity, Religion, Charity.

And Secondly, as to the Tradition about the Creed, being writ by the Apostles themselves, and of the dangerous consequence of such a Tenet, take what largely he hath said in opposition to one Mr Ashwel, who maintained that the Creed was written by the Apostles before the Scripture, and to be received as the Scripture by the Traditions of the Fathers and Ancients with whom it was left for us, In his Appendix to his 2d Edition of the Reformed Pastor, where he tells him. That he thereby advanced the Creed above the Scripture, and with contempt spit in the face of the Scripture, Because as he tells him it cannot be proved by Scripture or Antiquity that it was writ by them but much to the contrary. And then gives these following substantial Arguments why the Creed in that form of words now delivered to us, could not be written by the Apostles, before the Scripture was written.

First, because there is no proof tendered thereof by the affirmers of it.

Secondly, because the Fathers in the first ages do give us the Creed in other words, not one of them giving us this form for above 300. years after Christ: Ignatius, Iraeneus, Origen, Tertullian, write the Churches faith, but none of them in this form; So that it would make a man shake his head (saith Mr B.) to read such kind of proofs as Mr Ashwel offers, which only serve to disprove the thing heaping up forms to prove the Apostles used this Form.

Thirdly, because (saith he) I find so many clauses new in this form, and for our better Information mentions them out of Bishop Usher, viz. [maker of heaven and earth] was a new addition not in the Ancient Copies. 2dly, [conceived] is added, the old form is, born of the holy Ghost. 3dly The word [Dead] is added. 4ly [descended into hell] is added, 5ly The name of [God Almighty] to the Article of Christ sitting at the right hand of God. 6. [Catholic] is added to holy Church. 7. [Communion of Saints] is added. And 8. [life everlasting] is added. All which he tells Mr Ashwel, are a considerable part of so short a Form, and which additions he saith, (as Bishop Usher observes) were made not at once, but as heresies sprung up at several times.

Fourthly, That the Nicene Creed was as confidently and more anciently called the Apostles Creed, and said to be delivered from the Apostles, (as he saith Bish. Usher tells us in his Dissert. de Symbol. p. 16.) And therefore that we owe it no more reverence as to the Apostles, than to the Jerusalem, or Nicene Creed, and that the Nicene was the more common Creed.

Fifthly, From the uncertainty and impossibility to know this by Tradition, that if it should be, as M. Ashwel saith, That the truth of the Apostolicalness of this Creed, and exposition of Scripture also, was to be made out to us by Tradition from the writings of the Church and ancient Fathers, Mr B. pathetically thus expresseth himself: Oh that I knew where to find the Church that could give me the sense of all God's Oracles by this undoubted Tradition as from the Apostles themselves; or that I knew the name or characters of those Fathers that had this Depositum the sense of the Scriptures by Tradition from the Apostles; and where I may find it left to us. Is it each Father individually? or is it the greater Number together? And how shall we take their vote, and knew which of them to account a Father, and which not: surely when I read them telling us no more the sense of those Oracles and so often erring and disagreeing, I cannot believe their memories were all so good as to deliver d • wn from father to son an Exposition upon the Bible without writing: And if ever any of them had such a voluminous commentary in his brain from the hands of the Apostles, which was not thought meet to be given in writing, the issue by this time may convince us that either it was intended only for themselves, or else that indeed such a world of matter would have been surely better kept then this Tradition h • th kept it. For I think most of us love our fleshly ease so well that if we knew where the book or the Church were that would give us such a certain Exposition of Scripture as from the Apostles, we would be glad of it, not only to the quieting of our minds, but also for the sparing our time and labor we bestow in our study?

Concluding that Mr Ashwels discourses (and many of his train) were self-conc •• ted, dry and raw, and therefore tells him, he matters not what some of those good men over their Pots do learnedly reproach them for these things: Insinuating by this smart reflection, that he, Mr Ashwel and his companions might be good fellows as well as ignorant persons; And to which we may add what Mr Perkins saith upon the Creed, p. 121 for the better information of any that desire to be established in this truth: viz. It was called the Apostles Creed because it was afterwards for substance taken out of their writings, not that they were the penners of it (conferring besides the matter, the style and frame of words as we have them now set down, as Ruffinus would have it in Symbol. ad Jerome. &c.) And that because, first there are in this Creed words and phrases, which are not found in the writings of the Apostles, and namely [that he descended into hell] in which if we in a Protestant sense would understand the Grave, it is a tautology, that being mentioned before, Dead and buried, and [Catholic Church] which began to be in use when the Churches were dispersed into all quarters of the earth, as, saith he, Pacianus Ep. informeth us: 2dly, if mattter and words had been from the Apostles, why is not the Creed, canonical Scripture, as well as any other writings. So Mr Perkins.

Further, I shall now show you what M. B. hath said in contradiction hereto. Therefore know, that notwithstanding all this unanswered reason, either by himself or anybody else, he so far goes over to Mr. Ashwell the person he so judiciously opposeth herein, that in the Glass-house Lecture as famously known, he did declare, that he was of the opinion, that the Creed was written by the Apostles before the Scriptures of the New Testament were written, yea 12 years before any book thereof was written by any of the Apostles. And as being no Enemy to repentance, did thereby declare his repentance, for opposing that learned man Mr. Ashwell in the Appendix to the Reformed Pastor: and which was the substance of what then was said as near as I could gather from any that then heard him, whereat many being offended and the Town ringing of such strange doctrine • , • e to mend the matter has been pleased in his Cath. Theol. in the Preface, thus to express himself, viz. As Christ himself was the Author of the Baptismal Creed and Covenant, so the Apostles were the Authors of that exposition which they then used, and taught the Church to use; And they did that by the holy Ghost as much as their inditing of the Scripture (which is nothing else, as he affirms, but the explication of the 3. Baptismal Articles;) and to be the summary and symbol of Christian belief; 12. years before we had any book of the New-Testament, and above 66. years before we had them all: And this of God's own making which was ever agreed on; when though he truly before tells you (and which also is confirmed by the Magdeburg. Cent. 1. l. 2. ch. 4. p. 66) that the 3 first ages knew no such thing as the Apostles Creed) when many books of the New-Testament were not agreed on, whereas the whole Canon of the New-Testament (as you will hear hereafter) was fully agreed to, in the 2d and 3d Centurys. And therefore Mr. B. tells us, that those who deny the sufficiency of this Test and Symbol (made by Christ and his Spirit) to its proper use, to be the Symbol of such as, in Love and Communion we are viz. now at this day, to take for Chr • stians, do subvert the sum of Christ's Gospel and Law, and do worse than they that do add to or alter the lesser parts of the Word of God; And further in his 2d Preface, p. 19. It is to me a certainty that the Apostles made and used a Creed for sense and substance as the very summary and Test of Christianity long before any Book of the New-Testament was written (about 12. years, and at most 66. before the whole). And it is certain by Church-history that (though some variety of little words was used, yet) this same Creed for substance (except the 2 or 3. clauses mentioned by Usner and Vossius) was commonly used at Baptism from the days of the Apostles. And it is certain, that if the Apostles did take this course so many years before they wrote any of the New-Testament, they did this (as well as that) by the holy Ghost: and so that the holy-Ghost seconding Christ's own Baptismal Law, or Instituted test, did make the Creed to be the summary of the Christian belief, twelve-years before we had any Book of the New-Testament, and about 66. as is said before we had them all: And then it will appear what is God's appointed Test of Christianity, Communion, and Special love.

And in p. 287. Giving an account what sins (in his apprehension) some Protestants have run into in their opposition to Popery, tells us in the 2d. place, that they have wronged the Church by undervaluing the Tradition of the Creed and the Essentialls of Christianity, by many means besides the Scriptures. Then goes on in his Preface, all which considered, though I think it is the truth which I long ago wrote against a Treatise of a learned man (Mr. Ashwell) in the Appendix to the 2d. Edition of my Reformed Pastor, yet I publish my repentance that ever I wrote it, as fearing lest it occasi • ned the turning of men's minds from this great truth, which he and I agreed in, and which I find few consider, as it deserveth. Thus far Mr. B. for the Tradition of the Creed.

Now may it not be well left without a Comment how notoriously Mr. B. hath contradicted himself herein: And whether by that advancing this piece of Tradition before and above the Scripture, he doth not (in his own words to Mr. Ashwell ) with contempt spit in the face of the Scripture as so substantially confirmed by those 5 Arguments he gave in the case, and which he now tells you he thinks was the truth; yet again seeming to quit so much Reason of his own and others, and to fall in with so much of what he so severely judged to be the raw, dry, self-conceited notions of some ignorant reprochers, and, as he was pleased to call them, pot-companions, meaning as I suppose Mr. Ashwell for one, against whom he writ, and whom nevertheless he now owns to be a learned man; let who that can, reconcile such contradictions.

And lastly, is it not manifest, that what he affirms as to the precise time of its Fabrication, viz. 12. years before any book of the New-Testament was written, if we may give credit to that which goes for authentic story, is fabulous and ridiculous: For Pareus, Proaem. in Math. Hen. Alsted. praecogn. Theol. l. 2. c. 103. out of Eusebius and Theophylact. inform us; That Matthew's Gospel was writ the 9th. year after Christ's ascension: And Baronius also tells us, as Spondanus p. 46. anno. 41. In this same year S. Matthew the Apostle (as Eusebius in his Chronicle informs,) was the first that wrote the Gospel; so that, this being true, that the Gospel of Matthew was written the one and fortieth year after Christ's Nativity, or the 9th. year after his Ascension, as antiquity informeth, and learned men, both amongst Protestants and Papists, agree: And the Creed as Mr. Baxter now tells us was written 12. years before any Book of the New-Testament was written, then it must be at least 3. or 4. years before Christ died: If so, how will it correspond with that part of it viz. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified, dead and buried, he descended into Hell, the third day he rose again from the dead, &c. Therefore is it not meet, that he help us in this difficulty also, and give us something besides his own word to prove this Tradition, as well as the precise time mentioned by him; and how this seeming contradiction is to be reconciled, since we are to receive it with equal Authority, if not greater than the Scripture itself. Otherwise that he will give us leave in his own words to conclude, It is abominable impiety thus to equal Traditions with the holy Scriptures, and no other than the Devils Gap, to bring in what more additions he please at pleasure.

SECT. VI.

THe next piece of injustice he accuseth me of, is, for saying,

To which he saith, Here again, if by [Popery] and [it] you mean the same thing, you hold on the same course: prove it true and take the honor of once writing a true accusation. I have not hid my Judgment about Popery, having written about 7. or 8. Books against it, in about 20 years time, by which you may see in comparing them whether I changed my judgment: If you cannot, refuse not to blush, &c. Concluding, that tears are fitter than In'k for such fearless, rash, continued, visible falsehoods to be deliberately published to the World as truths by one that calls himself a man, and a Christian.

Answer. That Mr. B. hath written several books against Popery is fully owned, and therefore I say [sometimes a violent impugner of Popery; ] But it follows not but he as well as many learned Protestants that have written against Popery while so, and afterwards turned Papists, may write for it also. Nay while they profess to be Protestants, may also plead for Popery. For doth not Mr. B. accuse Grotius, Dr. Taylor, Bramhall, and others of the Episcopal party who write against Popery, to be Papists, though they professed Protestantism? And upon which you have Dr Pierce in his New Discoverer. p. 170. Telling Mr B. thus, viz. Though you have writ against the Papists a great deal more than enough, yet that is no more than a Blindition, to escape the rigor of the Law: How could you hold a sequestration, if you did not act the Presbyterian? Dr. Taylor writ against Papists, and yet you know what you have called Him, Dr. Hammond, Mr Thorndik, &c. have writ against Papists, but you know what they are for defending Grotius.

In the next place, it is therefore my part to show • that he that hath writ so much against Popery, hath also writ much for it. And that not only for the doctrine of Popery, but for much of their Discipline also.

First, for their Doctrine, I gave you some account, in the Treat. p. 379. out of his book called the Fu • l and easy satisfaction, viz. And as to Popery I have certainly found that the cross-interest and passions of Disputers have made us (though really too far distant) to seem commonly about many Doctrinalls more distant than indeed we are, &c. I mean in the points of fore-knowledge, predestination, providence, pre-determination, concourse, Original sin, free-will, universal redemption, sufficient grace, the nature of faith, justifification, sanctification, merit of good works, certainty of justification, Salvation, and perseverance, imputation of righteousness, &c. And for his knowing this to be true, (he saith) he is censured to be too favorable to the Papists, &c. And who (think you) that deserved not to be censured for a Papist, did ever affirm so much before, viz. That the difference between the Papist and Protestant in these great fundamental Doctrines of the Gospel are but seeming not real differences? What no real difference about Popish merit and works of supererogation? nor any real difference respecting justification by works, as the Council of Trent held it, &c. Then surely we may suppose that Paul and the Galatians were nearer agreed than he was aware of, though he charged them to hold another Gospel; in maintaining the same things with the Papists. And withal it must not be forgotten, that Mr B. in the same Book p. 72. tells us, That the Doctrine of the Papists is not only contrary to many express texts of holy Scripture but also contrary to its self. Whereby we must understand that the Protestants Doctrine is also contrary to express Scripture and itself also; or else in his usual method he doth contradict himself, in affirming that there is no more difference betwixt them in Doctrinals; and it must be remembered, at another time he is pleased to tell us, That their serving God to merit heaven, and doing works of supererogation, are of the Devil, as you have it in his book called The right method, &c. p. 255. So that it seems there was more than a seeming difference then supposed about works and merit betwixt us and the Papist, or else the Protestant is supposed to comply with the Devils design herein also. But to put the matter out of doubt in his late Folio book called his Cath. Theology, • e doth wholly cast the scale upon the Papists side, making the Protestant the Heretic and Schismatic, and they the Orthodox Christians in these points. His own words p. 249. are these that follow, and which were so surprising to me that I would scarce believe my own eyes when I read them, viz. And hereby what an honor is done to Popery and what a dishonor to the Reformed Churches when it shall be concluded that all the Churches heretofore even next after the age of the Apostles, and almost all the present Churches, were and are against the Doctrine of the Protestants and on the Papists side; And yet how many do us this injury and the Romish Church this honor, about the nature of justifying faith, and its office to justification, and about the nature of Justificat • on itself, and imputation of righteousness, and free-will, and man's works and merits, and about assurance of salvation, and perseverance; how many do call that Popery which the whole current of Greek and Latin Fathers do assert, and all the ancient Churches owned, and most of all the present Churches in the World. And those that call all forms of Prayer Popery, or the English Liturgy at least [as Mr B. himself had done before] when almost all the Christian World have forms, and most such as are worse. Do but tell men that the Christian World is on the side that they oppose and against their way [though the Christian world owns the Popes head-ship which he opposes;] And therefore what a crime of Infan • y it is to be taken for a separatist from the universal Church and in Doctrines and forms of Worship, not only to avoid them as antichristian, but to persuade men we are net of the same Body, and to disown a sinful dishonorable separation. And to increase Atheism, Idolatry and profaneness amongst us, while zeal against truth and reproaches of sound Doctrine [viz. such as the Papists hold therein] do make men think that Christ's Religion is nothing but proud humor & self-conceit, whilst they see us boldly condemn almost all the world except ourselves, they will think that so few as we deserve not to be excepted, [viz. from condemnation] occasioning all the Papists plots and cruelties at home and abroad, not using us as men, because we use not them as Christians; And which he compares to the dotages of Munster, which, he saith, was as a gravestone upon the Sepulcher which hindered the reviving of the Anabaptists cause, &c: And if this be not to the purpose I know not what is: Yet this is the man that (though he at this rate contemns the Protestant-Doctrine) undertakes so highly to justify the 39. Articles of the Church of England, engaging to make it appear, that they have been successively held by the Church from the beginning. Key for Catholics Pref. p. 8. If so, then these popish tenets about works, merit, free-will, justification, &c. so positively there condemned in so many of those Articles, viz. Original sin, 9. Free-will, 10. Justification, 11. Works, 12. Works before justification, 13. Works of super-erogation, 14. Predestination and Election. 17. were not the opinion of the primitive Churches successively since, as he now in contradiction hereto affirms.

And also in his Grotian Religion, Sect. 12. (as Bishop Bramhal in his Vindication, p. 41.) Mr B. having charged the new Episcopal Divines to be Papists for favoring the Grotian way, tells us, That the old sort of Episcopal Divines that received the public Doctrine of the Nation, contained in the 39. Articles, Homilies, &c. I wholly acquitted from my Iealousies of this compliance.

So that if signing and consenting to those Articles and Homilies must acquit from Popery, which undoubtedly in these points they fully do, as Dr. Tully in his 3d Chap. p. 20. &c. manifests, then, by Mr B's renouncing these doctrines so fully there asserted, proclaims himself a Papist and one abounding in contradictions.

The Bishop further tells us, p. 34. That he charges the new Episcopal Divines to bend the course of their writings to make the Roman Church honorable, and to vindicate them from Antichristianism, and to make the Reformed Churches odious. And what is this but for himself to do the same thing under worse circumstances? Whereupon the Bishop tells him; That he knows no man who honors the Church of Rome more than himself.

How notorious a Papist Mr B. is herein, Mr Crandon hath 20. years since discovered, in his book called, M. Baxter's Aphorisms Exorcized: who compares his Doctrine about Justification with the most Trentifyed-Jesuitized Papists, Chap. 16. p. 215. 2. part. And how much he exceeds many moderate Papists. Ch. 16. p. 223.

Dr. Owen, near 20. years since compares this his corrupt doctrine about justification with the Socinian; discovering what harmony there is betwixt them, in his Vindiciae Evangelicae.

Dr. Tully in his Justificatio Paulina a late piece, proves what a papist he is herein, p. 116.

Dr. Pierce discovers that though Mr B. accuseth Grotius and the Episcopal Divines following him to be Papists, yet how much he exceeds them in popery, giving diverse Arguments why he judges him a Papist, and a great factor for Rome in his Appendix, Sect. 5. p. 170.

And most remarkable (for self-condemnation) is that passage in his Catholic Key, making Arminianism the nest-Egg of Popery, and inveighing against the Episcopal party, as Papists, for the same: Which you may take in his own words as you find them, p. 326. viz. As for the new Episcopal party that followed Grotius and Arminius in Doctrine, and the Greek Church, and were for a reconciliation with Rome; the interest the Papists had among them, and influence they had on them or their proceedings is evident from what is said before; and much from the copious proofs produced by Mr. Prin in his Canterbury's trial. And for which he quotes a passage out of the Jesuits Letter mentioned by M. Prin, p. 89. which saith, as Mr B. tells us, for our better information. Now we have planted that sovereign drugg, Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their Heresy, and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season: And thereupon tells us, That the papists did creep into the Church under the garb of conformable Arminians, is too well known. And it is no wonder that Dr. Bailey, Dr. Groff, Dr. Vane, Hugh Cressy, and many more of them did openly revolt when the game seemed to be spoil'd that was played under-board, it had been far less hurt to us I think if all the rest had been as open.

So that if this be true Doctrine thus providentially dropt from his own pen, what shall we conceive of his now being the declared follower of Grotius and Arminius and the Greek Churches in those Doctrines before-mentioned; (yea so much out-doing Arminius himself therein,) but that it is as he unfolds the mystery to introduce Popery. And what a mercy would it be wholly to get off his Monks hood, that under the shape of a zealous Presbyterian, he may do us no more mischief, but appear a papist in his colors.

But Mr B. will tell you he is no Papist, because he renounces the Popes supremacy as Universal Monarch, and his infallibility, for which however he is censured by the Protestants to favor them in Doctrine, yet is he much more displeasing to the Papists. Because (saith he) I know that one man is naturally uncapable of being the Monarch of the world. In his Ep. to his Full and easy fatisfaction: centuring herein his chiefest opposition against Popery, and by which he would not be thought to be a Papist.

But this is a covering too narrow for him, because he knows the French whom he owns to be so honorable a part of the Church of Christ (and all the world knows to be Papists) do go near as far in renouncing the Popes Monarchical supremacy and infallibiliiy as Mr. Baxter. And our Ancestors in England when declared Papists went as far also, witness the Acts and Stat. of Hen. 1. Hen. 2. K. John. Hen. 3. Ed. 1. particularly in the Stat. of the 25. Ed. 1. against Provisors, and another Stat. of Premunire in Ed. 3. and 16. of Ric. 2. and renewed by Hen. 16. which you have at large treated of, in Robert Lalers Case the Popes Vicar-General in Ireland, who was there tried and convicted upon the Stat. 16 Ric. 2. Chap. 5. by Sir Jo. Davis the then Atturny-General of Ireland, and is in his Reports, and printed lately by Sir Jo. Petto for our present information.

Lastly, another Argument demonstrating Mr B. to be a Papist, is from those strong and substantial Objections he brings against himself upon common voge, and his weak and inconsiderable returns he makes thereto, as you find them in his last part of his Cath. Theol. in the 13. Conference; betwixt a Sectary & a peacemaker, 1st, p. 286. He asks the Q. to himself in the name of the sectary, are you not warping to Grotianism which you have written against? And again p. 287. You will follow Grotius at last: A very proper Question, to neither of which doth he say anything, which implies he is conscious thereof or fully intends the same; for why did he ask and not answer, the Question if he did not intend his silence should fully declare his consent. And 2ly p. 298. He brings the Sectary telling him, That he strives against God's judgment's, by which he hath ofttimes disowned Popery among us, and would make that less odious which God by wonders hath oft called us to abhor. A trembling consideration indeed and seasonably urged. But what doth he answer thereto. He grants that God hath oft marvelously preserved us from their attemps, but if you will use untruths against them, they will repay you two for one, whereof he gives several instances out of their popish Legendaries, of lying Prodigies befalling Protestants. Insinuating as though we bear up ourselves by such lying fables against their Religion, as though by a series of divine and miraculous providence, God had not preserved this Nation from their diabolical attempts for above an 100 years last past.

3. Again p. 298. He brings in the Sectary further telling him, That it is one of the Artifices of the Papists which you have learned when they would draw men to set light by the purity of Religion, and the worship of God, to cry up love and concord and peace instead of it, and so to tie all men's tongues and hands from resisting their wicked Church pollutions by the fear of Schism, or being uncharitable to the polluters, And so you will draw men to indifferency in Religion on pretence of peace and charity. This is to the purpose in the Consciences of all. To which he thus lamely replies fully bespeaking his guilt, viz. That we come up to the worst of Popery when we imitate the bloodiest men among them in our degree, by pleading for sacrifice against mercy, telling us, That they are cruel in keeping out and judging heresy and Schism, so when they or we grow wrathfully zealous against our Brethren on pretence of purity of faith or worship, and to make a Religion which quencheth love, we know not what spirit we are of.

Insinuating that our separating from the Papists for bloody Idolaters under pretence of keeping faith and worship pure, was a breach of mercy, and a sinning against the law of Love, and co • tracting the guilt of their cruelty to our degree, in that (which he calls) cruel and unmerciful separarion from them, and which is but agreeable to his former Doctrine you have heard to this purpose.

4. Again p. 295. He brings the Sectary telling him this great truth, viz. That God telleth us himself, that he is Jealous about his worship, and hath in Scripture more severely executed his justice upon the corrupters of his worship, than almost any other crime. A most remarkable observation. But how doth he avoid the force of it? It is true saith he, God is a jealous God no doubt against Idolatry, and to worship by an Image is to deny him to be God. That the Jews great temptation to the Idol trys of the Nations about them were to be oppugned by great severities of God, and no doubt but Moses Law was to be honored by God's severe executions on the breakers of it. But Christ's preaching under the Gospel is to send men to learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. And when the woman of Samaria like our Sectaries did turn from the Doctrine of faith to the controversy of the times, Christ teacheth her to worship God in spirit and truth.

As though God was not as severe under the Gospel for corrupting his worship as under the Law, & enjoin'd not the keeping to institutions as well as to the Moral Law: and as though the popish abominations were not to be abandoned as Idolatrous worship that provokes the Lord, and pulls down Judgments; and as though those that conscientiously plead separation from them upon that account deserve to be esteemed Sectaries? At another time he can tell us, That false worship doth not only as Idolatry signify the worshiping of a false God, or the Idolatrous worshiping of Images, but the worshiping of God by Doctrines and prayers that consist of falsehoods, or devising worship-ordinances, and falsely saying, they are the ordinances of God. Defen. of Princ. of Love. p. 3. part 2.

5. Again p. 293. further records this great truth from the mouth of the Sectary, who tells him: That all who revolt to P • pery begin with Questioning whether the Pope be Antichrist, and telling men of the Darkness of the book of the Revelation; which reaches his case fully.

To the former part of the Question he thus speaks in the foregoing words, viz. That it is a dangerous and perverse way of reasoning a minus notis, which will let in almost any errors, from a dark text in the Revela • ion or Daniel, or from the supposition that the Pope is the Antichrist, and all Papists received the mark of the beast; you gather conclusions against the notorious duties of Love and peace, which the light of Nature doth commend to all. Though in his Christian Directory, p. 777. he tells us. If by Antichrist be meant one that usurpeth the Office of a universal Vicar of Christ. and constitutive and governing head of the whole visible Church, and hereby layeth the ground of Schisms and contentions, and bloodshed in the world, and would rob Christ of all his members, who are not of the Popes Kingdom, and that formeth a multifarious Ministry for this service, and corrupteth much of the Doctrine worship and discipline of the Church; in this sense no doubt the Pope is Antichrist: And as to him described in the Apocalypse and Thessalonians, if the Pope be not he, he had ill luck to be so like him: And that Dr. Moors and Dr. Downhams and many others Expositary arguments are such as I cannot answer.

Then proceeds as to the latter part about the Revelations, telling us to this purpose; that Peter speaks of many things hard to be understood, which the unlearned wrest as other Scriptures to their own destruction. And if the Revelations be not one of these hardest, I crave your Answer to these Questions.

First, why are five Expositors usually of 4 opinions in the expounding it? 2ly, why do none that judge it so easy, write one certain commentary which may assure, which of the former, if any one of them, was in the right? 3ly, Why did not Calvin expound it? 4. And if you take it to be so necessary as you pretend, tell me whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture, surely they were saved without believing it: Yet concludes, that Book is a mercy to the Church, and all should understand as much of it as they can.

But whether this be not a full confirmation of the Suspition of his revolt to Popery, that not only speaks now so suspiciously about the Popes being the AntiChrist concerning which he had spoken so fully in his former book: And by telling us of the darkness of that book which so fully discovers it, and to that degree so, that as he formerly confessed that if he be not he, he has ill luck to be so like him.

But first, as to the instance he gives of the darkness of the Revelations in discovering of these things from the different judgments of Expositors, I presume will be found to be his mistake, for however there may be great differences about the Mistical Numbers, the time of opening the seals, and pouring out the Vials, yet there are few of the Protestant Expositors, I think, I may say, not 4 in 5 but do agree, that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, the man of sin, the head of the false Church, or that Bloody-scarlet-Whore that corrups the Earth with the cup of her fornications, in whom is found the blood of the Saints, and the Martyrs of Jesus: And from whose filthy Church or state God's people are commanded to separate, and not to partake of her sins, lest they share of her plagues. He confessing ss before that Dr. Moors, Dr. D •• nhams, and others Expository Arguments are so harmonious and cogent in this point, that he cannot answer; Therefore it is no wonder that since with the Papists he gives way to doubtings about the Revelation or discovery of those Anti-Christian abominations in that Book, that he comes to be so lax in the point of separation from them.

And 2ly, as to that other corrupt and mischievous insinuation viz. That if that book be so necessary as we pretend [as though it was not so in truth] then he would have us tell him, whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches, that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture; surely they were saved without believing it.] What can he or any Papist or Atheist say almost worse to bring that blessed book or any other part of God's word into contempt, than to tell us that the divine Authority thereof was long questioned by many of the Churches of Christ.

But whether Mr. Baxter ought not severely to be reproved either of egregious ignorance or desperate folly in this rash and dangerous assertion. For either he knows who and when those Churches were, who so long rejected or not received this book, whose salvation he doubts not of, [though contrary to express Scripture in the case, whose names are to be blotted out of the book of life, and thrust out of the holy City, Rev. 22.18.19.] if he did why did he not mention to us who those Churches were, in what age, and in what Author we may find them, are we to believe it upon our Dictators word? But if he has no good Author to justify him therein, why then is he so impiously daring to tell us such a Fable?

I have read the learned disquisitions of John Gerard and Beza upon the point: the first in his loc. Com. de Sacr. Scrip. c. 10. Sec. 292. &c. The other in his Prolegom. in Apocal. Johan. who give an account from Eusebius Erasmus and others, of those who in any age made any Questions about this book, but find no such thing of the many Churches who so long a time denied the same. Gerard observes, that Eusebius in his 3d. book. c. 21. tells that some disallowed it, but mentions none, and his 7. Book 24. c. tells us from Dyonys. Alex. That some of old thought that book to be writ by Cerinthus the Heretic and not by the Apostle John, but mentions neither persons nor Churches. Though Dionysius gives great testimony to the Divine authority thereof. And that Jerome (as Beza and Gerard ) in his Epist. to Dard. Tom. 4. f. 29. says, That many learned men among the Greeks rejected it contrary to the Latins, but mentions none by name.

To which both Gerard and Beza oppose the learned men by name that declared their high prize of that book and f •• owning thereof not only amongst the Latins, as Iraeneus, Damascene, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hillary, Ambrose, Gregorius, &c. but amongst the Greeks, as Justin Martyr, Origen, Clem. Alex. Dyon. Alex. Chrysostom, Jerome, Bazil, and that Epiphanius to that degree did assert it, that he judged they should be rejected as Heretics who refused it. And that hereupon Gerard saith, that Chytraeus tells us, in Apoc. Vetustissimos Doctors qui temporibus Apostolorum vicini fuerunt, communi consensu hunc librum Johanni Apost. adscripsisse; That the most ancient Doctors nearest to the Apostles times testify with one consent that this book was writ by the Apostle John.

They also tell us, that Athanasius was said to leave it out of his Catalogue of the Canonical Books, and that the Council of Laodicea in the 39. Canon, where they mention the Canonical books, do not mention it, and that it is left out in the Apostles Canons. To which they say, as to that of Athanasius, the authority of it is questioned, and the rather because Athanasius, as Gerard observes in his Synopsis, writes, Apocalypsin, à priscis patribus approbatam; the Apocalypse was approved by the Ancient Fathers.

And as to the Council of Laodicea's leaving it out (which my friend Mr Will's calls their rejecting of it and then scoffingly asks me what will become of my Theopolis, writ upon part of that book, p. 28. Vind. ) They observe it is only a not mentioning of it and not a rejecting of it. And to that one Greek Council so omitting it, they oppose the ma • Greek and Latin Fathers, who at that time subscribe to it, besides the express owning it had from the Council of Ancynanus. 3. Council of Carthrage, 4. Council of Toletan, who do reckon it among the canonical Books in their Catalogues. And as to the Apostles Canons that they are spurious and supposititious.

This account I thought meet upon this occasion to give you from these learned men who writ in vlndication of that Blessed book in opposition to this venomous detraction of it by our Antagonist, who it may be is able to give some other account, and prove to us out of some other Authors, that these men had not met with to prove and maintain, that so many Churches for so long time did not receive it as Canonical, and which if he produce not, let this be put amongst his evil dealing with the Church and truth of God. But in the mean time I presume it cannot be denied, but that he has given a grant to the Sectaries Argument in his objection, viz. That if not to own, or to question whether the Pope be Antichrist, and to tell men of the darkness of the Book of the Revelation, evidenceth a man to be revolted to Popery, that Mr B. hereby hath given a substantial testimony that he is one of those.

6. Again, p. 296. But it is a time when Popery is striving to rise again, and how unseasonably would you abate men's zeal against it? And what more certain? or could be more reasonably urged? But how doth he answer it?

To this he replies thus, No more then he was against his Lawyers zeal who grew hoarse with senseless bawling for him, saying, I am glad he has lost his voice, or else I might have lost my cause; I am so much against Popery that I wish it a wiser and abler Adversary [viz. such as himself] then self conceited unstudyed zealots [For such indeed have the Papists called all our Apocaliptical men who have been the most zealous opposers of them] who would make people believe that it consisteth in some good or indifferent things [for so it seems Popish abominations must be called] as in some Doctrines [viz. merit, and works supererogation, &c.] forms of Government. [viz. In their superstitious vain inventions] which others can see no harm in [viz. such whose eyes are blinded being drunk with the whores cup;] comparing such zealots to men raving in their sleep against they know not what. But alas! whither will not men left to themselves run!

7. Again, p. 287. brings in the Sectary to tell him Is it not safest to get far enough from Antichrist and Popery [yes sure enough:] your study is to teach men how near they may come to sin without sin, and how to dance about the brink of bell [nothing more certain, but take heed God will not be mocked;] for my part I will be one of them that shall come out of Babylon, and partake not of her sins, nor touch the unclean thing, and that keep there garments undefiled; [As though Christ has not commanded all this, and he deserves the name of Sectary that yields conscientious obedience thereto.] And not one like you that is grown luke-warm by being over-fond of unity and peace: [And is not this the judgment, to have eyes and see not, and ears and hear not, And to know the judgment of God against such things and yet to do the same, and to scoff at and mock their faithful reprovers and Monitors.

8. Again, Would you persuade us to a union with Anti-christ and to live in love and concord with the members of the Devil, [so Dr. Moor and Dr. Downham and others tell him, whilst he designs to reconcile us to those whorish abominations and Romish false worships, and which are arguments he tells us he cannot answer]. Have you no way to reconcile us to Rome but by pleading for love and peace? [no sure, that is the most effectual way, no Jesuit can do it more subtly]. Must we not contend earnestly for the saith once delivered to the Saints- [yes sure, and that those that betray, and deny it, are like to find to their sorrow though they mock and call them sectaryes that tells them so:] And not to be lukewarm to the Doctrines of Jezebel, that seduceth the people of God to Idolatry: [mock on, the Lord will meet, and knows how to deal with such scorners.]

SECT. VII. A further Demonstration of Mr. B's. Defection to Popery, is the Detection of his 56. Superstitious or Popish Doctrines.

THe next thing he upbraids me for, is the putting into my first Edition, a collection of certain of his positions out of his Christian Directory, which he is so far from acknowledging to be his mistakes, that most impenitently, I had almost said impudently, he justifies and calls the contrary opinions thereto, the sectaries 56. New Commandments, or the new Religion of his backbiters who calumniate him for holding the contrary. Concerning which I shall give the Reader this following account, submitting it to Judgment, whether I have done Mr. B. any injury herein.

It is very true that book of Mr. B's coming out, just as I was concluding my Preface, and meeting with such strange Doctrines from a Protestant Pen, and some of them respecting the controversy treated on, did put a short abridgment of some of them in the Preface. In the recital whereof it must be supposed I either did him right or wrong: If I gave truly his sense, why doth he complain for telling what he delivers to the world as truth? And if I injured him by any mis-representation which he and others have complained of, why hath it not been made appear?

It is true, he did in a Preface to his book, called the Full and easy satisfaction, insinuate, that I had wronged him herein, wherein I vindicated myself in my 2d Ed. answering his Preface, and to which he hath made no exception, only in this answer he hints at two, to which it is meet I give him some Reply: The first whereof is expressed in Mr B 's More Proof, p. 313. viz. of the Question 49. p. 826. as cited by him, The falsehood of his inserting [in a Popish Country in their way of Baptizing] in that cited place which speak only of the Lutherans, I pass by as weary of answering such.

To which I have already answered, but if he will take no notice of it, to what purpose should I mention anything to him: The reason, as I have said, of my so saying in [a Popish country in their way of baptizing] was to rectify, as I supposed, Mr B's mistake, not finding that the Lutherans did use any such rite in their baptizing, as Chrysme and Exorcisme: 1st, because none of their confessions of faith, either the Marpurg, Smalkaldick Articles, nor Augustine Confession, 2ly, Because their eminent Church writers, viz: Illericus, Uvigandus, Judex, Faber and Osiander renounce these rites as popish, ridiculous, and superstitious. 3dly. That some that have seen them Christian their children, have told me, they use no such custom, to none of which is he pleased to give any return, but satisfyes himself in a bare upraiding me again herewith, without answering my reasons, or justifying his assertions; but how ingenious such a course is may be submitted to consideration.

The 2d. mistake he mentions, p. 314. viz. It is but one of your tricks which you know not how to forbear, to foist in [peril of Law] p. 372. Ed. 2. when I had not such a word or sense as peril: as if you knew of no obligation there but from peril.

But in the next place whether there was not some cause astonishingly to remark such Doctrine from a Protestant, and (one that hath been supposed) a Non-conformist pen, is in the next place to be considered. The first thing I mentioned from him was this, viz.

That it is lawful to offer ones child to be baptized with Exorcism, Chrism, milk, honey, &c. rather than not have it baptized, those ceremonies being so ancient, that their Original is not known, called by Epiphanius and others, the tradition and custom of the Universal Church, p. 826. which he is now so far from disowning, that he affirms for any to say the contrary, ( viz. that it is unlawful so to do) that he ought to be esteemed an ignorant silly sectary for ridiculously saying, That it is sin for any man (supposing Infants-Baptism a duty) to offer his child to be baptized where it will be done with the sign of the cross, or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use (which he has affirmed to be Chrism & Exorcism, and which he should not have left out) though he profess his own dissent, and disallowance of those ceremonies, and though he cannot lawfully have it done better, but must have that or no Baptism at all.

It is true: I own myself one of those silly Sectaries that holds it sinful and unlawful for a Protestant Paedobaptist so to baptize his child for the following reasons.

First, because Mr Hanmer in his Confirmation a book so much recommended by Mr Baxter, doth upon such good grounds tell us, that Chrysme, and Exorcisme, are as Homius tells us so blasphemous and iddatrous; and such excrements of Antichrist as Tilenus: such empty and impious ceremonies as Ames; and such execrable blasphemies, as Calvin informeth us: Yea Mr Baxter himself besides this, tells us in his Right method, however he has so forgot himself, p. 255. That Chrysme, viz. Crossing with Oil, salt, spittle, and exorcism, or conjuring out the devil, (as he tells us) were the additions that the devil invented and put into God's worship; Therefore it being such a blasphemous, idolatrous, filthy, execrable and devilish thing, it will be some vindication to those that shall presume to call it sinful, whatever our great dictator saith now to the contrary.

Secondly, the Scripture is positive, that we must not do evil that good may come thereon, but rather avoid the supposed good than to contract so great a guilt: For what popish Idolatrous abomination may we not do upon this pretence? May we not go to their Sacrament of the Altar rather than want the communion, and thereby partake of all the blasphemies of their Mass, which we may confidently affirm is not less corrupted than this of Baptism? Doth not this doctrine of Mr B. reprove the folly of the old Christians that would rather die than put a little incense into the Censer, or so much as give the least consent that another should do it for them, and how simple were so many in Q. Mary's time to go to the fire when they might have saved their skins with such compliances as these? And how doth it reprove those Waldenses. which as Mr B. tells us of, from Perin, that rather than have their Children baptized by their popish priests with their blasphemous additions, they refused to baptize them for some hundreds of years.

Thirdly, I judge it utterly sinful and unlawful to commit such abomination,, for by the same reason we give way to own sinful addition in God's worship, according to Mr B's wholesome rule before given us, we may introduce what the Devil shall make for us. And which to save ourselves the labor and our Reader the trouble, may serve for an answer to all the rest of the Popish additions, and inventions that Antichrist has enjoin'd, and Mr B's Logic would hook us into conformity to, viz. the popish Cringings, Kneelings, Bowings, Homilies, Vowes, Apocrypha, Crucifixes, Images, h • lyness of days, times, places, Utensills, persons; Fasts, Feasts, Anthems, Church-Music, drawn forth by him to 42. And therefore if he please, let him tell the world as he desires, that I am one of those that judgeth it sinful to admit any of these things in God's worship, without a rule and direction from himself, bespeaking ourselves wise above what is written, and as Mr B. himself hath so well informed us already, as p. 32. will serve only to render God's divine worship a human thing, declare us exceeding proud in thinking ourselves wiser than our maker and Redeemer in exalting ourselves above him, by correcting his Laws and mending his work, and contract to ourselves a great deal of guilt by sinfully adding to the thing God commands contrary (as he tells us) to Deut. 12.32.

SECT. VIII. Mr B's Jesuitical Quaerys about the Scripture answered; being a further Argument that he is Popishly affected.

AS to what I said in my Preface about his Queries of the Scripture, he seems to be much concerned, expressing himself thus, viz. But yet we have not done with the high charges of his Preface.

To which he saith, It seems they were so to you, but really did you read that book and the other to Mr Bagshaw, and yet not fear to follow him and out-do him in notorious untruths, after so full a conviction and warning as was given him, think of it, think on it, and again cry out; Bus alas! whereto will men run left to themselves: And then for my better information and reproof, turns those 20. Queries into Catagorical propositions, adding 4. more to them, now 24. in all, which he joins to the 42. new Commandments before-mentioned, making them 56. in all: And which he tells me as he hath Jesuitically dressed them, If I and his revilers own them, so will not sober men.

To which I think Mr. Bagshaws return to those Queries may be a good answer, viz. when you have satisfied me that you sinned not greatly in raising such mists and doubts, and when you have given me security that you will not ask anymore of them, than he would then reply to them.

But if he would heve another answer in the mean time, I will give it him from his own pen, as he may find it in his Key for Catholics, p. 200. ch. 31. Deter. 22. Another of the Jesuits deceits is, by quarrelling with our Translations of the Bible and making the people believe that we have so corrupted it, that it is none of the word of God, and so they openly scorn it and deride it.

As to this point, though learned men can soon confute them, by vindicating the Text, as in the Original Languages, and then vindicating our Translation; yet the common Disputant need not put them and himself to so much trouble, if really they will but let the Law of Goel contayn'd in the Scripture be the rule by which our difference shall be tried and decided; we will cut short the rest of the controversy, and take it wholly together, and we will stand to the vulgar-Latin, which is it that themselves applaud; we are content that this should be the rule between us. Yea, rather than they shall shift off the unlearned by these tricks, we will admit of their own translation, which the Rhemists have (with little friendship to our cause) composed, only we must entreat them that their Commentaries and conceits be not taken with the text as part of the word of God. So that this quarrel is quickly at an end, the Scripture is so full against them, that no Translation that makes it not another thing can make it to be on their side. If he would have a fuller Answer to his 24. Queries, he may read Dr. Prideaux, Altingus, Amesiu • , Dr. Owen, Ferguson, John Gerard, &c. who have learnedly treated upon the subject, and fully answered all these sophistical and Jesuitical insinuations, whereby they would puzzle the weak, and bring contempt upon the Word of God, the better to make way for their abominable Traditions and Popish Inventions.