Innocency and Truth Vindicated, Chapter 3 – Errata

Innocency and Truth Vindicated · Chapter 3 – Errata

p. 97CHAP. III. Wherein the Witneſſes againſt Infants Baptiſme, are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions.

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

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

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

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

p. 99Where by the way, we may take notice, that our witneſs is owned by him, but the general cuſtom of the Church, he ſpeaks of, is yet to be proved as utterly diſowned by us, and for which there is not the leaſt colour of truth as yet produced.

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

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

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

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

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

Firſt, as to his firſt Argument,1. He abuſed not the Text Mat. 19.14.Matt 19:14 from the miſtaken Scripture, he ſaith, he abuſeth the Text by his Paraphraſes. But ſecond thoughts will I preſume, tell him, it is no abuſe, but a very proper anſwer to them, that would make the word Come in the Text; to be a coming to Baptiſme; which, ſaith he, cannot be, becauſe Children cannot come to that Ordinance, till they are Elder, till they know, and are taught, why they come, &c. Will you have them made Chriſtians, before they know Chriſt? An… what could be ſpoken more full, and pertinent, and more agreeable to truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 104Daille.Daille alſo tells us, as you have it pag. 149. That Tertullian was of an opinion, that Infants were not to be Baptiſed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 110What their Confeſſions are, as p. 239, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 110What he makes their Confeſſions to be, p. 45, &c.

—

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

And that there are only two of them —

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

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

—

p. 111We eſteem for an abomination, and Anti-Chriſtian, all humane inventions, as a trouble, and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit.

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

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

p. 112Whereby you have demonſtrated, his great unfaithfulneſs in miſrepreſenting their Confeſſions, by leaving out ſo many material, and conſiderable parts thereof, that make againſt him, and then ſo unfairly, and untruly to ſay: That there was a Harmony betwixt all the Proteſtants Churhes in the World, in thoſe Articles, and the Waldenſes, becauſe all that are for Infants Baptiſme, believe the ſame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 1163. Councel in France.Thirdly, By the Councel, called by Henry the I. of France, to ſuppreſs the Hereſies of Bruno, and Berongarius, for denying Transſubſtantiation, and Infants Baptiſme, Bib. Pat. p. 432.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, Corporum reſurrectionem negunt: They deny the Reſurrection.

Thirdly, Carnem comedi prohibent: They forbid eating fleſh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 124Sixthly, The Decrees of Pope Alexander the third, againſt the Waldenſes, for denying Infants Baptiſme, and the ſeveral wayes he took to proſecute, and perſecute them, for the ſame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 129Fifthly, In Bohemia,Bohemia. where it was eminently confirme… alſo, p. 271, to 273.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rain…riu….T…i…dly, That the ſaid Merningus pag. 618, p. 131619, 629. makes it good from Rainerius, the Monk Inquiſitor, that wrote his Book contra Waldenſes in the 12. Century, That the Waldenſes did deny Infants Baptiſme, and produceth divers of Rainerius his Arguments, againſt them for the ſame, and which he quotes from the Bib. Patrum Tom. 13. p. 300. Though Mr. Wills is pleaſed to tell us p. 97. that Rainerius ſaith never a word, about their denying Infants Baptiſme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 133To which I ſay▪ that herein Mr. Wills deals,Mr. Wills very disingenious. according to his wonted manner, very disingeniouſly with me, Firſt, That having given ſo many Authorities, and of ſuch Antiquity to prove it, to tell the Reader, it is my Ipſe dixit only. Secondly, To deny them, and yet give no juſt exception againſt them. Thirdly, To produce the negative (or ſilence rather) of ſome modern Authors, to oppoſe ſo many poſitive Authorities, produced by me, one of which, in all pleas, is worth a hundred Negative ones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 106Thirdly, It doth appear, from what we find in Austin Auſtin.3. and 4. Books Tom. 7. c. 23. p. 433. written againſt the Donatiſts, wherein with ſo much zeal, and fury, he manageth the Argument for Infants Baptiſme againſt them, bitterly curſing thoſe that oppoſe it, p. 123. Alſo in his Epiſtle to Marcellus Tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. he oppoſeth himſelf againſt them, for denying Infants Baptiſme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculus tandem ecce Cavis Mus prodit ab antris,

Quem gravidi Montes perturiere diu.

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

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

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