Second Reply to Baxter, Part 1 · Chapter 2 · Section 5

Second Reply to Baxter · Part 1 · Chapter 2 · Section 5

p. 80SECT. 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'l finde to be under 4. Heads, viz. 1st, From their confessions of faith: 2dly, From their most eminent leading men, who have deny'd 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 Countryes where they were dispersed.

1. Head. From their Confessions of Faith justifying it.

Their ancient Confessions of faith witnessing hereto, I gave you p. 239. and which did so confound Mr Wills that, till he had lopp't off what he thought good (a very disingenuous thing) he could say nothing to; but then, tells us, It was no other then what all the Protestants held: Which theft of his I detected in my Reply. p. 110. by filling up the spaces with black lines. And then shewd him the great disagreement betwixt the faith of the Protestant Paedobaptists, and them: notwithstanding which evidence (and, I think undeniable demonstration) Mr Baxter, his partner, is so far from owning the fraud, and answering my 6. Arguments confirming p. 81the truth of the thing, that he so far justifies Mr Wills, as to tell us, p. 379. thus, viz. (In his reply p. 108.) He reassumeth this calumny of the Waldenses, and First, he reciteth their Confession, to prove it, as if he wanted matter to fill up his book, &c. Then mentions one or two (but answers none) proceeding to tell the world, how I face them down that the Waldenses deny'd Infants Baptism from such silly Reasons, as is intolerable. And that it is not worth the labour to shew him, how the Protestants agree with the Waldenses in all the points where he feigneth a disagreement, p. 112.

An excellent way to answer Arguments; as though huffing and hectoring would do it. But Mr Baxter is mistaken in the story; for he must either answer those Arguments, or confess that he cannot, which demonstrate that the Waldenses did, in these Confessions exclude Infants from baptism: and which, the better to discover Mr Baxters unfaithfulness, and for the Reader's satisfaction and conviction, I shall resume here to repeat, out of the 112, 113. p. of my Reply, because he answers them with such a slight, viz.

First, Do all the Paedobaptists believe,The Waldenses differ from the Poedobaptists in 6 maine things in their confessions. that Baptism and preaching of the word are joynd together, to instruct the baptized parties; and that thereby they have union with Christ and partake of his benefits? Pray how is that to be made good in any infant, that has no actual knowledg, faith, or understanding?

Secondly, do they indeed believe the Lords supper to belong in Common with Baptism to all the members p. 82of the Church? why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other, since it belongs to them in Common, if members of the Church; as Mr. Wills saith, they are?

Thirdly, Do Poedobaptists with the Waldenses believe (as you say) that water in Baptism is the usual sign, representing to the subject thereof, the invisible vertue of God operating in them, viz. Renovation of the spirit, and mertification of their members? And can it be truly said, it is so to an infant, that is not capable to put forth any act of faith, Repentance, or Mortification, or discern any the least sign in the water, of any such things signified thereby?

Fourthly, Have they indeed a Harmony with the Waldenses, in what further they confess, concerning this ordinance? viz. that by it they are received into the holy Congregation of the people of God, there professing and declaring openly their faith and amendment of life? But, how is the Infant capable, with the Waldensian-Christians (not Pagan Converts), to profess and declare openly their faith and Repentance, and so to be Received into the Congregation thereby?

Fifthly, Do Paedobaptists indeed believe, with them, that human Traditions and Inventions are to be esteemed Anti-Christian abominations, and vain worship, and that that worship is vain and Traditional, when persons are enjoynd to it without faith, and truth? Why then are Infants Baptized by them, that have no faith or knowledg of truth? and for which there is neither Precept or example in Gods word? and, by p. 83themselves ownd to be an unwritten Tradition?

Sixthly, do they believe, That Anti-Christ, doth ground all Christianity and Religion in the Baptism of children, attributing Regeneration to that outward work done, contrary to the holy spirit? Why when do they Baptize 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 Councils, to warrant it?

Whereby you see that Infants are manifestly excluded Baptism, in these 6 particulars in these confessions; and that Paedobaptists cannot assert the same without evident contradiction to themselves.

So having proved it from their ancient confessions, I gave a particular Reply to the usual Objections about their late contrary confessions, and of which there are 4. which I prove were not made till the 16. Century, and how contradictory they are, not only to the former confessions, but to themselves also in those their new confessions, from p. 309. to p. 321. Treat. And which I tell M. Wills I have done with great exactness, giving a particular account of all those confessions word for word.

To which Mr Baxter replys, thus p. 380. Wonderful! That such a man should talk of exactness and demonstration! stay Reader a little, and tell me whether it call not for shame and tears, that one such Book should be written by a Christian? much more that this Calumny should be thus over and over audaciously p. 84justified.

Excellently well argued! But, where is the convincing Demonstration to prove that they had any confessions for Infants-Baptism, elder then the 16. Century, to justify these big words? And for gainsaying of which I am so inhumanely taunted and reproach't? why, Have patience and you'l have it in the next lines, where he gives us (as he tells us) one of their confessions, of a farr elder date, from one of our English Historians, telling us, viz.

The Waldensian confession of faith M. B. produceth for Infants-Baptism.In Roger Windover (our chiefest ancient Chronicler, and one whom he oft citeth himself, and therefore should have read) in Henry 2d fol. 319. 6. you have a confession of the Tholousians, call'd, boni homines; in which are these words, Credimus etiam quod non salvatur quis, nisi qui Baptiziatur; & parvulos salvari per Baptisma, That is, we believe also that none as saved but he that is Baptized and that little Children are saved by Baptism. For we finde hat it was the denyal of the saving vertue of wicked Priests-Baptism (to young or old) as working ex opere operato, which occasion'd their accusations (intimating that this Confession was sound and Orthodox, viz. That, in a Protestant sense, none are saved but by Baptism; and that little Children are saved by Baptism, though in a Popish sense, it is corrupt and dangerous. (Excellent good doctrine and well glos… to deliver this from being Popish!). And then sets it of with a flourish, And what would you have more, implying, A fuller proof, and demonstration could not well be given to prove p. 85that their confession for infants-Baptism, was as ancient as what I had given for the contrary; this being in H. 2. time in the 12. Century, and therefore sufficient to prove me an audacious person.The confession Examined and found Popish altogether.

Concerning which most remarkable story brought in by Mr Baxter to render me so ridiculous, and upon which he layes so much stress; it is meet I give you some di…tinct account. (And it is very well, the book is to be met with, in any other place than in M.B's Library; for truly as he has dealt with us one would think it was not). Know therefore, our English Roger Windover, or Hoveden, gives a large account of this story. (Mr Baxter takes it out of the London-Edition; mine is out of the Franckfort, by Sir Hen. Savil; but both one as I have compared them together;) who, in p. 555. gives the History of it to p. 560. The Head of the Chapter is, Haeresis Arriana, Ejusque damnatio, the Heresy of the Arrians and their condemnation (for, so they called the Waldenses, because they deny'd the deity of Christ, as lifted up in the Eucharist by a priest). And of this very people, mention'd by Hoveden, Bishop Ʋsher in his State and Success; p. 294. tells us. Istos autem, de quibus agit Hovedenus non fuisse alios quàm Waldenses, &c. Those of whom Hoveden speak were no other than Waldenses, as Jacob Gretserus tells us, upon good evidence: though, by their adversaryes, called Arians or Manichees, &c. So much, as to the prologue, The story it self begins thus. Erant itaque in provincia Tolosanâ quidem Haeretici, qui p. 86se appellari faciebant Bonos-homines, &c. That, there were certain hereticks in the Province of Tholouse, that would be called. The good-men, detained by the souldiers who held and taught the People contrary to the Christian faith. Et interrogati de sua fide & de Baptismo Parvulorum, &, si salvabuntur per Baptismum, &c. And being askt of their faith, and concerning the Baptism of Children, if they should be saved by Baptism, and of the Reall presence in the Sacrament, and Penance &c. Responderunt; Quod de fide sua & de baptismo Parvulorum non dicent; neque dicere cogebantur: But they answered, concerning their faith, and about the Baptism of Children that they would say nothing; nor were they constrained to speak, &c. but about the Eucharist, Penance, and other things they spoke at large.

That to the examination and conviction of them, were called together a convention of divers Abbots, Bishops, Archbishops, 20 in number, and a very great Assembly: Toto ferè populo Albiae & Lumberci praesente, Almost all the people of Albia and Lumbercius being present (as saith our historian).

In which Assembly, they did, upon a fresh Examination and triall, convince and judg them guilty of Heresy in several Articles.

And, amongst the rest, for denying Infants-Baptism; and then, under that head as well as the rest, they gave them diverse Arguments to convince them of that Heresy viz. As first, because God would have all men to be saved, and, amongst the rest, Children. Secondly, because Baptism was given generally as well for the younger p. 87as Elder. Thirdly, because without Baptism, no salvation, as Jo. 3.5. And Fourthly, because little Children were capable of the Kingdom of Heaven, for to such it doth belong. And Fifthly, Because concerning children it is said, as to malice be ye such; and, except ye be converted and become as little children &c. And therefore concerning the Apostles Baptizing them, Who ever doubted? And Sixthly that it came into the room of Circumcision, which was given to young and old; Baptism being more General, taking in the females as well as Males. And is administred, as the Church appoints, upon the faith of the God-father that offers them, as the Paralytick or the man sick of the palsy was by the faith of others, let down to Christ for cure; And the son of the Ruler and Daughter of the woman of Canan, by the faith of their Parents immediatly. Therefore, we say, that Baptism ought to be celebrated in the Caurch, and by the Ministers of the Church, except necessity prevent &c.

And, in the like method they went with them, to con…ince them of their sinful silence, not giving a free account of their faith being ask the same about Baptizing Infants &c. And concerning the Real presence, and Penance, they proceeded in like manner. And in the Conclusion, our Historian tells us, that the Hereticks seeing themselves converted and confounded did turn themselves to the People, and did say.

Audite, ô bone viri, fidem nostram quam confitemur nunc propter amorem & gratiam vestram, &c. Hear, O ye People, our faith which now we confess for love to you and for your sakes. Whereupon p. 88said the President, but is it not then for Gods sake? who thereupon were said to pronounce the following Creed (drawn up no question for them) viz. Credimus etiam; Quia corde credimus, ore debemus confiteri, We confess that, because we believe in heart, we ought to confess with the Mouth. —which was opposed to their silence.

Credimus, Quia non salvatur qui non manducat corpus Christi, & quod corpus Christi non consecratur nisi in Ecclesiâ, & non nisi à sacerdote, sive bono sive malo, nec melius fieri per bonum quàm per malum; We believe that none is saved who eates not the body of Christ, and that the body of Christ is not consecrated, except in the Church, and not otherwise then by a Priest whether good or bad; Neither made better by a good then by a bad—opposed to their denying the Reall presence in the Eucharist after the priests consecration.

Credimus etiam, quod non salvatur quis, nisi qui Baptizatur, &, Parvulos salvari per Baptisma. We believe also that none is saved that is not Baptized, and that Infants are saved by Baptism —opposed to their denying Infants-Baptism.

And so about Penanee and being Baptized in the Church by a Priest; which they read also as their belief, as is said.

After the Reading whereof, the President askt them if they would Swear to that faith that they held and believed the same; because they had so evilly thought and taught before in these particulars: to which 'tis said, Respondentes dixerunt, Quod nullo modo jurarent. They answering, saying, they would not swear by any means.

p. 89Thereupon, the President in the name of the Council, told them, that they, having held such heretical opinions, ought to swear if they would testify Repentance; and that an oath ought to be, where the faith is in danger, and that Hereticks ought by oath to purge themselves, and to return to the unity of the Church and faith: and so to bind themselves thereto, as the Catholick Church holds and believes, lest the weak in the Church be corrupted and some scabbed sheep infect the whole stock: And that neither was it contrary to the Gospel to swear. That the Angel swore; the Apostles often swore; and that an Oath amongst men was an end of strife, &c. To which, the whole Council consented; Notwithstanding which, they refused to swear: thereupon, they adjudged them Hereticks, man by man, taking them out of the hands of the souldiers: but what became of them, is not mentioned.

Hereupon, we finde that Alexander the 3d, the then present Pope, did, about this time in 2 or 3 several Councels, make decrees against the Albigensian-hereticks, for denying Infants-Baptism, as you have it in the Treatise. p. 250, 251, 252.

Thus you have the substance of this most remarkable story; and the Confession of Faith, that Mr B. boasts of, and will needs father upon the Waldenses; and lays so much stress upon it also, as to enervate all that I had sayd to the contrary; to the rendring of me an Audacious calamniator. But whether upon due examination it doth not fully appear, that here is better p. 90evidence for us, than against us (so temerarious is he in his writings!Why these very People were against Infants-Baptism.)

For, first, Is it not manifest, that these, called Arrians or Manichees, the Bon-homes or Tholousians, were certainly the Waldenses? he himself granting them so to be, and therefore Quotes this story as belonging to them.

Secondly, That it is manifest, that they did deny Infants-Baptism as well as the real presence in the Eucharist, and Pennance, &c. And that they did not only deny it to them for Salvation, but to all intents and purposes not only by refusing to answer that poynt but by the several Arguments the Councell used with them for their Conviction about it; The Article of faith made to oppose it; their charging it upon them again and again to have been of such an evil belief before; & the Decrees that past by Pope Alexander the 3d against the Waldenses for the same.

3dly, That nothing is more clear than that this was a Popish Confession, made by the Counsel, and imposed upon them. Which though they might be forc't to read for the sake of the people, as they told them, and not for Gods sake, yet that they ownd it not, nor would swear to the same; and for which they were judged Heriticks, notwithstanding any thing they might compel them to read as theirs.

4ly, That, in case they had through fear Recanted their former profession in all these particulars and subscribed and swore to this Popish confession; Could we more judge all the Waldenses of this m…nd than we might judg all the Protestants p. 91in Q Maryes time were for the real presence, because some, through fear, recanted their profession, and subscribed the Popish faith therein?

5ly, Whether it doth not call for shame and tears, To see Mr Baxter's great unfaithfulness and want of Conscience, to make such a positive and most notorious Popish confession about Baptism, to Quadare with a Protestant faith, the better to hide the cheat.

Therefore, with Mr Baxter's leave, I shall return his own words upon himself, that he was pleased to give me in the case of the Donatists, p. 241 referring it to the Reader and his own conscience, To whom they most properly belong? viz.

Mr Bagshaw is now quite over done in the quality of untruths: Reader, Mr Baxter's own words return'd upon himself.either this man had seen and read Windover's book mention'd by him or he had not: If not, doth he use God's Church, and the souls of poor ignorant People with any tenderness of conscience, sobriety or humanity; to talk at this rate of Books th…t he never saw or Read, which are so common among us to be seen? If he understand not Latine, how unfit is he, to give us this story from Hoveden who wrote in Latin? And how audacious, to 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 labour of opening and Reading the Book he talkes of? But if he have read it, then I can scarse match him among all the falsifiers, that I know in the world: I dare not be so uncharitable to him, as to think that ever he read it.

p. 922. Head. From their most eminent leading men, who witnessed against Infants-Baptism.

THose great men amongst them that witnessed against Infants-baptism, mentioned by me, were Berengarius, Peter Bruis, Henricus and Arnoldus.

Mr B's Exceptions about Berengarius.As to the famous Eeringarius: he sayth, I do impenitently renew my slaunder; Yet [doth he acknowledge] that he and his followers did maintain, That Baptism did not profit little ones to salvation; and, that they did, as much as in them lay, endeavour to overthrow the Baptism of children, as he sayth Guitmund and Durandus affirm, p. 385. And (which he grants), that Wickliff, and the Waldenses did so also. p. 373. But enquires, why Beringarius is reckoned among the Waldenses, and severely reproves me for a gross misquotation (as he will have it) from Thuanus.

Mr B. hath given up his Cause in this grant.To all which I say, first, As to his acknowledgment; it is very well we have so much granted, which we may have occasion to put him in minde of, hereafter; it being no less than a giving up his cause, as I have made appear before, in the case of the Donatists: there being no other ground pretended for it, either from Scripture or Canon-Law, but, the necessity of it to save Children, and take away their sin. And that therefore, as a necessary consequence, whoever deny'd it for Salvation, did not only deny Infants-Baptism; p. 93but, as much as in them lay, wholly overthrow it, as they said, viz. raze out the ground and foundation thereof; that being the main and principal thing urged for it: and that, whoever did so, did not only despise Austin, and all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church after him, asserting the same; but brought themselves under the Canonical Anathema's, for Hereticks. Those other Groueds from Faederal-right, and holyness, Infants discipleship and Church-Membership, to baptize Children upon: being no more asserted in this Age, than 600 years before; nor, as far as I can yet learn, was known in the World, for some ages after, And which till (Mr B.) makes appear. I must tell him again, He has given up his cause, as I before made good to Mr Wills in my Reply p. 96. and to which Mr B. sayth nothing.

Secondly,Why Berengar, us one of the Waldenses as to his enquiry why Beringarius is reckoned as one of the Waldenses; he cannot but know, that persons were so esteemed that maintained that faith, and belief, that the Waldenses professed; and not barely, for being of the same Country and Province with them; for so, persons were called in all Countryes that own'd their Religion. And, that Beringarius professed the same faith concerning Baptism and the Lords-supper, in opposition to the Church of Rome, none doubts; being a Neighbour also to some of those parts of their aboad. And therefore it is that their followers in after-times interchangably were called Beringarians and Waldenses, as Bishop Ʋssher, in the state of the Church, tells us p. 238.

p. 94Thirdly, as to that most hainous and gross mistake he chargeth me with about Thuanus; it will,Mr B's four-fold charge with aggravation. I presume, be found to be his own, with shame enough. Who tells us p. 377. that I say that Thuanus witnesseth that Bruno Arch-bishop of Triers did presecute Beringarius, for denying Infants-Brptism as p. 242. (2dly) that I did not tell where Thuanus saith so, as if they must read over 5 Volumns in folio, to be able to disprove such a tale-bearer as this. And (3dly), that I say, Usher saith so de succes. Eccles. p. 252. But all is false, Usher's words are in p. 207. and them also (as he saith) most horribly falsifyed; for, he speaks not there of Beringarius, th…t was expelled out of his Diocess; but of some of Beringarius followers who sow'd his Doctrine, &c. So that there is no talk of persecuting Beringarius but some of his followers, and not a word of Infants-Baptism. And then concludes thus. Was ever such a reporter as his man before taken for a Credible person? I confess I remember not that I ever read the like among Papists or any other Sect, which is a charge to the purpose, for what can well be said worse of any man, wherein we gather up this 4 fold accusation; First, for horribly falsifying Thuanus his words as reported by Ʋsher. 2dly, falsifying Ʋshers quotation 252. for 2017. 3dly for simply telling my tale not mentioning where Thuanus saith so. 4ly, that there is not a word of Infants-Baptism: therefore such a falsifyer he never met with nor read of amongst either Papists or others. But how I have deserved this severity, will speedily appear.

p. 95Know therefore, The passage he Reflects upon, is, my 4th. proof to Mr Will's, why Beringarius opposed Infants-Baptism, p 116. of my Reply. My express words are these,

Fourthly, From the Testimony of Thuanus,What I sayd in my Reply. witnessing that Bruno Archbishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians [not Beringarius] for denying Infants-Baptism, as you have it p. 242. 243. out of my Treat, viz. That, Thuanus witnesseth their persecution: And, that it was for denying Infants-Baptism you have it in the pages aforesaid; and that it is so, be pleased to take the words of the Treatise, p. 243.

Dr Usher tells us in the succession of the Church, What I sayd in my Treat. from Bp. Ʋsher.p 252. out of Thuanus, that Bruno Archbishop of Triers, did expel several of the Beringarian Sect that had spread his Doctrine in several of those Belgick Countreys, and that several of them upon examination did say, that Baptism did not profit Children to salvation as saith he (viz. Usher) the Author of the acts of Bruno (found in the Lord Carews Library of Clapton) doth testify.

And, that I did not mistake Dr Ʋsher, take them in his own words; which are these, as you'l finde them in the last Edition, printed at Hanow 1658. p. 252 ch. 7. sect. 37. viz. Brunonem quo{que} Bp. Ʋshers own wordsTrevirorum Archiepiscopum Diacesi sua expulsisse quosdam ex Beringarii sectatoribus, qui illius Doctrinam in Eubuonibus & aliis Belgii populis disseminabant, narrat D. Thuanus Author actorum Brunonis (in Bibliotheca nobiliss. Praef. in Hist. sui temp. ad Reg. H. 4.Baronis Carew de Clopton repertitus) qui se huic examini interfuisse scribit, etiam baptismum pervulis ad p. 96salutem non perficere, istos dixisse ait. So Bishop Ʋsher joynes what Thuanus sayth of the Banishment of the Beringarians, and what one present the eat delivers of the cause thereof, viz. for their holding, that Baptism did not profit little-ones to salvation; so making it all, as one story.

My appeal in the case.Therefore, by this full demonstration it will easily be judged 1st, Whether in my Reply to Mr Wills I did so far falsify Thuanus, as to say, He tells us Beringarius for Beringarians, as Mr B. flatly chargeth me with, and whether Mr. B. hath not made the very forgery himself he quarrells me for: 2dly, whether I falsify the p. in Ʋsher 252. for 207. as he suggests: 3dly, whether in referring Mr Wills to Thuanus, (for the persecution of the Beringarian sect by Bruno and for the cause thereof also, viz. their denying Infants-Baptism) to my Treatise, where I had quoted both out of Ʋsher as he put them together; was not a full reference, to discover the truth of both: 4ly, Whether, in referring to Ʋsher, I did not referr to Thuanus his Preface also, so exprest in the Margent, to save Mr B. the labour of turning over 5 volumes in folio: and 5ly, Whether the word Infants-Baptism, be not there also in Ʋshers quotation of the story to which I do relate, and Mr B. seems so possitively to deny: 6ly, Whether, therefore I deserve to be esteemed such a Reporter and falsifyer, as never before was read of, or met with, either amongst Papists or others; as though none of their Popish Legendaries that he has read could equalize me: And 7ly, Whether Mr B. p. 97hath not, in this very passage, given a substantial discovery of his spirit, and the manner of his heedless writing, and particularly his venemous unchristian (not to say, envious and malicious) intentions to my self: And Lastly, Whether such dealing as this, doth not call for Repentance and due satisfaction, especially from him that exacts the utmost mite of this kinde from others; and to instruct him, To be more cautious and considerate in flying his fire-Balls, for time to come;

As to Peter Bruis, and Henry his Colleague,What I say from P. Bruis. their witnessing, against Infants-Baptism; I made good, from Cluniacensis and Bernard's writings, contemporaries with them; and confirmed it also by some Modern w…iters, viz. Cassander, Vicecomes, and Dr. Hamond. And that Bruis and Arnold were censured for denying Infants-Baptism in the Lateran Council by Dr. Prideaux, that great Collector of the Councils, and searcher into Antiquity.

To all which M.B. saith, What of Bruis and Hen. he grants, and what he cavils at.that he denies not that Peter Cluniacensis, and Bernard, do report that Bruis and Henricus did deny Infants-Baptism, as he grants their Epistles and Arguments against them for the same testify, being the most plausible, especially Bruis, of all my witnesses: And that Cassander from Cluni doth confirm it of Bruis, he confesseth; but slights Vicecomes as a Calumniator, though a man of great Learning, and Repute amongst the Papish writers; and often quoted by Bishop Ʋsher, and other learned men, as a great Collector of Antiquity, especially about p. 98their Baptismal Rites.)

And as to Dr Hammond, whom I have only quoted Mr. Tombes his Review for not the Drs. own writings;

Which for his better satisfaction he will find in his defence of Infants-Baptism, ch. 1. feet. 2 p. 7. And which grant from so considerable an adversary and so learned a man is not proof to be scorned, as Mr. B. is pleased to do, As for what I say from Dr. Prideaux testimony, that in the 2d. Lateran Council, Pet. Bruis, and Arnold, were censured for the heresy of Rejecting Infants-Baptism &c.

Mr. Baxter's great ignorance and unfaithfulness.He saith p. 385. &c. that there is not the least prooff of any such matter, medled with in that Council. 1st. that Pet. Crab doth not so much as name that Council, 2ly that Binius only tells you, that the Acts of the Council are not extant; But, that Abbas Urspergensis and Otto Frisnigensis give us some account of what they did; whose words have not a sillable about any such subject, but only that they condemned the Schismaticks who adhered to Peter Leo, an Anti-pope, and 3dly that Dr. Prideaux boek being printed after his death, though it saith so, yet he doth presume, he would not have ownd such a peice of forgery; which Crab and Binius eject or take as false.

Wherein, we have a further proof of this mans reading, and his skill in history which he would make us believe is so great; but especially of his unfaithful dealing with Authors, and how he is to he credited for time to come in his quotations.

p. 991st. He tells us, that Pet. Crab doth not so much as name the Council. What then? The matter is not great, since so many better authors than he, so punctually do it; discovering him to be a carless Author by so shamfull an Omission, in not taking notice of so Considerable a Council, which is so generally owned to be the 10th. Oecumenical, and in which were above 1000. Bishops.

2. And, that Binius himself only tells you,Mr. B. affirms Binius saith the Acts of the Council, not extant. Binius saith the quite contrary. that the Acts of the Council are not extant, and that Ʋrspergensis and Frisirigensis, give only some account of the Anti-pope.

The quite contrary being true in both. I find that Severinus Binius in his 3d. Tom. fol. 485. Printed at Collen 1614. doth give us an account of this Council, which as he saith was called by Innocent …. An. 1139. in the time of Conradus the Rom. Emperor, that there were 30. Decrees made in this Council, which Graetian took out of the Vatican, and made publike. And,The Preamble of the Council of Lateran by Binius. Pet. Bruis deny'd Infants-Baptism and Arnold also. in the Preamble to the Council, He tells us, thus: Petrus de Bruis hâc tempestate exortus est, adversus quem Petrus Cluniacensis disputans ejus haereses recenset.

That Peter Bruis arose about this time, against whom Pet. Cluni. disputed and refuted his heresyes. Et primum quidem negat, inquit, parvulos, infra intolligibilem …tatem constitutos, Christi baptismate posse salvari, nec alienam fidem posse illis prodesse qui suâ uti non possunt: Quin etiam Arnoldus de Brixiâ, illius sectator est or…ores Barnard. 1. and 2. Ep. and Clun. Ep. Who first deny'd, that Children, p. 100not at years of discretion could he saved by Christs-Baptism, and that the faith of another could not profit them, who can exercise none of their own: and that Arnold of Brixia, follow'd these his errours, Out of Bernard 1st, and 2d Epist. and Clun. Ep.

And further, concerning Arnoldus he tells us that Otto Frisingensis testify'd thus: that, in this Council, amongst other things, an accusation was exhibited against Arnold of Brixia, a new heritick, and Disciple of Peter Abilardus. Otto Frisingensis de Reb. gest. Imper. Fred. 2. Lib. 2 c. 20.

23 Canon damn those that deny Infants-Baptism.And then giving an account of the Canons themselves, tells us, that the 2 Canon doth expel out of the Church, and damn as heriticks, those who deny Infants-Baptism, &c. Eos qui Baptisma puerorum damnant.

And further gives us an account of the Decretal Epistle, that at this time was written by this P. In. 2. directed to Bernard abbot of Claravel, and the Archbishops of Rhemes and Seines, about Arnoldus: The words are these.

By these presents, written to your Fraternities, We require for as much as Peter Abilard and Arnoldus of Brixia,In 2d decree Ep. against Arnoldus, &c. the fomenters of perverse opinions and impugners of the Catholick faith; That, in such Religious places as seemes you best, you do particularly make a sk…p (or check) to those opinions. And that you cause to be burnt all their erroneous books where ever you may finde them. Dated 7. Kalend. of Aug. 2. All which we have also in Binius 2d Edition.

I finde also the very same Preamble, Canons, and Decretal Epistle, in the Collectia Regia, that p. 101great collection of Councills in 37 volumes and in Longus his Summâ conciliorum omnium p. 788. as also in Coffartius Tom. 10. p. 999. Therefore what cause Mr B. had to be so positive that there is not the least proof for any such matter medled with in this Council, when so much proof appears for it, is to be considered.

And that he should so peremptorily assert, that Binius should say that the Acts of that Council are not extant, when he sayth the quite contrary in both his Editions, and doth not only give you the Acts of the Council, but the Preamble thereto, and the decretal Epistle following it; is matter of admiration!

And, that Frisirigensis hath not a syllable about any such subject, viz. about Arnold's censuring, when it is so expresly mention'd from him; What did the man mean? And why he should pretend all this to be forgery, and perswade us, they were foysted into Dr. Prideaux his w…rks after his death, which he would not have ownd had he been living; is all to be recommended to his better eonsideration for his humbling, and that he will learn more modesty, and be more carefull to write the truth for time to come, and not to write hand over head whatever comes to his mind, in this shamfull manner.

Then further,Mr B's alligations aagainst Bruis his Testimony in 4 particulars about Cluniacensis writing about Bruis &c. he saith, these things, 1st that Cluni: who gives this account of Bruis, wrote 20 years after he sow'd his Doctrine; implying therefore, that what he had from him was but by uncertain hearsay, and from no certain proof: 2dly. that, as to Henricus, p. 102he declares, that he had no certain knowledg of his Doctrines: 3dly, that if true as reported of them, that they did deny Infants-Baptism, it follows not, that the Waldenses did so, but that they themselves were some of the wicked Manichees, that did so, and not the Waldenses. 4ly. that if Cluni and Bernards reports must be credited for their denying Infants-Baptism, must they not also be believed for their denying Infants Salvation also, and that they were wicked and vicious persons, which Bernard especially testifyes of Henricus.

Answer. To the 1st. that Cluni: wrote 20 years after Bruis had sow'd his Doctrin; if he mean, as he would insinuate, from his beginning so to do; it is more then he can make good: otherwise; if he mean [presently after he was burnt] it can import nothing of what he would inferr: for so, he might be his contemporary all along from the beginning of his preaching; which is all that I think can be gathered from Clunies words, who tells us in his 1st. Ep. Annos porrò circiter vigenti, Petrus de Bruis publica voce in ejusmodi res invectus est, &c. that Peter Bruis did, for the space of 20 years, publickly hold out his Doctrines, & particularly that he preached in a publique place in Tholouse, and that he fill'd Gascony, and all the parts about it with his errors. So that by what here is said Bruis and Cluni might very well live together in the same time, and by his being so publike in his preachings, he need not want certain evidence of his Doctrines.

Secondly, That what Mr. B. saith as to Cluni's p. 103wanting certain knowledg of Henry's Doctrines, and that, what he had thereof, was but by hearsay; it is a good Argument that he had certain knowledg, of what he says concerning Bruis. Though, as to Henry's Doctrine, he tells us in his 1st. Ep. ab ore ejus excepto dicebatur scriptum vidi non quinque sed plura capitula &c. That is, he had seen a writing, said to be taken from his own Mouth, which holds forth not 5. but more heads (behaving reduc'd Peter's to 5. heads.)

But if Cluni had not so good knowledge of Henry's Doctrine; Bernard tells us he had: who gives us an account of 11 Articles of them. The denying of Infants-Baptism being the first, and in his 65 Sermon he saith thus of them: Haec dogmata excepta esse partim per investigationem, partim parsonis altercantibus audita, partim prodita ab iis qui ad Pontificiam Ecclesiam redierunt. Which Dogmata, he saith, he obtained partly by investigation or diligent search, partly by personal disputation, and partly by some who had left them and returned to their Church.

Thirdly, that as to Peter Bruis his denying Infants-Baptism, it is confirmed not only by this double testimony from thess 2 great men of this age Cluni and Bernard, and the concurring testimony of so many Learned men confirming the same, viz. that he not only deny'd Infants to be Baptized to save them, but they ought not to be Baptized at all. And that none ought to be Baptized by the faith of another, thereby denying God Fathers or Parents to undertake for them to that end; nor any till they were at age, p. 104& able to make out personal faith from Christ's Commission Math. 28. And that, if any were Baptized in Infancy they were to be Baptized at age which was not to be esteemed Re-baptization but right Baptism: all which you have in Cluni's Epistle, which would be worth your sight at large, and which, if opportunity may permit, I shall give you in the Conclusion.

And, what a friend he was to Infants-Baptism, may also be found in that excellent Treatise of his concerning Anti-Christ, wherein he tells us as Treat. p. 240. and 354. That Anti-Christ grounds all Christianity and Religion in the Baptizing of Children, attributing Regeneration and salvation to that outward work done, so contrary to the holy spirit; And that humane Traditions are to be esteemed Anti-Christian abominations. There being nothing for Infants-Baptism as Mr. B. tells us, the Papists and many Protestants hold but humane Tradition (though it is true, he says he is of another mind).

And that He and Henry were Waldenses and not wicked Manichees) as Mr. B. would viley insinuate); Let their own historian Perin tell us, who giving an account of their most eminent ding men and famous Barbes or Ministers from their ancient Records, saith thus, Chapter 9. p. 64. De mesme pas suivit Pierre Bruis done plusiers les nommerant Pierre-Brusiens auquel (adjouste-il) succeda en Doctrine un nomme Henri disquets l'on avoit esse Prestre & l'autre Moine & Enfeignerent es Euesches d'Arles D'Ambrum de Die de Gap ou estans chasse ils furent receus a Tholouze. p. 105viz. At the same time followed Pet. Bruis, whereupon many called them (viz. the Waldenses) Petro-brusians. (Cluniacensis writings are Contra Petrobrusianos.) To whom there succeeded in Doctrine one Henry; the one having been a Priest, the other a Monk; and they taught in the Bishoprick of Arles, Ambrun; Die, and Gap; from whence being chased away, they were received at Tholouse.

And concerning whom Cluni: tells us in his Epistle, Fuerunt homines, non indocti neque ab omni pietate alieni, That they were men neither unlearned, nor strangers to piety, viz. That they were both learned and in their conversations honest and good men.

So that this may satisfy that they were not only Waldenses, but men of so much worth and fame amongst them, that the Waldenses their brethren bore their names. And, that they were free from such wicked scandals as Bernards reporters would cast upon them as denyers of meates and mariages, &c. Cluni: himself acquits them, in his 2d Ep. viz. Sacerdotes & Monachos ab iis compulsos ait Ʋxores ducere, carnes coxisse, & ipso passionis Dominicae die Paschalem dominicam praecedente, invitatis publicè ad esum populis, comedisse, viz. That they constraynd both Priests and Monkes to marry, did boyl flesh and upon good Fryday it self did feast the people. And Alphonsus de Castro to the same purpose advers. Haeres l. 4. de cibo. Tempore quadragesimae, carnem & ova & reliqua prohibita comedebant, dicentes Nullum esse peccatum hoc facere; that they eat p. 106both flesh and eggs and other prohibited things in Lent, saying, It is no sin, so to do. And as to the scandal of Manichaism and other immunities they cast upon them and their party; I shall presently unriddle and clear them off from their own pens.

Fourthly, As to their denying Infants Salvation, which they say they held as well as their Baptism, and which we are to believe in one as well as the other; it was but a pretended consequence they drew upon their doctrine from their own mistaken principles, concluding from Jo. 3.5. that none were to be saved without it, according to the opinion of the Fathers, decrees of Councels, and faith of the Church; and therefore, for them to deny them Baptism either for want of personal faith, or upon the faith of others, was certainly to deny them the means of salvation; so much for out men of name, viz. Beringarius, Bruis and Henry, who as yet, without dispute, did deny Infants-Baptism; all cavills being answered and removed.

And as to the famous Arnoldus, who was censured in the Lateran Council for the heresy, of denying Infants-Baptism, Church buildings, and the adoration of the Cross; and afterwards in the year 1155. hang'd and burnt at Rome, as sayth Gerhohus, as also Bernard Ep. 196 189. 195. Baron. Annalls. 1139. 1145. Num. 3. The Waldenses bearing his name for many ages, as sayth Dr Ʋsher and Perin; Mr B. takes no notice of him.

But, before we go off from this head, we must take notice of Mr Baxter's great disingenuity. p. 107Instead of reproving, Mr Wills for his false,Mr B's great unfasthfulness in justifying not condemning Mr W's. unrighteousnesse concerning Cluni. unfaithful passage about Pet. Bruis, he doth what he can to palliate and justify by his partial return he gives to that my just reproof for his most notorious abuse therein.

Who told us positively, that Osiander took those 5 particulars out of Cluni's own writings which he charged upon Pet. Bruis, viz. For denying Baptism, Resurrection, the Divinity of Christ, forbiding of meats, and to have all things Common; and that, If I would give credit to Cluni in one, I should believe him in the other also: but that I should rather blush to introduce such a popish Calumniation from such a lying Abbot.

Which I detected at large, proving, 1. That Osiander says no such thing, viz. that he took those particulars out of Cluni's own writings; but that Osiander sayth, those particulars with 20 more were charged not upon Pet. Bruis but the Albigois, not by Cluni but by Sabellicus and Schedlius; and taken, not out of Cluni's writings but out of Lucilburgius, Antonius, Vincentius, &c. And not in Cluni's time but in the Century after. And that what Osiander sayth, Cluni charg'd Bruis with, was of another nature, and for nothing but for denying popish Doctrines in 15. particulars.

But sayth Mr B. with his daubery 1. how doth he prove that Cluni hath no more then 15? It is enough that Osiander mentions not more, he sayth Osiander mentions these 5. from him which is false.

2dly, sayth Mr B. Doth that prove Mr Wills knew it? Yes, because he saith that Osiander p. 108tells us, he took those 5 particulars out of Cluni's own writings when he must needs know that Osiander sayth, he took them elsewhere.

But 3ly, How did I know that he ever saw Cluni? It is enough, that he saw Osiander whom he quotes with so much confidence, citing those 5. particulars in Osiander's own words in Latin.

And 4ly, How did I know Peter Bruis was dead long before such accusations? Did not Bernard charge some of these things?

I know, this being in the 13th Century, that Osiander mentions, and that P. Bruis lived in the beginning of the 12. Cent. and therefore must be dead long before these things charg'd by Schedelius, &c. upon the Albigois, And, for those lying reports, Bernard mentions of the Henrici, it is nothing to this purpose: He sayth they were taken out of Cluni's writings and charged expresly upon Pet. Bruis.

Therefore let Mr B. blush that instead of reproving such notorious forgery & impiety, shall thus set his wits on the tenter, to mince, hide, and cover the same; but what will not men do that are ingaged in all ill cause to justify themselves therein.

p. 1093. Head. From the evidence of it from many learned men (some of whom opposed them in it) and Decrees of Councils against them for it.

SOme of the Authorities produced by me from the learned ancient Writers in the 12 and 13. Centuryes,The Learned Writers testifying it. to prove this truth besides Cluniacensis and Bernard, were from Eckbertus, Erberardus, Rainerius, Durandus, The Author of the acts of Bruno, Ermingardus, with some eminent Chronologers, viz. Hovedens Annalls, Pithaeus French History, Papir Massons Annals, Caesarius Hissarback, Tavins History of Navar, Ardens Homil.

Some of whom he takes notice of and others he doth not, and as to what I mention from Pithaeus Masson, and Arden, he sayth, that 1st they speak only concerning their denying Baptism, and that is not Infants-baptism: 2dly, That these they speak of, are the Manichees, and what is that to the Waldenses? and that Eckbertus who speaks of some that deny'd Infants-baptism, he calls them Manichees and that Erbardus, and Ermingerdus, do not otherwise affirm any to deny it, or oppose them for it, but as they are Manichees, denying with it Marriage, Resurrection, &c.

And that, though Rainerius testifyeth that the Waldenses do say that Baptism profits not little ones; it is only to be understood in a Popish sense.

To which I reply: First, as to the Exception he makes to those that testify, that some denyed p. 110baptism which he saith was not Infants-baptism; They that deny'd Infants-baptism were said to deny baptism.I prove thus: First, because the same Authors do say as Mr. B. observes that they were called Manichees, and, that they denyd Infants-Baptism, is already granted to us again, and again, as being a distinct people, as supposed, from the Waldenses; and they that denyed Infants-Baptism were said to deny baptism; that being the chief if not the only Baptism in those times, especially in the Church; as is said afterwards of the Lollards Treat. p. 304. out of Mr. Fox.

That the Waldenses were called Maniehees, and why?And 2dly. that the Waldenses were these supposed Manichees who denyed Infants-Baptism, but not those other things layd to their charge viz. Marriage, Meats, Resurrection, &c; is my next Task.

And therefore, because Mr. B. layes so much stress upon it, we must crave the Reader's patience, to be more particular about it; and the rather, because he in so many places acknowledges that the Manichees did deny it; so that if we make it good that they were Waldenses so called, and not another people dwelling amongst them as is supposed by some, we have another good grant from Mr. B. himself.

Therefore not to insist upon it, whether there was such a one as Manes (in the 3d. Century, as Eusebius tells us, from whom some supposed, the name came);Manichees and Phanaticks all one. All agree that the Manichean Heresy were no other then the Phanatick▪ or the sect of the Mad men, known also by the names Cathari and Publicani. viz. Puritans and p. 111Publicans. And we find that those professors called the Priscilianists, Messalians, Donatists, and Novatians, were called by these names in the 4th. and 5th. Centuryes. And as Dr. Ʋsher tells us p. 288. out of Jere. 22. Ep. ad Eustochium, that Jerom observed in his day, that if a man looked seriously they would call him a miserable Manichee. Si quem vidissent palentem atque tristem, miserum Manichaeum vocabant. And these were the very names they attributed to the Waldenses and their followers in after Centuryes. Therefore Perin c. 3. p. 9. 10. tells us. Quelque fois pourles rendre plus execrable ils les vendoyent complices des Anciens Heretiques & …e neamoins sous de pretexts ridicules, Car d'autant quils fai foyent profession de puretè enleur vie & croyence ils les appelloyent Cathares. Sometimes, to make them more odious, they made them confederates with ancient Hereticks, but yet under more then ridiculous pretences: for, because they made profession of purity in their lives, and of faith, they called them Catharists.

Secondly, The opinions fathered upon the old & new Manichees, compared.that the opinions they feigned and fathered upon them, were agreeable to the name; we shall in the next place give you some account and therein shall shew you the Harmony those opinions they attributed to the Waldenses (the New Manichees), had with the opinions they ascribed to the old; which will fully evince the truth of the business.

In the first place the old Manichees were said to hold two Principles or beings, or two Gods; 1. To hold 2 principles.Duo esse principia inter se contraria (seu duos deos, p. 112unum bonum malum alterum): Taken, as the Magdeburgs tells us, out of Origen's Peri Archon and Caesarius Cent. 13. c. 5. p. 554.

The same Heresy was also attributed to our new Manichees the Waldenses, viz. the holding of 2 Beings or Principles, and the ground thereof you have also in Perin, p. 10. viz. Et quand ils soustenoynt que l'authorite des Empereurs & Rois de la terre, ne depend point de l'authorite des Papes il's les ont appelez Manichees comme constituens deux principes; The reason of the calumny.And because they maintained that the Authority of Emperors & Kings depends not upon the Authority of the Pope they called them Manichees as appoynting two principles. And of the rise of which calumny he also tells us,When first arose. p. 25. viz. L'origine de cesse calumnie se trouveen l'extravagence du Pape' Boniface. 8. qui assuiettissant l'autoritè des Empereurs a la sienne dit de la sienne. Quicunque huic potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit; nisi duo (sicut Manicheus) fingat esse principia Can. un sanct. Li. Tom. 8. The beginning of this Calumny was taken out of the Extravagants of Pope Boniface the 8 who subjecting the Authority of Emperours unto his, sayth of his own Authority; Whoever resisteth his authority resisteth the Ordinance of God unless they feign two principles, as the Manichees did.How the Waldenses free from it. 2. To deny the Divinity of Christ, & why?

As to the Waldenses Orthodox faith and firm belief of the only true God, maker of Heaven and Earth, &c. Per. ch. 13. p. 87. at large, which we need not mention.

The second opinion they charged the Old Manichees with, was, that Christ was not God, p. 113Christum non esse Deum. And which our new Manichees were also charged with, denying, with the the Arrians, the divinity of Christ, as Perin tells us, viz. Et parce qu'ils nioyent que l'hostie que le prestre monstrea la messe soit dieu ils les ont appellez. Arrens comme naians la divinitè du fits dé dieu eternalle. And because they deny'd the bread which the priest shew'd in the Mass to be God, they called them Arrians, as denying the divinity of the eternal son of God. Of whose firm belief of Christ's Divinity you have a large account in their Ancient confession of faith, extracted, by Charles Molins by Perin Chap. 13. p. 87, &c.

A 3d Heretical opinion fathered upon the old Maniches, 3. To slight the Old Testament, and why?was that they slieghted the old Testament. Vetus testamentum repudiant, The same also is given to our new ones, Because they deny'd the Apocripha writings, and the who…e Oeconomy of the Romish Church, which they fetcht not so much from the new as the old Testament-rites, as high Priest, Altar, sacrifice, Temples, Priests, Tythes, Ephods, Singing-service, &c.

Of whose firm belief of the Old and new Testament their ancient confession fully demonstrates Per. p. 79. where all the Canonical Books are particularly mention'd; And which calumny some of their enemyes themselves refute: Rainerius confessing thus, Quia novum & vetus Testamentum vulgariter transtulerunt, & sic docent, & discunt, That they translate the Old and New Testament, and so teach, and so learn, in his 3d ch. of Heresie.

p. 1144. That Baptism profits not and why?A fourth opinion fathered upon the old Manichees, was, that water-baptism profits not to salvation, Baptismum in aquâ nihil cuiquam perhibent salutis adferre.

The like was fathered upon the Waldenses our new Manichees, because they denied, that Baptism profited little ones to salvation, therefore they denied water-baptism as before. Though their ancient confessions of faith before given, and their known practise fully refutes that calumny, Pet. p. 89. c. 13.

5. Deniers of marriage, and why?A fifth is their denying of Marriage, and living unchastely, Matrimonium damnabant, &c. The like they attributed to our new ones, as before shewed, because they denied marriage to be a Sacrament.

The holy living of the Waldenses proved.And as to their chaste and holy living, you need go no further for a Testimonial then to some of their worst Enemyes. Ranerius their bloody Inquisitor in his de formâ Heret. fol. 98. saith, that they lived very Religiously in all things, their manners well seasoned; and their words wise and polished; by their wills always speaking of God and his Saints, perswading to vertue and to hate sin, &c. And further as to this of their chastity and holy living, you have at large in the Treat. p. 343. 344. 345.

6. Denied meats.A 6th. opinion, charged upon the old Manichees, was, that they refused to eat flesh, Carnibus non vescuntur.

The like was charged upon our new Manichees, and upon pretence thereof some of them were put to death, as Bish. Ʋsher in the state of the p. 115Church p. 281. tells us. But how groundless that Calumney was, you have already heard.

A 7th,7. Denied the Resurrection. That the old Manichees denyd the Resurrection; Corporum Resurrectionem tanquam fabulam rejiciunt.

The like they attributed to our new ones, because they would make them compleat Manichees, and take all in; but, how maliciously and falsly, their confessions of faith fully discover.

By which parallell, you see that the Waldenses are feigned to hold the same opinions that they fathered upon the Manichees of old (viz. the Christians they called so). But for my own part, I belive the one was as true as the other, all being calumnyes; to be sure, as to the latter they were nothing but malicious mischievous Forgeryes. The Papists as Virit tells us, Lib. 4. c. 13. charging them with the same Crimes that the ancient Paynims did the Christians, viz. with putting out of Candles, and killing their own Children in their assemblies.

And being put into these bears-skins, as you have heard, and called Manichees, and charged therefore with all those monstrous opinions, they made Laws, Statutes, and decrees against them as such, and so persecuted, imprisoned, and put them to death, as such: of which Bishop Ʋsher in his state and succession of the Church, gives us diverse instances, especially in his 8. ch. in most of his sections, too many here to relate, viz. that some were hanged, some burnt, divese banished for holding these Manichean Tenets (thus fictitiously laid to their charge) and how p. 116they could rejoyce, as having all manner of evil falsly layd to their charge, for Christs name sake.

And that they were Waldenses (and not another people as some vainly imagined) that were so called; nothing is more clear: for, you'l find that Emericus in his Director part. 2. Q. 13. calls them Manichees, whom Rainarius and Perpinionus, and others call Cathari and Publicani or Paulicani, the certain names of the Waldenses. And whereof we might give you diverse instances, but let one serve for all, given us by Mr. B. himself from our English Windover in the instance before cited viz. Those Bon-homes, Tholousians, or Waldenses, are also by Windover called Arians or Manichees for the Reason before given, because they denyd the reall presence in the Eucharist, and Bishop Ʋsher p. 294. speaking of that very pass…ge out of Hoveden, saith, that Greetsrus tells us that they were no other, as certainly proved, than Waldenses, though by their adversaryes called Arrian or Manicheean Hereticks, as their accusation, as he saith, makes manifest.

And such Manichees were Bruis, Henricus, Arnoldus, and others that suffered under such Nick-names and reproaches such were the Waldenses their Bretheren, and so they are called in diverse decrees made against them, and such are many of the New late Puritans and Phanaticks, the Cathari and Manichees of our days.

It is true B. Ʋsher that derived the Protestant Church in a line of succession from the Waldenses p. 117in oppontion to the Papicy, would fain have delive…ed them from the supposed scandal of denying Infants-Baptism with them also, (which Mr B. would improve from him) because he knew the Manichees so call'd did (by such a pretence as this) expresly deny it; but 'tis a subterfuge, you see, that will afford them no relief▪ And therefore all those instances given by the Bishop which Mr B. takes notice of, and leaneth so much upon will not avail, telling us that the Manichees were a distinct people from the Waldenses, because they came out of the East, The Bulgarian Manichees were Waldenses.and had been inhabitants in Asia, and also in Bulgaria and Dalmatia, Lambardy, &c. and that from those parts they had spread them…lves amongst the Waldenses even to Gascoyne and those Provinces where the most of them inhabited, and so mingling …mongst them they came to be esteem'd one and the same people, whereas they were different; Whereas they were certainly no other then the Waldenses themselves, viz. men of the same principles, faith, and practise with them, viz. those that lived in these remote countreys; as well as those that came from those parts into France; which is abundantly cleared to us by Perin. Ch. …7. p. 244. Le Moyne Rainerius en son livere, &c. The Monk Rainerius in his book of his form of proceedings against the Hereticks in that Catalogue he made of the Churches of the Waldenses or poor people of Lyons, Notes, that there were in his time, that is to say, in the year 1250. Churches of them in Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, and Digonicia.

p. 118And that Math. Paris sayth in the life of H. 6. That they were long since in Croatia and Dalmatia.

And that they inhabited in Italy, Rainerius further sayth, p. 240. c. 16. that about the year 1250. The Waldenses had Churches in Albania, Lumbardy, Millan, & in Romagnia, as also in Venice, Florence and Valspoletine; as also in Sicily. —And that Gregory the 9th, and Honorius, did persecute them in Italy, under the name of Fraticelli. That the Emperour Fredric. 2d. persecuted and condemned them, all his Empire through, by the names of Gazaros, Patarenos, Leonistas, Arnoldistas.

By which …u see they were but one and the same people, that inhabited all these Countreys, viz. people of the same faith, Doctrine and practise; The Magdeburg's Cent. 13. c. …. p. 554. Tells us out of Sabellicus Tom. 2. &c. Primum quidem caepit ista Haeresis Romae—Quaedam autem à Manichaeis eos sumpsisse ferunt. Whence the Waldenses called Manichees, and fro… whence they came.Some think this heresy began at Rome, others to have taken their Original from the Manichees; the truth of both is easily reconciled when it is considered that their doctrine was one and the same with the Novatians, who were banished Rome, in Innocent the firsts time, and so were dispersed some into Lumbardy, and some into Dalmatia, who were called Manichees, and Cathari; and whose very doctrines were spread all these Countryes through, as Rainerius informs us.

I have been the larger to clear this poynt, because it is of so much weight respecting ou… p. 119Waldensian witness; Mr B. laying so much stress upon it, acknowledging so fully that the Manichees that lived amongst them, did indeed deny Infants-Baptism, but the Waldenses did not; whereas from all this undenyable evidence, they were but one and the same people agreeing in one and the same doctrine and practise.

As to that other part of this evidence,That they denied Infants-Baptifm appears from the Decrees of Councils. viz. from the decrees of Kings and Councells (whereof I mention'd 12. which sentenc'd them for denying Infants-Baptism); he only sayth thus, p. 395.

He soundeth his proof of 12. decrees and endeth with an insultation against me and others. Which is all the notice he is pleased to take of them. But whether he ought not to give us a better answer, let the Reader judge; especially when he hears some of the same decrees: Of which you may take 2 or 3. of them, for better information. Alexander the 3d Anno. 1179.Alex. 3. Later. Council. In the 27. Canon of his Lateran Council, condemns the Waldensian or Catharian hereticks, dwelling in Gascoyne, Albi, and other parts about Tholouse, and amongst the rest for denying Baptism to Children. Treat. 252.

Innocent the 2d, Anno. 1136. in the 2d Lateran Council, condemns Arnoldus,In 2. Later. Counc. from whom the Waldenses were called Arnoldists, for denying Infants-Baptism, Treat. 246.

Innocent the 3d,In 3. Decree. in his decretal Epist. to the Bishop of Arles, inveighs against the heresy of the Arelatenses or Waldenses for denying of Infants-Baptism, which he therefore established by his decree, p. 120To save them, and to take away original sin▪ and which sayth Baronius, recording the same, Innocent wrote against the Albigensian Anabaptists Treat. 253. We might mention the rest, but let these suffice.

Mr Marshal in his defence of Infants-Baptism p. 63. sayth thus, I shall desire you to shew, That any company or sect (if you will so call them) have denyd'd Infants-Baptism; produce, if you can, any of their confessions; alledge any Acts of any Councills where this doctrine was charged upon any, and condemned in that Council.

4 Head. The 4th. Demonstration was from the footsteps the Waldenses had left hereof in diverse Counteryes and Regions where they and their doctrines were dispersed.

OF which, Instances were given from the Churches in Germany, Switzerland, Flanders, Holland, Bohemia, Hungaria, Transilvania, Poland, England; and there, under these 4 denominations, Waldenses, Lollards, Wickliffians and Anabaptists; as appears by instances through all the Kings Reignes since the Conquest. p. 275. to 310.

To none of which Mr. B. gives us the least return, or one exception: only singles out Wickliff, from whom were the Wickliffists; as supposing he has advantage given by him to refute all the rest. And what his exceptions are about p. 121him, we shall impartially weigh and consider: but, in the mean time, it must be remembred, that all the rest stand for firm and good proof, till Mr. B. or some body else, discovers to us the contrary.

John Wickliff's witness against Infants-Baptism vindicated from Mr. Baxters abuses and injurious cavills.

To the making our story about John Wickliff compleat,Wickliff one of the Lollards or Waldenses. I shall first evidence to you that he was of the Waldensian faith; which you will find he received from the Lollards, so called in England, from Raimond or Walter Lollard, the great Waldensian Barbe, who was so instrumental in these Nations, of which Perin in his History of the Vandois, p. 235. gives us this particular account (which I have not before mentioned,) viz.

Frere Raimond Lollard fut alors le puissant instrument duquel dieu se voulut servir, pour par exhortations & vifues remonstrances donner cognoissance aux Anglois de la doctrine par laquelle les Vaudois estoyent liures a la mort, Ceste Doctrine fut receve par Wickleff, &c. Brother Raimond Lollard was the most powerfull instrument which God used by exhortations and sound Reason to give knowledge to the English of the Doctrine for which the Waldenses were put to death.

This Doctrine was received by Wickliff, as is noted in the confession of the Bohemain Churches, who thereby obtained much help for the encrease of his knowledg in the truth, by whose meanes the Doctrine p. 122of the Waldenses took footing and had free passage in England, and favored also in his time by many noble personages, viz. the Duke of Lancaster, the Lord Percy, the Earl of Salisbury, and Sir Lewis Clifford, whereby the Gospel had great progress, till the time of Gregory the 11. who pursued them with greivous persecutions, &c.

Why denied Infants-Baptism as before.And that Wickliff with the Waldenses denyd the Baptism of Infants, I gave you several grounds, especially out of his own writings, which I quoted from Thomas Walden, a learned man, who wrote against him in those times. The substance of which Arguments are these.

1st. That faith is necessary to precede Baptism, without which Baptism is of no force, either to take away sin, or to save the soul; and, that none is rightly Baptized without it.

2. That Baptism profits not little ones either to the taking away of sin, or the saving of their souls. Confirmed by the testimony of Widifordus, Sir Lewis Clifford, Walden, and the decree of the Council of Constance against him for the same, and by the Doctrine and practise of his followers. p 283. &c.

All which Mr. B. opposeth with great contempt; And from the 11 and 12 chapter of the 4th Book of his Dialogia (a great part of which he repeats) infers the quite contrary, viz. That he positively asserted Infants-Baptism, M. B's severe censure about Wickliff.holding it necessary to take away sin, and to save the Infant: And that he was so farr from holding beli…vers to be the only subjects of Baptism, or that faith should precede it, that he maintained the quite p. 123contrary, viz. That Baptism sbould go before faith, charging me with many gross abuses and falsifications in my said quotations, and inferences; concluding thus p. 363, viz. And now, Reader judge what a sad case poor honest ignorant Christians are in, that must have their souls seduced, troubled, and led into love-killing alienations and separations, and censures of Christs-Church, and of their particular brethren, by such a man as this? And whether they that dare use souls at this rate, are so much better than us, as to be above our Communion? Nay, whether those that lately revile the zeal of dissenters, as cherishing the most odious crimes, be not too much scandalized and hardned by such dealings? when a man, as pleading for Christ and Baptism, dare not only print such things, but stand to them in a second Edition, and defend them by a second book, and rage and be confident in reviling those that tell him of his untruths.

At this rate doth Mr B. talk, as though his tongue was his own, and that he had a commission to say whatever he pleased. But whether Mr B. or I, have most deserved such reproof for abusing Wickliff and hi… doctrine, seducing and deluding others about them; will presently appear. And in order to which discovery, I shall do these 5 or 6. things.

First, give you some account of the nature and manner of Wickliff's writing in these Dialogues.

Secondly, of the matter treated of, especially in the 2 chapters we are concerned about.

p. 124Thirdly, Shall give you the true state and account of each chapter.

Fourthly, discover Mr Baxter's injurious dealing with this author in several particulars.

Fifthly, confirm to you my former positions concerning him.

1 Wickliffs book a dialague of 3. parts, and who speaks in itFirst, As to the nature of Wickliff't writing in this book, it is Dialogue-wise; wherein there are 3 partyes speaking, viz. Alethià (or Truth) representing a solid divine, propounding the Questions to be discussed: 2d Phronesis (or wisdome) an acute subtil Theologian, answering: 3dly Pseudis (or a lyar) a captious person objecting, though, in the 11 and 12. chapters (spoken of) Pseudis be silent; The book is therefore called by some learned men in their writings Trialogia, or a Dialogue of 3 parts, but the name of the book is Diologia, or Wickliff's Dialogues, whence arose my mistake in the Catalogue I gave of Wickliff's books supposing they had been 2 books.

2 Treats of the Sacraments.Secondly, As to the matter treated on, you'l finde it to be about the Sacraments, detecting therein the Popish errours▪ and superstitions; He begins with that of the Lords-supper; and having largely and learnedly resuted the blasphemy of their breaden-God, and their horrible mistake of, Math. 26.26. This is my Body; he comes in these 2 chapters to discover their great mistake in Baptism, from their erroneous sense they gave of Jo. 3.5. Except a man be born of water, &c. concluding it baptismal water, and th…refore to be imposed as essentially necessary p. 125to salvation; and that without it no Infant can be saved or have his sins washed away; which he learnedly here refutes.

Thirdly,3 The state of both Chapters. You have the right state and true account of the two Chapters: first, briefly, Secondly, more at large, viz.

First, briefly, The Eleventh Chapter consists of two parts: The first treats of the Doctrine of Baptism, as taught, 1. In the Primitive, 2. In the Romish, 3. In the Waldensian Churches. The Second propounds 3. questions, 1. about the vertue of signes in general. 2. the other two about Infants-baptism as to salvation and damnation: answering the first about signes.

The Twelfth Chapter answers the two questions about Infants-baptism.

Secondly, More at large, wherein the Reader for his better information is desired to take notice, that what in Italick is marked thus▪ Mr B. hath before mentioned of the Chapters, and what is not so marked, he left out, which the Reader is desired carefully to observe.

Chap. XI.

IN the 11th. chapter Alethia desires Phronesis to speak something about Baptism.1. The doctrine of Baptism in the Primitive Church. Phron. doth therefore, First acquaint How Baptism is established in the Gospel, both by Precept and practise: First delivering the precept in Christs Commission, Math. 28. wherein he commands his Disciples first to teach, then to Baptize: Secondly, the practize: For which he gives 2. instances, viz. Act. 8. of Philips first teaching (according p. 126to Christs Commission) then afterwards Baptizing the Eunuch; And Act. 2. where the Apostles first taught, then afterwards Baptized (those that gladly received the word) the latter of which Mr. B. leaves out, viz. sicut fecerunt Apostoli Act. 2. quando populum baptizârunt: clearly holding out that Repentance and Faith were the great prerequisites to Baptism, and which according to Christs Commission, and primitive Churches practise was to be eyed before the administration thereof; And that Baptism ought to follow faith, and not go before it, faith being that upon which the stresse of salvation lyes: He that believes shall not be condemned. And having laid this Foundation in the Doctrine and practise of Christs Church, gives you next the Doctrin and practise of Anti Christs-Church, viz.

2. The Doctrine of Baptism in the Church of Rome.Secondly, tells you, that the Church of Rome, which (for discourse sake) he calls Our Church, (as in the beginning of the Chapter he calls our Pseudis or our Lyer, and afterwards Our Religious nostri Religiosi) from this form of Christs words, Math. 28. (viz. requiring a profession of saith to precede) do bring God-Fathers answering for the Infant who had not attained to discretion, instructing them, after Baptism, in the Lords prayer, and the Creed.

And that this Sacrament is so necessary to every one, That Christ sayth to Nicodemus, John. 3. Except a man be born again of water, &c. So that by so great Authority of scripture-belief the faithful are generally Baptized. And the Church hath p. 127ordained (viz. by its Canons) that in poynt of necessity or danger of death, every one be Baptized, provided it be done as they enjoyn, viz. That they be Baptized in simple water, not in urine or other liquors, not exemplified by Christ: Ad Baptizationem autem dicunt requiri aquam simplicem, non Ʋrinam vel liquorem alium cum hoc non sit a Domino exemplatum, which clause M. B. leaves out also. Nor is it material whether they be dipt once or thrice, or thē water be powred on their heads; but it must be done according to the custome of the place where one dwelleth, as well in one as in the other Lawfull Rite.

Shewing hereby, how they deviate from the Order before-mentioned of Christ's appointment, in first Baptizing, and then teaching afterwards: 2dly, How they alter the end, which was not to save by the act done, which they enjoyn so mistakenly, imposing it upon all from Joh. ….5. 3ly, their altering the manner either to thrice dipping or powring water (or sprinkling if it be the custome of the place) appoynting it not to be done in Ʋrine or other liquors, as though Christ had left that at uncertainty also.

Thirdly, he gives the substance of their own belief herein, in oposition to the Romish, and agreeable to the primitive pattern.

Declaring it as a principle of their Faith,3. The Doctrine of Baptism among the Wicklifists that it is certain that corporal baptism or washing, little availeth, unless there be a washing of the minde by the holy Ghost from original or actual stn; And that whoever is rightly Baptized, viz. with this Baptism of the spirit, baptism blotteth out whatever sin p. 128it findeth in the man to be baptized [with water]: And, because satisfaction is necessary to the blotting out of sin, and satisfaction for sin cannot be made but by the death of Christ, therefore sayth the Apostle, As many of us as are Baptized into Christ, are baptized into his death.

So that, accerding to Christ's-Rule, he holds out the necessity of the washing of Regeneration or faith in the blood of Christ, which he calls the spirits Baptism, to precede that of water, as that upon which he layes the stress both for remission of sins and salvation, in opposition to the Romish faith and doctrine, which placeth it in the bare work done, by the outward washing.

3. Questions, 1. About signes or Sacraments.To all which Alethia consents, and then propounds, the 3 following questions, viz.

First, Tell me plainlier, how Christ, who so much hateth sensible signes, hath put so great necessity of salvation in this washing. Not believing though, that either Christ hateth sensible signes or that he hath put the necessity of salvation in Baptism; But doth it only, to draw forth the true understanding of this Sacrament, & to hold forth the absurdity of the Church of Rome, whose sense she speaks therein, as laying the stresse of salvation upon the external Rite.

2. Whether an unbaptized Infant can be saved.Secondly, Doth it not seem to derogate from Gods liberality and power, that God cannot by all his merit and passion intercede to save an Infant, o… an Adult believer, unless he be baptized by an Old woman or an Infidel? The Church of Rome, concluding none saved without the ac… of Baptism… have therefore by several Canons, ordained tha… p. 129an Old woman or Midwife or an Infidel also may baptize a dying child, to save it, though withall have provided that if the baptized party live, it shall afterwards be baptized in the Church by the Priest, with these words, If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, in the name, &c. (Treat.) but propounds, Whether such institutions and inventions do not Blasphemously cal… in Question both the will and power of God, as well as the vertue of Christs suffering and intercession to save a soul.

Thirdly,3. Whether an unbaptized Infant is not damned. Whether when the Infant of believers [viz. all within the pale of the Church of Rome being so esteemed as part of the Christian (in distinction from the heathen) world] is brought to the Church that according to Christs Rule he may be baptized [The Churches Rule being esteemed Christs rule in the case. And this being the most undoubted way (that of the old womans & heathens being not so) viz. for the child to be brought to the Church to be baptized in the font by the hand of a Priest in the midst of the Congregation in the most authentick manner they could propound]. And for want of water and other requisites, the peoples pious intention continuing, he is dead in the mean time naturally by the will of God; it seemeth hard to define that such an Infant is damned; specially when neither the Infant, nor the people, have sinned, that he should so be damned: [Because there was neither omission to be charged upon the Child, nor any neg…ect upon the Parents or people, who were willing to have it done] where then is the merciful p. 130liberality of Christ God if such a child of believers shall be damned for that which is not in their power? when God, according to the Common principles of Theologie, is proner to reward men than to damn them, and specially when the merit and passion of Christ, hath so far stretcht out their tents?

1. Quest. about signes answered.To all which Phronesis replyes, premising by way of caution that in some things he speaks reputatively (viz. conditionally, conjecturally, or in the sense of the Ancients, whereof there is no certainty from the scriptures) and in some things assertatively, viz. when he speaks in the Evidence and Authority of the scripture.

And then, to the first about signes, he sayth, that Christ doth not hate signes, but approved of them both in the Old and new Testament; in the old, by the Brazen Serpent, and by Jonah's being in the Whales Belly; As also in the New, he himself being a sensible sign, and that of the Sacraments too, inasmuch as the description of a Sacrament agreeth to him alone, and that Baptism was a new-Testament sign, or Sacrament of his appoyntment.

But that it was the abuse of signes, that he hated and which were abus'd 3 ways, Signes abused 3. ways.First, By keeping Old Jewish abrogated signes; 2dly, By overvallewing them, putting more in them, than God, has appoynted and preferring them before the morral law it self; 3dly, By burthening the Church with them, which Christ would have free, even more then the Jewish Church was burthened. And thus the Religious now (viz. the Church of Rome) abuse them (especially) the 2 p. 131last ways: concluding that we may use, but must not abuse, signs; That Baprism was a sign or Sacrament of Christs Institution, and which with due caution and consideration, as a help in our way to heaven, we ought to use.

This must be minded, that the design of this discourse in this Sacrament of Baptism, as well as in the other, is to assert the right use according to Christs institution, and to discover and reprove the Antichristian abuse thereof.

CHAP. XII.

ALethia having declared her approbation concerning what had been spoken about signs, though the Church of Rome, so much reflected upon thereby, desires him to speak to the other two objections. Phronesis therefore to that, whether Christ cannot save a child that dyes without the Baptism of an Old woman, or Infidel, Replyes.

It seems to me probable, that Christ can sufficiently Baptize Infants spiritually, 2. Q. Answe…ed, viz. that an unbapti…ed Child may be saved.without this washing; and, by consequence, can save them, viz. without the help of the old woman or Infidel: answering it in the affirmative, though the Church had judged otherwise; concluding, that all such that dyed without such a Baptism of water, were damned,1. Because, it may be baptized with the spirit. and for which Wickliff gives several reasons▪

First, because in assigning the Baptism of the spirit, which he alledged to be the cause of salvation, p. 132it was no new thing, their Church approving of the distinction: therefore, saith he, Whence it is commonly sayd [viz. by the Fathers in their books] that there is a 3 fold Baptism of the Church,Lum 4. sent. comp. Theol. verit. l. 6. c. 9. viz. the Baptism of water, the B ptism of blood, and the Baptism of the spirit. And every of them to the meet (or right subject, as Wickliff concludes) sufficeth to Salvation, viz.

If a believer be baptized in water, he shall be saved: And if a believer be baptized in blood, he shall be saved: And he that is baptized in the spirit though baptized neither in water nor blood, shall certainly be saved; that being the Baptism, that is simply necessary to salvation.

2. Children might be sav'd without Circumcision.Secondly, because children that dyed without circumcision (which the Fathers held to be so absolutely necessary to salvation, and to take away Original sin) yet, he concluded, might be saved, and therefore, sayth thus, Nor dare I assert that the Infants slayn for Christ [Mat. 2. who were not cercumcised within the 8th day] which Mr B. leaves out, are damned.

3. Why the …pirits-Baptism saves.Thirdly, because the Baptism of the spirit hath so much vertue and force in it, beyond either of the other; 1. that of the spirit being absolutely necessary to salvation, without which no salvation; that of water and blood, but supposedly necessary to it: 2. that of the spirit being the inward thing signified, the other but the outward signes thereof. 3. that of the spirit takes away sin, which the other have no force to do, so that if that be wanting, the other signify nothing: therefore, presumptuous folly to p. 133judge damnation or salvation by external Baptism: His own words being expresly thus, viz. But the Baptism of the Spirit is the Baptism of the holy Ghost which is simply necessary to every one that he be saved. Therefore the other two Baptisms are antecedent signs [viz. to our sense] and suppositively necessary to this third Baptism of the spirit; Therefore, without doubt, where that is insensible Baptism is, the baptized person is cleansed from his sin: and if that be wanting, let the former be never so much present, Baptism profits not the soul to salvation: seeing there fore, this is insensible, and so mueh unknown to us, it seemeth to me imprudent presumption so to define mens salvation or damnation by their Baptism.

But then, if it be as you have concluded,Whether all baptized Children be saved. against the Church, That a child may be saved without Baptism, what do you say if it has Baptism administred to it, either by the priests-hand in the Church, or by the old woman or Infidel in case of necessity; shall not that child dying upon it certainly be saved as the Church hath also determined?

To which he sayth much as before,Answered. such only as God giv… Baptismal grace unto. That if God please to give Baptismal grace, such a child, rightly Baptized in water (viz. by a priest) or by an old woman or infidel, has the 3d Baptism, and consequently, shall be saved, and so of persons baptized in blood; but the baptizing of such a child doth not effect salvation. His words are these (so concluding against the Church, here also) But we reputè, without p. 134doubting, that Infants rightly baptized with water (viz. in the best way the Church can propound) are baptized with the third Baptism, when they have baptismal grace, viz. when God shall please to give it them, not as Mr B. falsly renders it, seeing they have, and, having baptismal grace, viz. upon their baptism; No, that would be to overthrow all that he had sayd.

And so I repute (s…yth Wickliff) of martyrs slain for Christ though not baptized with water; which Mr B. mentions not, viz. persons baptized in blood, may, if God please, be baptized with the spirit, and be sav'd. And so in like manner of children baptized by an old woman or Infidel in necessity; he fayth afterwards.

We believe that what Old woman soever, or abject person, rightly washeth one with sacramental words (The Canon being they must pronounce the formal words of Baptism, viz. I baptize thee in the name of the Father son and holy spirit.) God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit, that is, If he please, he can save such a child giving it the holy spirit, though it follows not, that it must therefore have it from God, because the old woman has washed it, though M. B. injuriously so inferrs; and which the next words (which he leaves out) doth demon…trate, viz. Modicùm enim valent signa nostra, nisi de quanto illa Deus acceptaverit gratiose, That our signes avail little [or are of little force or signification,] unless so far forth as God shall gratiously (work or) give his approbation of them.

And though as to the third Question, whether p. 135Infants, dying in the Church,To the 3d. whether unbaptized Infants are damned. before they are baptized, though brought thither with that intent, be all damned? He answers much as before, that God can, if he please, save such a one; or he may damn him if he please; and that he dare not through ignorance define positively either way) though the Church has positively determin'd in the affirmative); but concludes, it is by their own authority without knowledg, and presumtuously foolish in any so to do, for which take his own words.

And by this I answer your third objection,Answered. God may damn, or save such; which none can determine. granting, That God if he will, may damn such an Infant and do him no wrong, and if he will he can save him; neither dare I define either part, nor am I careful about reputation, or giving evidence in the case; but as a dumb man am silent, humbly confessing my ignorance, using conditional words, (viz. if he will) because it is not yet clear to me, whether such an Infant shall be saved or damned: But I know, that whatever God doth in it, will be just, and a work of mercy; to be praysed of all the faithful. And let not them, like presumptuous fooles, pour out themselves, that of their own Authority, without knowledge, define any thing in that matter; but he that sayth in this case put, an Infant shall be saved, as it is pious to believe, he doth superfluously uncertain himself, (viz. determine an uncertainty) more then will profit him, &c.

So that it is manifest, he concludes against the Church of Rome, in all three Questions: First, in abusing the Sacrament, putting more in it then p. 136God has appoynted; secondly, in both the other, viz. That a child that dyes without Baptism may be saved, whether he miss it by the hand of an old woman or a Priest: And he may be saved, if God please to give him Baptismal grace, if he be baptized either by a Priest or an Old woman and so it may be with those that are baptized in Martyrdom, which is only by way of supposition, without any certain conclusion; and that they are foolish and presumptuous, that possitively determine such secrets of God either as to damnation or salvation. And for which he is censured by Widifordus, the Council of Constance, and Walden, for putting the presumptuous fool upon the Church, both in their Fathers and Councils, who so positively determined, that the baptized child had his sins forgotten, and soul saved, and that the child that dyed without it, was certainly damned, and must not therefore have Christian burial.

But what doth he say to the main Objection, from Jo. 3.5. Except a man be born again of water and the spirit, he canot enter into the kingdom of heaven? Is not water, there, to be understood material water? and so, consiquently, baptismal water, and therefore none to be saved without it, as the Church has determined?

John. 3.5. Answered.John 3:5To this he fully answers, that if you will understand it of material water, it was only the water out of Christs-side; but that, he takes it, to hold out the effect of Christ's death, which came out with the blood, and be regenerated by, which we must believe with the help also of the p. 137spirit of Christ, which must manage that work in the soul, though it mistically holds out Baptism also.

His words are these: And further, as to the faith of that Scripture Jo. 3.5. Except a man be born of water &c. That probably Christ might speak of the water which flowed out of his side, and third-Baptism, because it appears tbat a man martyred for Christ, although not Baptized in water, may be saved. Therefore it seems probable to understand Christ in the negative sense, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, except he is Baptized with water flowing out of his side, and with the third-Baptism: seeing that, the Trinity cannot save those that are fallen, by bringing them to blessedness, except the 2d. and 3d. person purge them.

And agreeable hereto is his saying in his Ep. serm. 6. secundum Walden, viz. If it be objected that proper Baptism is not absolutly required (viz. to save and take away sin) I confess, that the Baptism of the spirit by the merit of the flowing of the materiall water out of his side doth suffice, for as many of us as are Baptized into Christ are Baptized into his death. And so by water and spirit he means no other than the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost, viz. The application of Christs death by the spirit, without which none can be saved, nor indeed profitably, as he observes, Baptized in water.Walden excepts againsts exposition of Jo. 3.5.John 3:5

Whereupon Walden saith, Fontem aquae regenerationis in vitam aeternam quae Christus in Evangelio sufficienter & efficienter effodere dignatus est, p. 138Nisi quis Renatus, &c. Sophistice obstruant Wicklefiste, sicut puteos Abraham in Palistina. 2 tom. c. p. 104. The fountain of the water of Regeneration in Eternal life, which Christ in the Gospel hath sufficiently and effectually dug, viz. Io. 3.5. the Wicklifists have sophisticelly stopt, as were Abrahams wells in Judea.

But, was Wickliff against water Baptism? or did not he lay so much stress upon the Spirits-Baptism, as at least to disesteem or undervalue that of water?

Wickliff for water-Baptism▪No: he prized it and layd a due stress upon it, as an Ordinance of Christ that ought carefully and Conscientiously to he attended; see to that end, his own words immediatly following.

And so Christ briefly and spiritually by a miracle taught to obserue the first Baptism (or water-Baptism) in those Evangelical words (viz. Jo. 3.5.) And that it was not lawfull for believers, on supposition of the Baptism of the spirit, to cast off the Baptism of water; but it is necessary to receive it when the opportunity of Circumstance is offered; And seeing whatever cometh to pass, of necessity it may be said, th…t such a one cannot be saved without such Baptism, but this we know reputatively, &c. viz. As may be supposed in case of wilful contempt or refusing to own and confess Chri…ts Ordinances through fear or Worldly respects.

And that he was fully for that Ordinance appears by his former Reasonings in answer to the first Question pleading for the necessary use of it, and against its abuse; and that, being kept in p. 139its right place, it was very profitable for us; his words are these.

And it is manifest we may use signes, and especially those instituted by Christ; yet with a provifo; by taking heed to its abuses: Inasmuch therefore, as Christ himself hath instituted the sign of Baptism; why ought we not consideratly and carefully to observe that sign, especially when we are yet in our way or journey, without a perfect knowledg? In which way, it is necessary to be instructed by such kind of signes. And to this end, in the beginning of his discourse doth he lay down Christs Commission to Baptise taught-believers; and the primitive Saints practise in obedience to it.

Fourthly,4ly. Discover several particulars, wherein M.B. hath injured Wickliff. 1. That he expre…y asserteth Infants-Baptism. Refuted. we shall give you some Account of M.B's injur…ous dealing with this our witness, making him speak quite contrary to his declared sense, and fathering Popish principles upon him, which he disavows and Reasons against viz.

First, he tells us, that Wickliff was so far from denying Infants-Baptism that he expresly asserteth it (viz. as his own judgment and practise of their Church.)

A notorious abuse: As though Wickliffs telling us what their Church held (viz. the Church of Rome as before) about Baptizing Children by God-fathers, and teaching them their Creed, and Pater-Noster afterwards; And the Baptizing them in case of danger of death by an Old woman or Infidel, for their salvation from Jo. 3.5; was therefore Wickliffs judgment and the Waldensian faith and practise, which was known to be p. 140the quite contrary in both. For as to their denying Gossips or Baptizing upon the faith of others, how manifestly is that made good, not only from their old confessions which disown the bringing of any to the Sacraments without their own personall faith, renowncing that of Gossips; Rainarius tells us & Cluniacensis reports of them as before. And as Walden replyes to Wickliff in these words, Tom. 2. ch. 99. Fol. 102. Qui crediderit & Baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit, qui verò non crediderit, condemnabitur: Quid dicis ad haec? Iste parvulus tuus, nec per se, per alios baptismaliter credit: quomodo non condemnabitur? He that believes and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be condemned: what sayst thou to this? This thy child neither by himself nor by others, Baptismally believes; how then shall he escape damnation?

And that the Waldenses and Wickliff himself did deny them to be baptized to take away sin and save them, is fully granted us by Mr B. again and again: so that this must needs be a slaunderous imputation.

2. That it is according to Christs Rule to Baptize Infants. Answered.But doth not Wickliff say, that, It is according to Christs Rule, that Infants are brought to the Church to be baptized? and what can be more positive?

It is true, Mr B. sayth he doth; but, how truly▪ Let all men judge. The words are in Alethia's Question, not Phronesis or Wickliff's solution, who took the liberty to propound what she would in a popish sense, the better to discove… their corruption in the answer: And Mr B▪ m…ght as well have said that▪ because Alethia, p. 141in the foregoing Question, sayth, that Christ hates sensible signes, and that he placed the necessity of salvation in Baptism, that therefore the one and the other was Wickliffs judgment and the Waldensian faith. The Question was only, whether a child, intended to be baptized in the best way most as the Church of Rome judged according to Christs Rule, viz. in the Church by a Priest, &c. and dyed, before it could be effected, was damned, as Austin and the Councils had determined: Therefore, that, such baptizing of Infants was according to Christs Rule, as little appears to be Wickliffs judgment, as that over any thing such thing was made appear to be Christs Rule by any word of Christ or practise of the primitive saints, either by Papist or Protestant. We know what the Papists and most Protestants (as Mr B. has informed us) take to be a Rule from Christ in the case. viz. Tradition▪ and the Churches direction, But that was no Rule to the Waldenses, nor to Wickliff or his followers, who so much impugned humane Traditions and all their popish Canons and decrees; esteeming nothing to be a Rule of Christs in his worship but some express words of Christ to warrant it.

But doth not Wickliff tell us in express words,3. That Children Baptized in water are Babtized with the spirit: Reply'd to. That when Infants are rightly Baptized with water, that they hold, They are baptized, with the third Baptism, having Baptismal grace?

It is true, Mr B. with great confidence again and again tells us so: but how injuriously, let all men judge.

p. 142For first, Wickliff sayth no such words: they are not, cum habeant or habentes, seeing they have, or having, as Mr B. renders them in two places, but cum habent, when they have.

Secondly, Wickliff intends no such thing, but the quite contrary to what he would make him say by such a miserable inverting of his sense: he doth not say or plead, that Children baptized in water have therefore Baptismal grace, and the third Baptism, and consequently salvation thereby, (as Mr B. would make him affirm): For, that was the very thing the Papists affirmed, and he opposed, contradicting the sense of Jo. 3.5. whereon they founded such a principle, and in express terms telling us that the one maybe without the other, and that there is no judging, we have the one by the other; and that it is presumption and folly, and to speak like a Pye for any so to affirm: All that he sayth, or intends, in those words, was only this, That God can save, if he please a child baptized in the rightest way they could prop…nd, and that such a child had the 3d Baptism, and should be saved when God gave him Baptismal grace; and so the like of the Child Baptized by an Old woman or Infidel.

And, as a further confirmation that Wickliff intended nothing less then what Mr Baxter would make him speak herein; take Tho. Waldens sense of them, who had more Cause to know his meaning in them than M. Baxter, and would doubtless have improved such an advantage, if it had been truly given him, whenas he thought quite otherwise, as you finde it. Tom. 2. ch. 103. p. 143fol. 105. Velles nos formare Reputationem tuam novellam circa certissima verba Christi, Walden opposeth Wickliff for this sentence.sicut ibi subjungis; Reputamus tamen, absque dubietate, &c. procul hinc cum reputationibus tuis haereticis, &c. Thou wouldst have us form thy new reputation upon the certain words of Christ as thou here subjoynes: We repute without doubting that Children rightly Baptized with water, are Baptized with the third Baptism, &c. Away with your heretical reputation: we do again, without wearisomness, repeat: and the repeated words simply and undoubtedly define, He that believes and is Baptized, shall be saved, &c. None is excepted from this sentence, great or small; for, whoever doth not Baptismally believe either by himself, if he be an adult, or by another, if an Infant, shall be damned.

But Wickliff (saith Mr. B.) doth say in express words,4. Baptism puts away sin. That Baptism doth put away all sin in the rightly baptized.

Mr. B. doth indeed tell us so:Refuted. but it is another fearfull mistake, wholly inverting both his words and sense again. Wickliff's words are these.

For, this is a principle in this belief, that whoever is rightly Baptized, Baptism blotteth-out whatever sin it findeth in the man to be Baptized (viz. whoever is rightly Baptized with the spirit which washeth away Original and actual sin, that Baptism (viz. the spirit Baptism) blotteth out whatever sin it findeth in the man that is to be Baptized in water: But Mr. B. would make him say (in confirmation of his former mistake) whoever is rightly Baptized in water, that Baptism puts p. 144away all sin; which is the Popish false corrupt. Doctrine he reasons against, and refutes.

5. Wickliff was for an old woman Baptizing a child.But Wickliff (saith Mr. B. was for an old womans Baptizing of a child, in necessity (viz. in peril of death to save it, the end wherefore it was enjoynd) and which he concludes to be good Baptism.

A great falshood.Notoriously false again: All that he saith or intendeth in the Case, is this, that God can, if he will, save such a child which an old-woman or Infidell Baptizeth, as he can save the Child that dyes before they baptize it. But, must it therefore be his judgment, that they are good administrators of Baptism to Children? is not this strange Reasonings?

Doth not Mr. B. himself tell us again and again, at another time, that Wickliff was against Baptizing Children to save them, as he grants the Beringarians and Waldenses were and must be now again and again be made to be of another minde? For, wherefore was this kind of old women and Infidells Baptism introduced, but to save the dying Child, as the Canons enjoyn'd? and which was so doubtful amongst themselves, that they Baptized it again, if the Child lived? Must our Eminent worthy that so loathed such abominations,6. That Wickliff affirm'd sayth Mr B. that water Baptism was to precede believing. and so set himself against the principle it self, that introduced such horrid innovations, be thus made to assert them? if this be not daring temerity, I know not what is.

Mr. B. further tells us, in opposition to what I affirmed Wickliff held, viz. that persons ought to be Baptized with the insensible Baptism (viz. p. 145have faith and Repentance or Regeneration) before they are Baptized in water: that Wickliff held the quite contrary, viz. that the two former Baptisms of Water and Blood, are but Antecedent signs to the third Baptism of the spirit: therefore saith he, see how this man is to be believed; Wickliff calling Water-Baptism an Antecedent sign contrary to most Protestant writers that hold children are in a stae of Salvation before they are Baptized.

But whether this dealing is not like the rest,Notoriously false. judge ye: For by this Argument, that he would make Wickliff to say, Water-Baptism was to precede the spirit-Baptism, he makes him say, that blood-Baptism must precede it too, for that is one of the Baptismi priores, & signa antecedentia; by which we must understand, that Wickliff thought, that none could be saved, or have their sins pardoned, but those that not only are Baptized in water, but those that are Baptized in blood also? for by the same Rule, that one is to precede Regeneration, the other is so also; Therefore that cannot be Wickliff's meaning in the words, which Mr. B. would so unfairly father upon him.

But all that Wickliff seems to speak in them, in this; That the insensible Baptism is the only necessary Baptism, upon which remission of sins and salvation depends; and that the other two, blood and water, are only the sensible outward, visible signes of that inward, insensible & invisible grace, viz. goes before as to sense, shew, and appearance, but ought to follow in reality and truth: and so he p. 146doth express himself, that by the spirit-Baptism, sin is to be blotted out in him that is to be baptized in water, viz. that he that is to be Baptized in Water, ought to have some assurance of the remission of his sins by the blood of Christ, in the first place. And therefore Fuller so well collects that passage out of Waldens 98 chapter, as one of Wickliff's positions, viz. That Baptism doth not confer, but only signifies grace given before. Fuller Eccl. Hist. 14. Cent. 4. B. p. 133. And which is indeed the Nature of all Wickliff's reasonings, and the Scripture-Authorities and instances given, viz. That Sacraments are not to precede or to work or give grace, but to confirm, establish and signe it out: And, that without grace before wrought, Sacraments avail not.

We might go through the rest of the Popish Tenets he fathers upon him; but they being not to the point of Baptism, we will leave the Reader to judge of them, by these we have examined, to that head. And is it not a thing to be lamented, that so great a man as Wickliff was, whose fellow was not to be found from the Apostles days to his time, should have so much dirt and filth cast upon him, and rendred so Popish and Anti-Christian, whenas he was raised so eminently by God to be so great a scourge & maul to that Interest?

It is true: I find in Mr. Iame's his Apologie for Jo. Wickliff, that in some of his first writings he spoke not so soundly concerning Purgatorie, and some other Popish Doctrines; as also concerning absolute necessity, which Mr. B. charges upon p. 147him. But Mr. James observes, that his after-writings speak otherwise, and that the Elder he grew, the more he loathed and detested their abominable heresies. He tells us concerning Purgatory: in his book De ver. Script. p. 267. he hath this expression, Omnia dicta de Purgatorio, dicuntur solummodo comminatione tanquam pia mendacia; that all the sayings of Purgatory were spoken by way of Commination, as it were so many Religious lies: And concerning Decrees and absolute necessity, He telleth us in the same book, p. 383. Deus nemini promittit poenam vel praemium, nisi sub conditione, tacitâ vel expressâ, &c. that God's promises and threatnings are conditional: And that as God hath appoynted the end, so he hath appointed the means of our salvation, In Expos. Decal. p. 81.

And notwithstanding his charging of Wickliff here, yet how doth he vindicate Wickliff herein, in his plea with the Jesuite: H.T. in his Key for Cath. p. 132. Name not the Wickliffians (saith the Jesuite) for they held that all things came to pass by fatall necessity; To which Mr. B. saith, We know by many of Wickliffs own books printed, and Manuscripts, what his judgment was, whatever your Council of Constance accuse him of. It was a Divine Necessity opposed to uncertainty, and to the determination of an unruled will, that he mentioneth, and yet hath he now the confidence to bring the Jesuites charge against him, having so fully acquitted him hereof; therefore he must not forget, who had need of a good Memory.

p. 148If Mr. B▪ were as free from Popish Doctrines▪ as Io. Wickliff was, there would not need that cry of the learned against him for the same, as there is at this day, and of which we may tell you more hereafter.

My …ssertions of Wickliff confi…med.In the last place, my assertions concerning him in point of witness for believers, and against Infants-Baptism, do, I doubt not, fully appear▪

1st, For …elievers Baptism only.For, is it not manifest, that he asserts it to be according to Chri…t's Commission, and the primitive Churches practise, that Repentance and Faith should precede it? and asserts it a Principle of their belief; that water-Baptism avails not, profits not, without it, either as to remission of sins, or to salva…ion, or to grace?

And as to that of witnessing against Infants-Baptism, what more full? as appears,

First, by his striking at the root of it, opposing the sense of that main Scripture they found it upon, viz. Ioh. 3.5.

2. Against Infants Baptism a so.Secondly, by his opposing of Gossips, or their being Baptized by the faith of another; which were the two main Pillars the Papists built it upon; and therefore did they go out again…t Wickliff for denying it, upon this very account,Widiford. opposed Wickliff for denying Infants Baptism. as wit…ess, First, Widif…rdus who wrote against him and censured him for opposing the Tradition of the Church, the opinion of the Fathers, the decrees of Councils, yea, the Scripture also (as he supposeth) therein, as appears in his book De confirmat. Sacra. p. 123.12…. as Fascicul. Rerum expetend. p. 102.103. evidenceth.

p. 149And 2dly by the Council of Constance, Council of Constance.who censured him for this very thing, as appears in the said Book, Fascicul. Rerum. p. 134.

And afterwards, by Thomas Walden, Walden.who writes 12. large Chapters to impugn these his Dogma's about Baptism; in these two Chapters, severely censuring him for denying Infants-Baptism, and to be worse then the Manichees, Messalians, Vincen…ius, Victor, and other Heret…cks, that did the like.

And therefore it is, that Joseph Vicecomes, Vicecomes.doth put John Wickliff in the Catalogue of those that deny'd Infants-Baptism, as appears (sayth he) by his writing his Trialogia, 4. Book and 12. Chapter. Vicecom. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 102, 10.

And as he opposed the Popish Infants-Baptism (and the main grounds upon which they had e…tablished it);Wickliff opposed the Protestant as well as Popish Infants-Baptism. so did he oppose the grounds upon which the Protestants have since practised it also, viz. upon faederal holiness, as may appear by what is sayd to this purpose, both concerning himself and followers, viz.

Walsingam Walsingam▪in his Ypodigma Neustriae, tells us, Ʋpon the year 1381. That in this time it was that that most-damnable Heretick John Wickliff re-assumed the cursed opinions of Beringarius, (which as you have heard, was the denying the real presence, and Baptism to little ones for salvation). And anno 1402. tells us, His followers did deny Infants-Baptism because they concluded them, as they were the Children of believers, to be holy, and so needed not to be baptized to wash away Original guilt. And which, he sayth, Sir Lewis Clifford p. 150(heretofore as you have heard Wickliff's great friend and follower, and now turn'd from them) discovered to the Archbishop of Canterbury: Walsingams words are these. Item si haberent puerum modò-natum, non baptizaretur, quia puer iste non contaminata peccato, &c. Quas conclusiones Lewis Clifford, Miles, qui jamjudum Lollardi fautor extiterat, diu sub terminorum involucris palliatas, sed jam denudatas Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi patefecit; &c.

And agreeable hereto, Thomas Walden, Tho. Walden.Tom. 3. De Baptismi Sacramentalibus, c. 53. p. 118, tells us, that the Lollards who were Wickliff's followers in Scotland, and several in the Bishop of Norwich his Diocess, did hold, that the Children of the faithful were not sacramentally to be baptized: and the Reason they give, was this, Because grace was powred into their sculs by the spirit, by which little ones were sufficiently Baptized, and which they grounded upon the 1 Cor. 7.14. Else, were your Children unclean, but now are they holy: his words are these, viz. Faetus à fidelibus propagatus non sit Sacramentaliter Baptizandus, quod quàm citò anima est corpori unita, infunditur gratia Spiritûs sancti, p…rquam sufficientèr parvulus baptizatur. 1 Cor. 7.

And further tells us, that the Wickliffists say, that they judged it unprofitable to give Children Ecclesiastical Baptism; but that they sayd, They were sufficiently holy and clean, because they were born of Christian Parents, affirming it to be the same mad Heresy, which the Albigensian Hereticks or Publicani of old, did affirm. His words p. 151are these, viz. Nostri Wicklevistae, Baptismum Ecclesiasticum inutile judicant, sed sufficienter eos dicunt esse mundatos & sanctos, quia de sanctis parentibus & Christianis nascuntur, cum Haeretici alim Albigenses dicti Publicani hanc invenêre vesaniam, &c.

And agreeable hereto, John Fox Jo Fox.in his Martyrology, Vol. 1. p. 867, &c. tells us, that Abraham of Colchester, and the rest of the Christians call'd Lollards or Wickliffist's taken, anno. 1428. were charged to hold, That Children of the baptized believers needed not to be baptized, and that if they dyed without Baptism, they might be saved. And that one of the Articles they put to discover a Lollard by, was, whether an Infant dying without Baptism, might be saved. See more hereof Treat. p. 304.

All which layd together may be a sufficient comment upon the Text, and very well explain John Wickliff's meaning in these Chapters of his, before-mentioned; and which is left to the consideration of the judicious Reader.

Thus, I doubt not but we have amply discharged our witnesses from Mr B's Clamours, and shall not therefore question to receive the Reader's acquittance from the many forgeries and deceits Mr B. hath injuriously charged upon me for the same; not only respecting Tertullian, but the Donatists, Ancient-Britains, the particular witnesses mentioned from our Dutch Authors, the Waldenses, and Wickliff's.

And therefore do submit it to Mr B's consideration, and the considerate Reader; whether it p. 152might not have been more for Mr B's reputation to have given me upon my modest desire by my Book-seller (when I reprinted my Book) some account of his Exceptions, in a more private way, especially since I thereby also promised him, that if they appeared material, I would either answer them, or own my mistakes, and give him the honour of the information; rather than thus to trouble the world and bring his own credit to this publick exposure for the same. His words to me in a vaunting manner after he had vented so much rage and malice against me, are these, p. 339. And remember (which you have told the world now in print) that you sent your bookseller to me to know what I had to say against your first Edition before you published the seeond; And I have here partly told you what. The passage he hints at, that I put in print, you'l finde p. 364. Treat. I can truly say, that I am not conscious of any one wilful mistake in the whole; And that I have been very solicitous amongst all my friends and acquaintance to procure me what Objections they could gain from any; but as yet have never since the Book came forth met with any thing like an Objection which I had not before obviated. No, not from Mr B. himself, though I have made particular Application to him for the same. And I think I may now as truly say, [no, not from Mr B. himself,] since he hath thus done his utmost, to bring forth his strongest objections; the folly, falshood, and contradiction thereof; so fully confirming, and not at all weakning, what he seems to oppose; And that besides that full Evidence, he p. 153hath given us, to confirm a witness born against Infants-Baptism, those first ages (as already) before-remarkt to you, p. 17. and p. 18.) He hath also (which must not be forgotten) again and again, expresly acknowledged, that the Beringarians, Waldenses, and Wickliffians did in opposition to the Church of Rome deny Children to be baptized for salvation; And that the Manichees did positively deny Infants-Baptism whom I have (upon so good ground) proved to be no other people then the Waldenses themselves, and what can we have more, (till he makes it appear that they did in those dayes baptize Children, upon any other Ground) and so in confirming the 14th. Chapter as he ratify'd the other 13. he has now subscribed to the whole Book.

The End of the First Part.

p. 154The Second Part.