Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism, Chapter 3

Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism · Chapter 3

p. 21CHAP. III. Gives anſwer to Mr. Wills his Appeal in all the parts of it.

THe better to help the Appellants (viz. the Baptiſts) to give a righteous judgment in the matters brought to their Barr, by Mr. Wills in his Appeal: And for the ſatisfaction of all men, I do hereby …oyn iſſue with him in the candid examination thereof.

Mr. Wills his Appeal to the Baptiſts, as you find, conſiſts of 8 Complaints, the which I diſtinctly anſwer as followeth.

1. His firſt Complaint againſt me is,1. Prevarication. For leaving out part of what my Authors ſay, to make the Sentence more for my purpoſe; and for which he gives ſix Inſtances.

In Reply whereto, I firſt ſay in general,Anſwered. 1. Generally. That in the quoting of Authors we are obliged to give only what they ſpeak to the thing in hand, without unneceſſary repetitions. And therefore Mr. Wills in his own caſe, when I blamed him p. 48. Reply, for leaving out part of that remarkable Sentence out of Nazianzen, viz. where he brings him to affirm, That a Child may be Baptized, leaving out the next words, ſi aliquid periculi imminoat, if any thing of danger happened. And in Excuſe thereof is pleaſed p. 22to make the following return Vind. p. 7. viz. That I do exclaim againſt him for Curtailing that Father. but (ſaith he) the Judicious Reader may underſtand, that he quarrels at me without cauſe; for my buſineſs was to prove, That Infant Baptiſm was owned in that Century as to matter of Fact, and not to diſcover the ground of it, or to enquire in what Caſes it was done; and therefore he might have ſpared his frivolous Charge about that matter.

Which Rule of his own, however it may ſerve to relieve him for leaving out that paſſage, (which I doubt, and is not now my b…ſineſs to diſpute) to be ſure it will juſtine me in all the 6 Particulars charged upon me under this head. Yet this by the way, as to the reaſon of his omitting that paſſage; becauſe, ſaith he, in the former words the matter of fact is to be made good, (viz. That Infant Baptiſm was own'd in this Century) is manifeſt. But he knows the Queſtion is not, Whether an Infant might be Baptized; for at another time he can tell us, That e…ery Baptiſm is not the Baptiſm intended, but only that which is done in Chriſts way in obedience to his Rule. So that if a Child was Dipt, which it might be accidentally by chance, or occaſionally upon ſome emergency, or Medicinally to cure Diſeaſes, (as ſome were in this Age) or ſuperſtitiouſly to ſave its dying Soul, which was onelyonly the fancy intended in this place, (and therefore ſhould not have been omitted, for ſpoiling the ſcope) it would ſignifie nothing, being no Baptiſm of Chriſts appointment, the matter of fact being only to be made out, when the neceſſity of ſuch a practiſe p. 23in obedience to Chriſts Command in performing a Goſpel Ordinance is proved. And which Mr. Baxter grants us, was not as yet to be proved by any Church Record; and never till the Milevitan Council, ſaith Dr. Taylor.

In the next place, for your better ſatisfaction,2ly Particularly. I ſhall ſpeak to each Particular: And,

Firſt, as to the quotation out of Daille 1. About Dailles.l. 2. p 149. mentioned Treat. p. 62. My buſineſs was therein to diſcover, That the Ancients deferred Infants Baptiſm, therefore I gave the ſeveral Inſtances from him of thoſe who had their Baptiſm de…erred till aged, viz. Ambroſe, Nazianzen, Bazil, &c. who appear undeniably to have been the Children of Chriſtian Parents, and that it was, as he ſaith, the opinion of ſome of the Fathers, That it is fit Infants Baptiſm ſhould be deferred: And how comes it to paſs, that there is not the leaſt tracing or footing of this Cuſtom in the Church of Rome. Nay, whence is it beſides, that they will not ſo much as endure the very mention of it, and would abhor the Man that ſhould go about to practiſe it, (the Truth whereof we find alſo, and feel) &c.

But ſaith Mr. Wills, Daille mentions the deferring the Baptiſm of other people alſo, and why did I leave that out? For the Reaſon Mr. Wills gives, becauſe it was not ſo much ad rem. Though if I had, it would have done him no ſervice, it Daille underſtood himſelf, who refers us to what he had before ſpoken about it, which we find in p. 72. where he tells us, That ſome were of opinion, That elder People ſhould be deferred Baptiſm, as well as Infants, agreeing therein, ſaith he, with the Anabaptiſts, (which indeed p. 24is our Cuſtom, waiting for fruits meet for Repentance in the firſt place, ſo deferring elder as well as younger.

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

3. That out of Calvins Inſtitutes.Thirdly, As to that paſſage out of Calvins Inſtitutes, wherein I bring him p. 91. Treat. to confeſs, That it is no where expreſly mentioned by the Evangeliſts, that any one Child was by the Apoſtles hands Baptized; which he in…imates, p. 25was not Calvins ſence, but expreſt by him to have been the objection of Fools, the which Mr. Wills might bluſh to mention, when he knows Calvin himſelf to own it as the next words expreſs, viz. Et ſi enim id nominatim ab Evangeliſtis non narratur, i. e. For although it is not by the Evangeliſts expreſly mentioned: And is not that the making it his own? Concluding that their ſolly only lay in not receiving it, equivalent with Scripture, in as much as Infants were not excluded by Scripture,Guilty of what he accuſeth. and that whole Families are mentioned to be baptized: And therefore whether Mr. Wills did fairly in ſtopping his Tranſlation where he did (that it might appear to thoſe that underſtood not Latin to be ſo groſs as he would make it, and thereby render himſelf to be guilty of the very thing be falſly accuſeth me of, viz. To leave out part of the Author, that diſcovers he ſpeaks quite otherwiſe than he is made to ſpeak, Rom. 2.1.) is ſubmitted to his Conſcience, and the conſiderate Reader.

Fourthly, As to what he complains to have been left out in Bellarmin, 4ly. Bellarmine, and 6. Dr. Field.viz. That Infants Baptiſm was to be deduced out of Scripture, p. 95. And that out of Dr. Field, That the grounds of it were taken out of Scripture, p. 155, 1. Ed. were alſo omitted from his own grounds aforeſaid: Becauſe I there quoted both of them under the Head of Tradition, (they both with ſo much poſitiveneſs aſſerting Infants Baptiſm ſo to be) yet you'l find, that when I ſpeak to that Head of Conſequences from Scripture, I quote them bo…h, as Reply, p. 74.Laſtly, Dr. Owens.

And laſtly, As to that of Dr. Owen, p. 175. p. 26which with Eſtius, Ainſworth and Ames, I brought to prove the Seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.7. reſpected the Spiritual Seed only, viz. the Elect, who were to partake of the Spiritual Promiſes, (and not the Carnal Seed, as Paedo-baptiſts generally take it,) which the D…. doth ſo fully and at large evince: And therefore that Clauſe he excepts againſt, was by his own Rule well enough left out, that ſpeaks to another thing. Though I confeſs, had I ſuppos'd that the omitting it, would have been any injury to the Dr. or juſt offence to any man, or any wrong to truth I ſhould have mentioned it, and which I may well do without any prejudice to the cauſe I maintain. For if I had been to prove that Circumciſion, tha… External Adminiſtration of the Covenant which the Jews had, belonged to their Carnal Seed, I ſhould have mentioned that; but in as much as the other was the matter in hand, I know not that it was ſo hainous to omit it, Mr. Wills in his own Caſe being Judge. It is our belief that (as the Dr. ſays) the external Adminiſtration of the Covenant, viz. Ci…cumciſion did belong to Abraham, and his Carnal Seed (the Jews) under the legal Adminiſtration; yet it follows not therefore, that Baptiſm belongs to his Carnal Seed under the Goſpel Diſpenſation. And therefore the omitting that Phraſe, which is not at all diſputed betwixt us, could not be from any injurious deſign. And therefore I conceive I deſerve not the ſevere rebuke, he is pleaſed to give me for the ſame, viz. That I am therein guilty of much diſhoneſty, ☜and that it is ſuch an unworthy carriage, that be never obſerved p. 27the like in any man. Though truly if I ſhould have put it in, I know not what advantage Mr. Wills could make of it at another time, except he concludes, that the ſame …ederal right to the Carnal Seed, is continued under the Goſpel, as it was under the Law, and gives the ſame right to claim the ſame priviledges now, as that did to the Jews before: If ſo, ſurely John Baptiſt did greatly miſtake himſelf, when he forbad them Baptiſm upon that conſideration, & bids them not to ſay within themſelves, that they were the Children of Abraham, for that muſt not now ſerve their turns, it being only Fruits meet for Repentance, that that muſt qualifie them for the Baptiſm of Repentance, (and Goſpel-Ordinances and Privile…ges) and not their old Carnal Priviledge to be Abrahams fleſh…y Seed, in which they mainly boaſted, & whereon …hey bolſte…ed themſelves. And ſutable he…eto doth Dr. Owen himſelf very excellently tell us in his 6. Exercit, on the Heb. p. 56 Tom. 1. viz.

That the miſapprehenſion hereof was the main thing that confirmed the Jews in their obſtinacy and unbelief, that being only a peculiar Priviledge to that fleſhly Seed, for the bringing forth of the Meſſiah into the World, and that when he was come, that Priviledge fell, and all Ordinances ſuited thereto, expired, and new Ordinances of Worſhip more ſuitable to the Goſpel were appointed, &c. That whole Exercitation being written with ſo much Judgement and Spirituality, I would earneſtly recommend it to Mr. Wills, and Mr. Whiſtons Conſiderations, and all other of their minds, who would, upon like miſappreheſions, p. 28have Goſpel-Ordinances and Priviledges ſtill entailed upon the fleſhly Seed, upon that old federal right which was only Typical, as well obſerved to us, and done away, (having done its buſineſs) when Chriſt came into the world, that greater Priviledges, and better Ordinances ſuited to the Goſpel diſpenſation might take place. Jeſus Chriſt as the Dr. ſo well tells us in his Cat. p. 106. Requiring Regeneration as an indiſpenſible condition in a Member of his Church, a Subject of his Kingdom: For his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. viz. Men ſpiritually, and ſavingly quickned, from their Death in ſin by the Holy Ghoſt, (whereof they are partakers) made a meet Habitation for God, Eph. 2.21, 22. 1 Cor. 3.16. 2 Cor. 6.16. & pag. 103. God hath appointed Saints to be the ſeat and ſubject of all his Ordinances, having granted the right of them to them alone, 1 Tim. 3.15. But this by the By, which may not be unſeaſonable upon this occaſion. Thus I have diſpatch'd the firſt Head, not doubting but I have given ample ſatisfaction therein.

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

Anſwered. 1. Generally.This is a Charge that I think may concern moſt Writers, and 'tis confeſs'd, that many times it falls out, that through the inadvertency of Writers, or careleſſneſs of Printers, that Quotations out of Authors are not alwayes written in a different Character, whereby the p. 29Reader is at a loſs many times, whether he reads his Author, or another Man that he refers to: And which is the fault, as Mr. Wills knows, of the Magdeburgs, of the Bazil Impreſſion, and the fault of Mr. Wills his preſent Book, which I could abundantly evi…ence, if I would be Critical, and troub…e the Reader with ſuch Impertinencies. And wherein any ſuch omiſſion has been in any of my Writings, I can truly ſay they have not been wilful, but my trouble to find, and of which I ſhall be more careful for the future, and ſo will I hope my Corrector. But to be more particular to your 7 Inſtances, viz.

Thoſe Two added to the Magdeburgs are truly their own,2. Particularly. though not ſo immediately following in that Page. That other of Chryſoſtom was purely my own and ſhould have been diſtinguiſhed. That which he calls my adding to Jerom, poſitively ſaying they are none of his words, though I tell you, that he ſaith it is, is Mr. Wills his grofs miſtake; for he will find they are his own words in his Annot. upon Mat. 28. Tom. 9. Edit. Paris, Anno 1546. viz. Non enim poteſt fieri ut corpus Baptiſmi recipiat Sacramentum, niſi ante anima fidei ſuſceperit veritatem, i. e. For it cannot be, that the Body ſhould receive that Sacrament of Baptiſm, till the Soul hath before received the verity of Faith. That to Lydia is not an adding to the Scripture, but my own ſenſe of the words, concluding, that only Believers in her Houſhold were Baptized, of which I ſpeak at large in my Reply, p. 184. That to Beza's is eaſily underſtood not to be his, by any ordinary Reader. And that to p. 30Ames very plainly. But what Injury done herein, and what the obſtinacy calling for an Appeal, is left to all to judge.

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

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

2. Dr. Hamond on Joh. 13.10.John 13:102. The ſecond is, for miſtaking, (as he ſaith) a Quotation out of Dr. Hamond, quite contrary to what he affirms, with his remark upon it, viz. No wonder Mr. D miſtakes Latin Authors ſo often, when he cannot rightly underſtand thoſe that are in Engliſh. But what cauſe there is for the ſame, and that it ought rather to be turned upon himſelf, will appear by the following Paralel.

And then has the confidence to ſay, Mr. D. tells us, the Dr. ſaith Baptiſmos ſignifies an Immerſion, or waſhing of the whole Body, and anſwers to the Hebrew word foreign, whereas indeed he tells us, That foreign ſignifies the waſhing of the whole Body, and anſwers to foreign.

Now that this was exactly agreeable to the Drs. Writings elſewhere in the ſaid Book, as well as the truth, the Reader is deſired to peruſe him upon Mark 7.4. p. 172. where he ſaith, That the word foreign (as it differs from foreign v. 3. which belongs to the hands or feet) ſignifies the waſhing of the whole body. Thus 'tis ſaid of Eupolis (which wrote the Tragedy called Baptae againſt Alcibiades) that being taken and thrown into the Sea foreign, and ſo the Baptiſms of p. 32Cups, &c. in the end of this Verſe is putting into water all over, rincing them: Two words there are uſed by the Hebrews for waſhing. 1. foreign, the word uſed for waſhing hands and feet onelyonly, the foreign here; And 2. foreign immerſion of the whole body, to which foreign anſwers. And upon Mat. 3.1. p. 14. As the Jews call thoſe Lakes wherein they waſh themſelves foreign, ſo in the Chriſtian Church the foreign, or Veſſel which contained the Baptiſmal Water is oft called foreign, a ſwimming or diving place.— And further, John in token of the reſolved change of the Jews, put them into the Water, and dipt them all over, and ſo took them out again; And upon the ſincerity of their change, promiſed them remiſſion of ſins. And now whether it be Mr. Wills or I that have abuſed Mr. Hamond, is ſubmitted to the unprejudiced Reader.

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

4. Quotation out of VValden.Fourthly, as to the Quotation out of Walden, I acknowledge Mr. Wills hath truly rectified to our advantage, which confirms more fully, that Wickliffe, and his followers, were againſt Infants Baptiſm, in agreement with the Albegois, and Sylveſter in Scotland, though different from Pelagius and Vicentius Victor, which was my miſtake, who (as it is ſaid) held Infants Baptiſm, and thereby reproved himſelf for aſſerting the quite contrary, viz. That Walden p. 33affirms, That Wickliffe held Infants Baptiſm, p. 45. of his Vind.

The words of Walden relating to Wickliffe are, Noſtri Wicliviſtae Baptiſmum Eccleſiaſticum inutile judicant parvulis, which [parvulis] Mr. Wills very unworthily leaves out, to inſinuate to his Reader, that they rejected all Baptiſm, whereas that term expreſly limits it to little ones; nor can I ſeriouſly conjecture, but its rather a lapſus mentis then error Calami or Typographi: Nor does he take notice of the reaſon aſſigned there for their denying Infants Baptiſm, which is the very ſame Mr. Wills, and thoſe of his mind, produce for its practice, viz. ſufficienter eos aiunt eſse mundatos & ſanctos, quia de ſanctis parentibus & Chriſtianis naſcuntur, i. e. They deem them ſufficiently cleans'd and holy, becauſe they are born of Holy and Chriſtian Parents. And now whether Mr. Wills his Curtailing this Quotation, or my harmleſs and unndeſigned miſtake of aſſerting Wickliffe to agree with Pelagius be the more blameable, I humbly ſubmit to conſideration.

The Fifth is no contradiction,5. That of 1. Cor. 7.141 Cor 7:14 which is only an Alluſion to thoſe in Ezra's time that put away their ſtrange Wives, Similies not running of all four, as Mr. Wills would ſtretch it.

The Sixth is no Contradiction,6. Quotation out of Frank. for Infants Baptiſm might be univerſally received, and yet in many places little eſteemed, has it not been ſo heretofore here in England, as to that as well as other things I could mention? 1. Becauſe perſons may little eſteem things they receive. 2. By univerſal, I explain my ſelf to mean the Greek and Latin Churches, (which admitted p. 34of exception) viz. Thoſe that ſubmitted to the Pope, and thoſe that were under the Patriarchs.

7. An Aſſertion of my own.The Seventh is no Contradiction, which in the former Chapter I have ſo fully cleared; there being Antiquity for Believers Baptiſm in the firſt Centuries, but no Record for Infant Baptiſm, as Mr. Baxter grants, in the Church Hiſtories. So that no primitive Antiquity for the ſame, though the Ancients in after Ages did aſſert it.

So that what ezceptions he has made hitherto, are but ſlender, and not of that Moment, nor ſo perſiſted in, as to deſerve an Appeal.

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

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

p. 35As to the firſt of Bullingers, 2. Particularly. 1. Bullingers.I did not tranſlate it, but tranſcribed it word for word out of that Author, called, A very plain and well grounded Treatiſe concerning Baptiſm. p. 14. mentioned by me p. 9. It is true, I confeſs, I ſhould have expreſt it, or rather have ſearch'd the original my ſelf, and ſo ſhould Mr. Wills, when he ſo miſtakenly quoted one from Dr. Holmes, and did neither, and another from the Magdeburgs about Eraſmus.

As to the Second, about Nazianzen, 2. Nazianzen.Baptizandos peccatae ſua confiteri ſolitos, I own it ſhould be rendred, The Baptized were wont to confeſs their ſins. Nor did I give it as a tranſlation, verbatim; but what I apprehended to be the conſequential ſence, which I deduce thus: [the Baptized] being an indefinite term, and equipolent with an univerſal, is as much, as if all the Baptized did ſo; and if all did confeſs their ſins, then none but ſuch we…e Baptized in the firſt times, which is concurrent with the ſence of ſo many Authors, ſo poſitively affirming the ſame thing; and if that be not the meaning, I humbly conceive the expreſſion (otherwiſe underſtood) may be ſomewhat impertinent, it being owned of all hands, that the Adult in all Ages ſo to do.

The Third is of Olympiodorus, 3. Olympiodorus.a meer quibble, and catching at words; the word [Born] by the words going before, viz. Spiritual Li…e, being eaſily underſtood to be [born again] however the word [again] came to be omitted.

The Fourth of Albertus, is of like Import;4. Albertus for if Baptiſm cannot through the incapacity of the ſubject operate upon them, it may be truly p. 36ſaid in a Paraphraſtical Tranſlation, That it is not proper to admit Infants thereto: For if it cannot operate in any other but the Adult, who are illuminated and called, who can draw Virtue from Chriſts Death and Reſurrection, then Baptiſm not proper for other.

5. Albinus.Neither is the Fifth from Albinus ill rendred or perverting the ſence if you take the ſcope, and former words, which ſpeak the thing he excepts againſt; and which Mr. Wills leaves out, a liberty being granted to paraphraſe, keeping to the ſence, though contracting the words.

The Sixth is no perverting or miſ-repreſenting the Magdeb. in ſaying, They tell us, That in the latter end of the Fourth Cent. they Baptize Children, giving it from the teſtimony of Athanaſius, who writ in the latter part of the 4th. Cent. That Contra Arianos being writ, as ſaith Helvicus, Anno 360 But I have ſince made appear, that the Magdeb. tell us therein an untruth; for that pretended account was from Athanaſius's ſuppoſed Queſtions, which they themſelves afterwards confeſs to be ſpurious, as I have told Mr. Wills, and he confeſſeth to be true, and therefore wonder, that he ſhould have the Confidence to put this under the notion of miſ-repreſentation, or miſ-tranſlation, it being neither. Had I given a tranſlation of the former part of the ſentence, reſpecting Origen and Cyprian (before refuted by me, and which I cencern'd not with my ſelf, then) and not rende…'d [in Eccleſiijs Affricaenis] in the Affrican Churches, there might be ſome ground of Cavil; but whereas I did not, I hope I may be excus'd. The words are, Hoc vero ſeculo eundem p. 37[viz. Baptiſmum] duraſse ex Athanaſio conſtat, quaeſt. 124. i. e. It appears from Athanaſius 124. queſtion, that it (viz. Infant Baptiſm) was in this Age. So that what I ſay reſpects the time, and not whether all or part of the Affrican Churches. But if to ſay in the Affrican Churches they Baptized Children, pleaſes Mr. Wills, I am contented it ſhould be ſo; and let him make the moſt of it.

The 7th. concerning the Milevitan Decree,7. About the Milevitan Canon. viz. That firſt part of the Canon, That all that affirm, that young Children receive Everlaſting life, albeit they be not by the Sacrament of Grace or Baptiſm renewed. I made it not, nor abuſed that Council, nor miſ-tranſlated their words, for in the Verſe before going, as the Magdeburgs expreſs it, p. 835. they repreſent the crime of thoſe they cenſure in theſe words, Non opitulari parvulis ad conſequendam vitam Aeternam Chriſtianae gratiae Sacramentum, viz. That the Sacrament of Criſtian Grace (or Baptiſm) profits not little Children to Everlaſting Life. The ſame alſo is expreſt by the whole Council to Innocentius, in their Synodical Epiſtle, p. 842. in theſe words, pueros qu… que parvulos ſi nullis innoventur, & gratiae Sacramentis, habituros vitam Aeternam. The ſame is alſo in Innocents Decretal Letter, p. 845. which he reiurned to the Council in theſe words, Illud vero quod eos veſtra fraternitas aſſerit praedicare, parvulos Aeternae Vitae praemijs, etiam ſine Baptiſmatis gratia, poſſe donari perfatuum eſt; And to meet with thoſe Hereticks, (as they counted them) was the decree I mentioned, made, and which is to be found in Regia Collect. Tom. 4. p. 559. immediately after the words recited p. 38by Mr. Wills ex Pervetuſto codices, out of a very ancient Copy, thus. Item placuit, ut ſiquis dicit ideo dixiſſe Dominum, in domo patris mei manſiones multae ſunt, ut intelligatur, quia in regno Caelorum erit aliquis medius, aut ullus alicubi locus, ubi beate vivant parvuli, qui ſine Baptiſmo ex hac vita migrarunt, ſine quo in regno Caelorum quod eſt vita aeterna intrare non poſsunt Anathema ſit; and which is the very thing I affirmed: and therefore I hope will juſtifie me from this Charge, giving onelyonly an Epitome, and not the whole of the Decree, out of the Decretals themſelves, not the Magdeburgs. 'Tis true, the Canon has not this Appendix to it, where recited by the Magdeburgs, nor in Reg. Collect. p. 362. though properly belonging to it; but where the Affrican Canons are collected, repeated, and confirmed under Caeleſtinus Pope, and Theodoſius Emperor, Anno 424. it is annext. And then this 2d. Canon of the Milevitan Council, with this annexed, is made the 77th Affrican Canon. And I muſt further inform the Reader, that the Mag'd. confounded theſe two Milevitan Councils together, putting the latter, which was in the year 416, under the year 402. which was the firſt Milevitan Council in Numidia in Affrica; and both held under Innocent Pope, and Theodoſius Emperor; which miſtake is taken notice of in Regia Collectione, with the grounds thereof. And in p. 541. you'l find theſe words beginning the Collection, Sequuntur Concilia Affricana ſub Innocentio habita: which includes the Canon I cite in p. 559. aforeſaid.

1. About P. Innocents Blaſphemy.That the 8th. is no miſ-repreſentation, in ſaying, That P. Innocentius attributed divine Honour p. 39to the Popedom, will be eaſily conceived, inaſmuch, as he ſingled out Peter, and attributed Divine Honour to him, put confidence in him, and deſired help from him in conjunction with God himſelf; and whether he did it as to Pope Peter, or St. Peter, is not much material, the former is probable. And therefore doth Fox 2 Vol. p. 1020. &c. tell us in how many things the Popes blaſphemouſly match themſelves with God himſelf.

The 9th. out of Voſſius, 9. Quotation out of Voſſius.giving the Reaſons from the Ancients, why they Baptized Men and Women naked, is a full and clear Tranſlation, as fully made good from thoſe particular inſtances given out of Voſſius from Cyril, Chryſoſtom, Cretenſis, Anſelm, Ambroſe, &c. his being a miſerable trifle in his Appeal to the Reader, whether the Reaſons given, were not becauſe their naked Bodies were to be Baptized, and not the Cloaths, as I ignorantly (as he ſaith) affirm, whereas I give thoſe Reaſons, why they Baptized their naked Bodies, and not the Cloaths, viz. That they might be, as in the ſtate of Innocency; and as in their firſt Birth, and as they expect to be in Heaven, or as Chriſt was was nailed to the Croſs. From the Ancients, which they expreſly make out in p. 32.

Therefore it is left to the Reader to judge, where there is the leaſt miſ-repreſentation, or falſe Tranſlation in all theſe Particulars, and what cauſe to make an Appeal for the ſame.

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

p. 40Anſwered. 1: Quotation out of Luther.The firſt as to a Quotation out of Luther de Sacrament. Tom. 3. fol. 168. I tranſcribed it out of the ſame Author before mentioned, the plain and well grounded Treatiſe, p. 25. I have ſince examined that Tome, but cannot there find it; ſuppoſing, they either miſquoted the Tome, or elſe quoted it out of another Edition, concluding, ſo large a Quotation was not fathered upon him, he ſpeaking much that Language in other places.

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

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

4. Arnobius.To the 4th, That I quote Arnobius, a ſpurious Author, whilſt I blame him for ſuch, and which I ſay, I take out of the Magd. whereas the Magdeburgs have it not.

p. 41To which I ſay firſt, I do not know, that Arnobius upon the Pſalms, is a ſpurious Author, ſhould I have quoted him out of Perkins, who (Mr. Wills ſaith) tells us, it is ſpurious, as he did Athanaſius's queſtions out of the Magdeb. which they ſaid was ſo, I had been lyable to like Reproof. Neither 2dly. did I ſay, I took Arnobius out of the Magdeburgs; I ſaid the Magd. did give ſome of thoſe that followed, not all, he being mentioned upon the 146. Pſalm, and not from any Book or Page in the Magdeburgs.

The Fifth,5. Out of Aquinus. it is true, is a miſtake as placed by the Printer, but not intended, as eaſily diſcern'd by the Reader, being put down as an additional Proof out of Albertus, having Inſerted 3 before, the Printer putting Aquinus before the laſt of them, and ſo made that which I had put, viz. [And again] to belong to Aquinus, and not to Albertus. Which Venial miſtake he makes equivolent with that grand one of Bazil for Nazianzen, which he ſo egregiouſly abuſed me for, and boaſted what great acquaintance he had with Father Bazil, putting it down as a great remark 3 ſeveral times: This of mine being a proof for him, viz. to prove Infants Baptiſm; therefore it matters not much, whether from one or the other, they both ſpeaking the ſame thing, that of his, wholly againſt me.

As to the 6th. the Magd. tell us,6. Out of the Magd. That Infants as well as the Adult, were Baptized; and inſtance onelyonly in a Queen then Baptized, whom Zonaras calls Roſſorum Reginam. And that's all (I confeſs) that Zonaras is concern'd in it.

The 7th. is ſuch another trifle. I ſay,7. Out of Voſſius. Voſſius p. 42ſaith, (for he was a Collector from Authors; and thoſe he quotes, we may in propriety of ſpeech attribute to him) That Nectarius was made Biſhop of Conſtantinople before he was Baptized, he ſays, he was but appointed ſo, the ſtreſs of the proof lying, That he was a Believer at age before he was Baptized, there being no ſuch great difference, betwixt being made and appointed Biſhop in the Caſe. And Beza there gives inſtances, not of obſcure perſons, but of perſons, as he ſays, that had the eyes of all upon them Baptized at Age, viz. Conſtantine, Nectarius, and Nazianzen.

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

Miſplacing QuotationsVI. The 6th is, for picking out of Authors here and there, and joyning them together, as if they were one intire Sentence, whereof he gives four Inſtances.

p. 43To the 3 firſt, viz. Mr. Baxter, Dr. Owen, Anſwered.and Dr. Taylor, I ſay, I have put down nothing but their own, and what is congruous, one thing anſwering properly and naturally with another, which if it did not, we ſhould, I preſume, have heard of.

And for what relates to himſelf, which is the 4th. I have done him no wrong, the Pages mentioned by me, viz. p. 36, 38, 101, 131, 132. I have particularly examined, and deſire the Reader ſo to do; and let him judge betwixt us, whether he doth not in thoſe Pages compared again and again ſay, That as there is no Scripture expreſly commanding, ſo neither is there any Scripture excluding Infants from Baptiſm, nor any Scripture that ſaith, there was no Infant Baptized, each Page I would have put down, but that I would not burden the Reader; which you find expreſt by me in my Reply, p. 63. and the ſeveral Pages particularly expreſt, I refer to. And what good cauſe is given to complain of me in this, I ſee as little as the former.

VII. The 7th. is, for aſſerting notorious untruths,Notorious untruths. giving Inſtances of Eight.

The firſt for affirming,1. Anſwered. That Antiquity it ſelf, ſo much boaſted of, is altogether for Believers, and not for Infants Baptiſm, 1. About Antiquity for Infant Baptiſm.an Aſſertion, as he ſaith, ſo notoriouſly falſe, that I have confuted my ſelf in owning the ancients aſserted it.

This is already anſwered again and again, I hope to ſatisfaction, viz. That primitive Antiquity is only for Believers, and not for Infants Baptiſm; and the Ancients in latter, not p. 44former Centuries, onelyonly for Infants Baptiſm.

2. About Chriſtning a Dead Child.The Second for ſaying, That a Child that dyed unbaptized, was taken up and Chriſtned, putting in the Margent a dead Child Chriſtned; the Boy was not taken up and Baptized Dead; but after he came to life again, he was Baptized.

In the firſt place, I conceive there is no untruth in my rendring the words, Is puerum ſine Baptiſmo mortuum reſuſcitarit ex mortuis, & tandem Baptizarit, That a Child that dyed unbaptized, was taken up and Chriſtned; being not excluſive of the ſence Mr. Wills would have it bear. But 'tis the Margent that ſaith [a dead Child Chriſtned] he mainly quarrels at, which indeed is wholly mine, and therefore my ſence or explanation of my own words, is to be received, which admits of a Two fold, or double Interpretation, viz. either that Child that was Dead, now Chriſtned, and ſo not to be blamed in Mr. Wills own ſence: Or if I ſhould intend the Child then dead when Chriſtned, I know no reaſon, but I may have my liberty of Conjecture, as well as Mr. Wills: And the rather, becauſe, though reſuſcitare be generally underſtood, to raiſe to life, yet the phraſe here, may, without any ſuch palpable abſurdity, be underſtood, a taking up from among the Dead, or out of the Grave; eſpecially, becauſe ſuch an Interpretation ſo exactly agrees with their (then uſual) practiſe to Baptize the Dead that dyed unbaptized; which certainly is more likely, and far more agreeable to truth, then that ſuch a Miracle was wrought of raiſing to life. Beſides, why may not the Dead be ſometimes uſed for the Grave, as the Grave p. 45is often (Metonymically) uſed for the Dead, and Death? as I could inſtance with great variety, had it been neceſſary. So that this latter (ſhould I perſiſt in it) is ſo far from being blameable, that it is indeed very probable; and therefore Reader, take it which way you will, no ſuch notorious untruth as he talks of can hence be juſtly chargeable upon me.

The third noto…ious untruth he ſaith I aſſert, is from the Magdeburgs, Cent: 13. p: 419. viz. That the Magd: do ſay, 3 About Gulielmus blaſphemy.that as to the form of Baptiſm, Gulielmus added to the Father. Son, and Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, viz. I baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Bleſſed Virgin Mary; which ſaith he, is another notorious untruth; for the Magdeburgs ſay nothing of the Virgin Mary; but which of us ſpeak truth, let the Reader judge: The words of the Magdeburgs are theſe in the Cent: and p: above-ſaid, viz: Male Gulielmus ad Formam Baptiſmi addidit Mariam,… Baptizo te in Nomine Patris Omnipotentis, & Filii & Spiritus Sancti, & Beatae Mariae Virginis. De Bapt: & ejus part. c. 2. Magd. Cent: 13. c: 419. i: e. Gulielmus wickedly added Mary to the form of Baptiſm: I Baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Bleſſed Virgin Mary in his 2. ch: of Bapt. and its parts. Therefore if this be not daring temerity, I know not what is.

To the 4th. that the Donatiſts were againſt Infant-Baptiſm,4 About the Donatiſts. which, he ſaith, is as true, as that a Dead Child was Baptized, and that Pope Innocent was the firſt Inventor of Baptiſm, and Antiquity altogether for Believers, and not for Infants Baptiſm.

p. 46What ground I had to affirm the Donatiſts were againſt Infants Baptiſm, I have given at large enough at leaſt, if not to make it good, yet to free me from a Forger. Whether the Child taken up was living or dead, when Baptized (what I writ being capable of being i…terpreted either way) is left to better judgment; that I any where have ſaid that Pope Innocent was the firſt Invetor of Infants Baptiſm, is I preſume Mr. Wills his Invention not to be ma…e good from my writings. I do indeed ſay, p. 111. And this was that Innocent who was the firſt great Patron and Impoſer of this Inven…ion viz. In his Canon in the Milevitan Council; and ſo ſai…h Dr. Taylor Grotius, Strabo, p. 107. as well as my ſelf, that Infants Baptiſm was never determined, nor en…oyned nor impoſed till th…n. And whether Antiqui…y, viz. of the firſt Centuries was not for Be ievers, and not for Infants Baptiſm; Let Mr. Baxter himſelf, wi h what hath been ſaid, de…ermine.

5 About Lanfrank.The 5th about Lanfranks Teſtimony, one of my witneſſes to prove Berengarius denyed Infants Baptiſm, is, I fully acknowledg my miſtake, which (a Perſon of quality) a worthy Friend of mine ſeveral moneths ſince help'd me to diſcover, in examining that Story of Berengarius with me out of the Magdeburgs, and who is my witneſs of my in…ended reſolution to rectifie the ſame, and which I concluded to have done, though not diſcovered by them. And the ground of that my miſtake was truly this▪ I finding that in the Hypotheſis of the erroneous Dogm's charged upon Berengarius; they gather up 5 or 6 Particulars, the p. 47firſt 4 reſpecting Tranſubſtantiation, the 5th. and 6th. Infants Baptiſm, and Marriage, then ſuperficially caſting my Eye to the end of the Story, I found it ſaid, ad quintum & ſextum opponit Doctrinam perpetuam & conſenſientem Eccleſiae Dei, To the 5…h. and 6th. he therein oppoſes the perpetual and agreeing Doctrine of the Church of God; Quoting Lanfrank of the Sacraments, and his Book de Scintill: concluding it did reſpect thoſe 5 or 6 Particulars before mentioned, but afterwards examining it with the aforeſaid Friend, I found that thoſe 5 or 6 Particulars did not include thoſe firſt mentioned, but were 6 other Particulars diſcourſed about Tranſubſtantiation, betwixt Lanfrank and him Yet this I muſt remark by the way, that though I miſtook my ſelf in this, yet the reſt of my Teſtimonies to prove Berengarius did deny Infants Baptiſm hold good, as you'l find before in p. 92. 2d. Rep. Guitmond being one of them, who aſſerts that he did affirm Baptiſm did not profit little ones.

7. As to the Canon of Illerdon in Spain, 7 Illerdon Canon.I quote it out of the Dutch Book of Martyrs, for which they Cite their Authorities at large, page 189. 1 Book. And if they have miſtaken it, let them be accountable for it, and me, no more than Mr. Wills deſires to be, for quoting the Magdeburgs in their miſtake about Eraſmus.

6. Amongſt my notorious untruths he puts my calling Circumciſion a legal Ordinance, 6 About Circumciſin.when as he ſaith, it was inſtituted 400 Years before the Law. VVhat then? ſo were Sacrifices 2000 Years before it; were they not therefore legal alſo, being enjoyned by God as well as p. 48the other under the Law? and therefore 'tis ſaid of Circumciſion, though of the Fathers, yet it was given by Moſes, John 7.22. and which was ſo legal, that it bound to the keeping of the whole Law, Gal: 2.3. and ſo typical and ſhadowy, that it was to be done away when Chriſt came, Gal: 2.2. and of ſuch great ſtreſs that there was no entring into the Jewiſh Church without it, & whoever eat the Paſſeover uncircumciſed muſt be cut off: And that the Paedo-Baptiſts Arguments from Circumciſion are begged, not proved: See my Reaſons p: And how all my Arguments are begg'd or ſtollen, is begging ſtill till proved, which will be beſt underſtood by his Anſwers, to which theſe are referred.

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

Strange Doctrines.VIII. The laſt he charges is ſtrange Doctrines.

The firſt for calling the National Church of the Jews,Anſwered. 1 About the Jewiſh Church. made up of the Carnal Seed, a Carnal Church, who had Carnal Ordinances, which he ſaith is Blaſphemy to affirm. But that Balſphemy the Holy Spirit will acquit me of whilſt he calls their Ordinances of their Church by that Name, and what Salvo Mr: Wills gives for their Ordinances, will ſerve for the Church alſo, which is to be underſtood (ſaith he) Comparatively; and ſo ſay I to the more Spiritua p. 49Church and Ordinances in the New Teſtament.

But that Baptiſm doth as much Initiate the carnal ſeed in the Goſpel-Church, as circumciſion under the Law, is I preſume Mr. Wills ſtrange Doctrine, God enjoyning the Infant-male or Carnal Seed to be circumciſed; but ſo hath he not that under the Goſpel they ſhould be baptized: and touching which I refer you to Dr: Owen for better Information, as before.

2. Falſe Doctrine, That I do with Dr. Taylor ſay, Infants have neither Habitual nor actuall Faith, nor are Diſciples of Chriſt, and uncapable of Regeneration, 2 About Infants Faith and Regeneration.ſo conſequently of Salvation.

That they are uncapable of that Faith and Regeneration ſpoken by James 1.18. 1 Pet: 1.2, 3. John 1.12, 13. And as Dr: Owen has defined Regeneration is all I ſay, viz. begotten by the Preaching, Hearing, and Receiving of the Word, renewed in knowledg, changed and Converted thereby, is all that I affirm, page 213. That they are capable of Salvation by Chriſts purchaſe and the Application of his Blood and Spi it to them, who doubts it? I am ſure I never affirmed the cont…ary.

3. The next falſe Doctrine is for affirming nothing to be a Seal of the New Covenant, 3 Baptiſm no ſeal.but the Holy Spirit, a ſtrange Paradox! But when Mr. Wills, or any body elſe proves the contrary, I ſhall be content to alter my judgment.

4. That Infants are neither capable to perform Duties, 4 Infants capacity.nor enjoy Priviledges, viz. Church-priviledges, as I have ſufficiently explained my ſelf page viz. Baptiſm, Lords Supper Hearing the Word, Church-watch, &c.

p. 505 About Baptiſm.5. For owning Baptiſm to be the gate of Sacraments, viz. ini ſenſu ſano viz. The firſt entrance into the Church, where the Holy things in Chriſts order and way are duly adminiſtred, not in the Popiſh ſenſe of Sacramen…s.

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

7 About the Order of Baptiſm.7. That the Myſtery ſhould go before tht Symbol. Had Mr: Ws. repreſented the quotation truly, the very peruſing it would clear me from this charge; but he (very unworthily) leaves out the Parentheſis which explicates the expreſſion, and without which the words ſeem to import, a harſh Doctrine. The words a…e, If the Myſtery goes not before the Symbol, (which it does when the Symbols are conſignations of Grace, as the Sacraments are) [this Parentheſis he lea…es out] yet it alwayes accompanies it, but never follows in order of time I do not deny but a man may be Baptized if he profe es Faith and repentance though not in truth, and in him the Myſtery goes not before the Symbol; but coming afterwards really to believe and repent, it may follow in order of time, but then the Symbol to him when Baptized was no conſignation of Grace. And now let the world judge whether Mr: Ws. dealt honeſtly in skiping over thoſe words which were laid in on purpoſe to obviate p. 51ſuch a Cavil as he makes; it may be truly ſai… o… him, that if he cannot find a hole, he'll make one.

8. No viſible Church-member before Converſion: 8. About Church-MemberſhipI ſay none ought to be ſo, and ſo ſaith Dr: Owen.

9. That I make a Believer and Dipping to be the right matter and form of Baptiſm, 9. About the matter and form of Faptiſm.which I have proved againſt Mr: Blinman, and neither by Mr: Wills nor him yet anſwered.

10 That nothing now but Fruits meet for Repentance, 10. About receiving to Baptiſm.can give right to the baptiſm of Repentance, and nothing ſhort of the Spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-baptiſm, and Spiritual Ordinances, a Doct ine apparently falſe, inſtancing in John, baptizing the Jews upon confeſſion of ſin and repentance, which was not Fruits, and the 3000 Baptized. Acts 2. And were they not prick'd at heart, and received the word gladly, and confeſt Chriſt to be the Meſſiah, whom they and were not thoſe Fruits meet for Repentance and amen ment of life? &c.

THE CONCLUSION

THus I have given a Candid return to each Particular charged in this Appeal, publickly acknowledging what of Error or Miſtake I am convinced of, and juſtifying my Innocency and Integrity in the reſt; for as yet I ſee cauſe to own no more (not accounting a few immaterial over ſights which Ingenious men would ſcorn to dwell upon) than the miſ-naming two or three, viz. Aquinas for Albertus, Sericius for Hincmarus, not hitting the Pope Deus dedit's name, and not taking a Quotation out of p. 52Walden to ſo good advantage as I ought, that of Auſtin 3 and 4 Book being left out, Lanfrank being before owned to Mr. Baxter.

Concluding that as none of which can be ſuppoſed to be wilful, ſo neither can there be any obſtinacy in the Caſe, having never heard of them before.

Therefore upon the whole, I joyn iſſue with Mr. Wills, freely ſubmitting it to the Bar he has brought it; not doubting upon the due examination of his Complaint, and my defence, that if they find me guilty of the Crimes he lays to my Charge; but they will, as he deſires, diſcharge duty to me as becomes them, to bring me to the acknowledgment of my evil, or to diſown me if obſtinate, as a perſon unworthy to be countenanced amongſt them.

But if on the contrary Mr: Wills his Appeal appears to be faulty, and the Particulars thereof not true, then that his ſaid Appeal ſhall, as he deſires, as unjuſt, reflect the blame of the charge upon himſelf, according to the righteous Law of the Lord.

Deut: 19.16, 17, 18, 19. If a falſe Witneſs riſe up againſt any man, and teſtifie againſt him that which is wrong, then both the men before whom the Controverſie is, ſhall ſtand before the Lord, and the Judges which ſhall be in thoſe dayes. And the Judges ſhall make diligent inquiſition; and behold if the witneſs be a falſe witneſs, and hath teſtified falſely againſt his Brother, then ſhall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother: So ſhalt thou put the evil away from amongſt you: And thoſe that remain ſhall hear, and fear, and ſhall henceforth commit no more any ſuch evil among you.