Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism, Chapter 4

Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism · Chapter 4

p. 49CHAP. IV. An Appeal to M^r Will's Conſcience.

Sir,

I Having at your Groundleſs and injurious ſummons, given this full Account of my ſelf, in my juſt vindication: And ſo far as I am convinced made (as you charitably ſuggeſt I would, Pref. App.) a Candid and publick acknowledgment of what of error or miſtake is made out againſt me by your ſelf or others, may therefore with more freedom apply to your Conſcience herein, eſpecially ſince I offer you nothing, but what I conceive carries demonſtration with it, and back'd with Scripture evidence, for your better conſideration and conviction.

Therefore in the firſt place, I deſire you to conſider, whether you are not notoriouſly guilty of Back-biting, 1. Reproachfull Back-biting.by taking up reproaches from others, and Tale-bearer like, ſpreading and publiſhing the ſame to the defaming your Neighbour, without enquiring into the Truth thereof from himſelf; nay, refuſing all due information and ſatisfaction, when friendly tendred to you.

For, have you not taken up theſe following things upon report and Hear-ſay from others, againſt one that is a meer ſtranger to you, & publiſhed the ſame to my diſgrace, to promote thereby your Cauſe, viz.

Firſt, That, as you have heard, I own not ſo much Scholarſhip to compoſe ſuch a Book, though my p. 50ſolitary life has given me opportunity enough to ſtudy, Pref. Inf. Bapt.

Secondly, That I have only fixed my Name to the Book, that another chiefly has moſt Reaſon to own himlſelf to be the Author of, Pref. Ibid.

Thirdly, That, as you have heard, I have Ixion like, faln in love with my own ſhaddow, puft up with the Excellency of my own performance, Ibid.

Fourthly, That I am a very tenacious Perſon, as you have heard, Vind. P.

Fifthly, That I am fain to call in the Wits of our Party, to help me to deal with you, Pref. Vind.

Sixtly, That I am of a Self-conceited ſcornful Genius, unbecoming a Chriſtian, Infants Bapt. a g. 86.

Seventhly, Inſinuating that I am of ſuch a (pugnatious or) fighting temper, that though my hands are tied behind me, yet will do it with Tongue and Pen, Pref. Inf. Bapt.

But, how agreeable ſuch actings are with the following Scriptures, I leave you to judge.

Exod. 23.1. Thou ſhalt not receive a falſe Report: Put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous Witneſs.

Levit. 19.16. Thou ſhalt not go up and down as a Tale-bearer among thy people.

Pſal. 15.3. He that back-biteth not with his tongue, nor doth evil to his Neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach againſt his Neighbour.

Prov. 18.8. The words of a Tale-bearer are as wounds, &c. 20.10. Where no Tale-bearer is, the ſtrife ceaſeth.

Jer. 20.10. I have heard the defamation of many Report, ſay they, and we will report, &c.

And to theſe add the Golden Rule, ſo highly p. 51infringed thereby, Math. 7.12. Therefore all things whatſoever you would that Men ſhould do unto you, do even ſo unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. And would you be ſo dealt with by me and others, ask your own heart? Pray, read Mr. B. Rules to this Point, in his Chriſtian Directory; ſome of which are given you in p. 158. 2. Reply. And amongſt the reſt, this is one:

If you know it not to be true, or there be no ſufficient evidence to prove it, you are guilty of lying and ſlaundering interpretatively, though it ſhould prove true, becauſe it might have been a lye for ought you know.

Secondly, are you not evidently guilty of Bitter Scoffing and Reviling both Perſon and Book, and notoriouſly guilty of Railing.

1. As to Scoffing and jeering at my Perſon,2. Scoffing and Railing. Have you not deridingly called me the Antiſignanus, the Goliah, one that is Philantia nimis inflatus; viz. a proud conceited fellow, one guilty of notorious Plagiariſm or Thievery, and ſhameful Oſcitancy or heedleſneſs, all in the Preface of Inf. Bapt. And ſcoffingly to tell me, Bernardus non vidit omnia; That I am not ſuch a ſeer as taken to be, Inf. Bapt. p. 89. A Hagio-Maſtix, a ſever Laſher, Ibid. That I am a Zantippe, and a Momus, a meer Carper, Vind. Scoffingly reflecting upon the Exploits or Feats done in the daies of my Colonelſhip, Ibid. p. 93. That you have diſcovered my Mummery, and pluckt off the mask of my Vizard, Pref. Vind. and much more of this kind.

2. As to my Book, That it is a pompous Piece, very fallacious and contradictious, heapt up with forgeries and prevarications, ſwelled with Seſquipedalia p. 52verba; viz. Words of a foot and half long or ridiculous ſtuff, p. 35. Inf. Bapt. The non-ſuch, the Arguments therein conſiſting only of Trite out-worn things that have been trampled upon, and confuted again and again, Pref. Inf. Bapt.

And thirdly, Whether in a Railing reviling manner you have not called me, One poſſeſt with a maleveleant Spirit, and filled with envy, p. 11. Inf. Bapt. An unworthy Caviler, p. 13. Ibid. Of ſo much diſingenuity as to traduce the ſayings of worthy Men, p. Ibid. Impudent, ſilly, ridiculous, p. 16. 2. part. Ibid. One that will not refuſe the moſt ſordid and ſhameful waies to promote my opinion, p. 57. Ibid. A daring Champion; and again, A daring Perſon indeed, p. 72. Ibid. That I diſcover the ebulition of a malicious Spirit, p. 106. Ibid. Reflect the Munſter Venarian Spirit upon me as one that is under Satanical deluſion, p. 99. Ibid. One that prevaricates to free my ſelf from prevarication, p. 2. Vind. That I have added contumacy to my miſtakes, Pref. Vind. And that never Writer did more prevaricate and ſhewed more falſhood then I have done, p. 34. Inf. Bapt.

But, how ſuch language can ſtand before the following Scriptures? is ſubmitted to your Conſcience; viz.

Eph. 4.31. Let all bitterneſs, and wrath, and anger and clamour, and evill ſpeaking be put away from you with all malice, and be kind one to another, tender hearted.

Prov. 15.1. A ſoft anſwer turneth away wrath, but grevious words ſtir up anger.

Tit. 3.2. Speak evil of no Man; Tim. 33. not a brawler; 1. Cor. 5 10. If any that is called a Brother be a railer, with ſuch a one do not eat.

p. 53Matth. 3.22. Whoſoever is angry with his Brother without a cauſe, ſhall be in danger of the Judgment; and whoſoever ſhall ſay unto his brother Racha, ſhall be in danger of the Council: but whoſoever ſhall ſay, Thou fool, ſhall be in danger of Hell fire.

Thirdly, I deſire you to conſider whether you are not evidently guilty of Falſe accuſation, and notorious falſe ſpeaking.3. Falſe accuſation, and ſpeaking.

Firſt, in that general charge, That never Writer did more prevaricate, or was guilty of more falſhood then my ſelf (what! none of the Popiſh Legendaries?) whereas in both your Books you have not been able to make out any one that is ſignificant; for after you have done your utmoſt to make good ſuch a thing, what doth it amount more then to diſcover the miſtaking of 2 or 3 Names, and not rendring that paſſage in Walden, ſo much to my advantage as it was, none of which can poſſibly be judged willful miſtakes, nor be truly charged with forgery or prevarication, which muſt needs therefore return upon you, according to the Rule Deut. 19.16, &c.

Secondly, in thoſe many particular falſhoods you have ſo poſitively charged upon me; viz. 1. That I miſrepreſented Dr. Taylor, and dealt deceitfully in thoſe Quotations out of his liberty of Prophecy, as p. 35. Inf. Bapt. whereas the quite contrary is manifeſt, as p. 51, &c. of my Reply.

Secondly, That I produced Durandus, a perſecutor of Anabaptiſts, as a Witneſs for them, p. 143. Inf. Bapt. when it is moſt manifeſt I do the quite contrary, p. 242, Treaty.

Thirdly, that I do bring Jerom, to ſay ſuch words upon the 28. Matth.; whereas you ſay, they p. 54are words of my own adding, and none of Jeroms; and yet I tell you he ſaith it, p. 166. Vind. whereas I have made good to you they are verbatim Jeroms own words upon that place.

Fourthly, That I produce Gulielmus from the Magdeburgs, for ſaying the Virgin Mary ſhould be added to the words of Baptiſm; which you ſay is a notorious untruth, and that the Magdeburgs ſay nothing of the Virgin Mary, p. 185 Vind. And which I have expreſly proved, and made good to a tittle as before.

Fifthly, you accuſe me for abuſing Dr. Hamond in that Quotation, on the 13. of John 10, making him ſpeak quite otherwiſe then he doth; Satyricaliy deriding me for the ſame, p. 171. of your Vind. whereas I have made good to you that I did the Doctor no injury, but quoted his words truly and faithfully.

Sixthly, You accuſe me, for ſaying, that the Magdeburgs ſay, that the Apoſtles only Baptized the adult or aged, Ch. 7. p. 2. Inf. Bapt. which you ſay is falſe; whereas I ſaid no ſuch thing, as p. 31. of Reply is demonſtrated: and though I called for ſatisfaction again and again, yet you in your Preface to your Appeal juſtified, your ſelf and ſeverly reprove me for a tenacious and unreaſonable Perſon, for not falling under your charge, what an evidence it is of my obſtinacy; whereas my words were only theſe, That the Magdeburgs tell us, that they find the adult or aged were only Baptized; viz. in the Scripture Inſtances and Examples that they produce: And yet there you have the confidence to tell me it is alone, nay makes more againſt me; To which I ſay let it make for or againſt me, that is nothing to the falſhood p. 55you fathred upon me, I ſay, none of theſe words, neither doth it make at all againſt me; for they may find Scripture Inſtances only for the adult, and yet believe, as you grant, they did Baptize others then the adult, being two different things; but you tell me the word [they find only ſuch] implyed their certainty of the aſſertion, which they were ſo far from believing that they tell us, it appeared from the Apoſtles Writings, that they did not exclude Infants from Baptiſm; and at another time, p. 53. Vind. you tell me they ſay that Origen and Cyprian tell us, that Infants were Baptized in the Apoſtles daies; but what then do either of thoſe Inſtances produce any Scripture Example for the Baptizing of an Infant or any other, but the adult; which ſerves only to evince that had I ſaid, what you would have me ſay I had not ſo fairly repreſented them; viz. that they did only Baptize the adult, they believing with you, though upon as little ground, that Baptized the Infants alſo. But in as much as I ſaid they ſaid they found (viz. in thoſe Scripture Inſtances) Examples only for the one, and not for the other; I faithfully and truly repreſented them, and you did injuriouſly and untruly repreſent me, and for which inſtead of giving me ſatisfaction, you ſtill juſtify your ſelf; and for your better conviction read what I have further ſaid hereof before.

Seventhly, For your falſe and injurious charging me for producing Munz'r and John of Leyden fro my Witneſſes, to prove againſt Infants Baptiſm, ſcoffingly telling me, that you will quietly permit me to enjoy the comfort and honour of ſuch Witneſſes, p. 154. Vind. whereas I produce them not as any p. 56of my Witneſſes, but reflect upon their ſtory, as I tell you p. 145. Reply: Firſt, to ſhew the unreaſonableneſs of charging the Innocent with the crimes of ſuch as are guilty. And ſecondly, to Examine that matter of fact, and how proved, upon which ſo much obliquity hath been caſt upon the Anabaptiſts, and there way ever ſince; and both of which I conceive was fairly and modeſtly done by me in that 4. Chapter.

Eightly, You ſcoffingly tell me, that my invention will not ſerve me, to ſay any thing againſt one of the Waldenſes Confeſſions for Infants Baptiſm, viz. that of Angrogue An. 1535. viz. As we promiſed when we were Baptized, being little ones, p. 121. which is a notorious falſhood, for I expreſly ſpeak to it, Treaty p. 310.: And which afterwards he is fain to confeſs, p. 122. Vind. ſaying, that Mr. D. tells us p. 313, that theſe words being Baptized when little ones were foyſted into the Article, which I alſo there make good.

4. Slandering Forreign Anabaptiſts.Secondly, You ſo falſly and ſlanderouſly accuſing the Anabaptiſts, both forreign and domeſtick, that you might the better bring contempt upon them, and their cauſe, viz.

Firſt, as to the Forreign Anabaptiſts, you charge thoſe firſt Commotions, in Swevia, and Munſter, to be Anabaptiſtical, p. 102, &c of you Inf. Bapt. the quite contrary upon due Examination is manifeſted, p. 146 of my Reply, and now unanſwered by you.

Secondly, That the Anabaptiſts., who were burnt, drowned and ſtarved in Switzerland, was for perjury, diſobedience, and ſedition; and not for Anabaptiſtry, p. 79. Inf. Bapt. the contrary whereto is fully manifeſted from the Decrees p. 65themſelves, which are word for word given you, and by what Gaſtius and Hornberk ſay in confirmation thereof; viz. for their judgement of Rebaptization, as appears p. 152 of Rep. and Treat. p. 260. where the Edicts themſelves are expreſſed.

Thirdly, For charging thoſe in Germany to be ſo univerſally wicked and immoral, p. 200. whereas the contrary was made good to you from Bezas words, viz. That many of the Anabaptiſts are good Men, Servants of God, Martyrs of Chriſt; and our moſt dear Bn. in his Ep. to the Gallo-Belgick Churches at Embden, as Repl. p. 151. Beſides the account of many 1000 of them that as Faithful Martyrs ſealed the truth with their Blood, as Treat. 256, &c. appears to you.

Fourthly, That their principles were heretical and blaſphemous, p. 94. &c. whereas from their confeſſions of Faith themſelves, it is manifeſt they held the ſame with the Waldenſes, as appears p. 154. Rep.

Fifthly, That the Miniſts, thoſe Holland Anabaptiſts were for reſiſtance of in affinity with the Munſter ſatanical deluſion, which put them upon ſuch exorbitances, p. 99. whereas the quite contrary is ſaid of them, and known to be their conſtant practiſe, refuſing to bear Armes, or to carry ſo much as a Gun in their Ships, as p. 147, &c.

Secondly, as to our Engliſh Anabaptiſts, have you not in like manner powred reproach upon them, by your notorious falſe accuſations, viz.

Firſt, You ſtick not to ſay,2. Slandring Engliſh Anabaptiſts. that thoſe who are inclinable to their way, are now grown ſo politick as not to profeſs their Faith till warm weather; ſcoffingly p. 66telling us, that many laſt Summer were dipped in our parts, and in all likelyhood we may hear of many more this Summer, Preface to Infants Bapt.

The falſhood and ſlander whereof is refuted by known experience.

Secondly, neither are you aſhamed to lay blaſphemy and immorality to the charge of diverſe Anabaptiſts in our own Nation, p. 95. implying, as I told you in my Reply p. 151. that the reſt …ore with them, otherwiſe, why is it mentioned, as I told you, challinging you to produce one Man of thoſe divers Perſons that is truly to be charged with your due proofs for the ſame; or elſe to be eſteemed as truly you ought to be a falſe accuſer of the Brethren, which notwithſtanding you have neither done in your laſt Book, nor taken ſhame for your ſin and folly therein.

Thirdly, and that above all you have not been affrayed to charge the Principle of Anabaptiſtry it ſelf, viz. To be of a dangerous nature: Your words are theſe, That you may ſafely affirm that is a Doctrine to be ſ…ſp…cted falſe, which is uſually attended with groſs miſcarriages in the Profeſſors of it; for that beſpeaks it ominous and like a ſpiritual Judgement of God upon it: And, I heartily wiſh, ſay you, there were no ground to ſay that of ſuch a nature is the Doctrine of Baptizing grown Perſons, in oppoſition to that of the Inft. Seed of Believers, for not to inſiſt upon. The horrid errors and wicked lives of thoſe in Germany, and blaſphemies and immoralities of diverſe in our own Nation. [that being taken for granted, it ſeems to be undoubted proof in confirmation hereof] And that as ſome Men hold it (viz. that p. 67Baptiſm is a boundary of Communion) is of ſuch a diſquieting tendancy, that it is not fit for any age or ſtate of the Church. And as ſoon as Men become Baptiſts (as they call themſelves, affecting as you ſay that name) they fall off from Godly Miniſters, &c as an effect (as you reflect) of ignorance and pride, and to the ſcandal and ſhame of Chriſtian Religion, p. 94, 95. And in your Preface you tell us with Mr. Sydnham, that the opinion of Antipaedobaptiſm hath been alwaies ominous, and of a wonderful ſtrange influence, to diſtroy Ʋnity and Peace amongſt Chriſtians, accompanied alſo with the moſt retinue of errors, ſince the firſt Embrio of it was brought forth, whether by a ſecret judgement of God, or from the natural and ſecret connexion with other Principles of darkneſs, will not with Mr. Sydnnham determine (oh wonderful Charity!) only God hath ſhewed ſame black Characters of it in exery Nation, where it hath prevailed.

And, Men of this opinion ſo inflexible, that never any of them was heard to change his opinion, unleſs to ſome worſe error, (and how can that well be, if this be true that you have affirmed?) But, what can be ſpoken more venanous, more falſe, and repugnant to truth and common honeſty, and more ſavouring of a malicious mind, is left to your Conſcience to determine; Entreating you ſeriouſly to conſider how ſuch dealing can ſtand before theſe following Scriptures.

Exod. 20 16. Thou ſhalt not bear falſe witneſs againſt thy Neighbour.

23 1. Thou ſhalt not receive a falſe report, put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witneſs.

p. 68It being one of the things the Lord hates and abominates, as viz. Prov. 6.19. A falſe witneſs that ſpeaketh lies, and him that ſoweth diſcord amongſt Brethren.

Prov. 15.18. He that beareth falſe witneſs againſt his Neighbour is a maul, and a ſword, and and a ſharp Arrow.

Prov. 19.9. A falſe witneſs ſhall not be unpuniſhed, and he that ſpeaketh lies ſhall not eſcape.

Deut. 19, 16, 18. If a falſe witneſs riſe up againſt any man to teſtify againſt him that which is wrong— the Judges ſhall make diligent ſearch; and behold, if the witneſs be a falſe witneſs, and hath teſtified falſly againſt his Brother, then ſhall you do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother: ſo ſhalt thou put the evil away from among you: Which I ſhall conclude with that ſerious word, Dr. Stubs ſpeaks to Mr. B. upon like occaſion, and which I deſire you to lay to heart: If he be a ſlanderer, who wrongs his Neighbours credit, either by unjuſt raiſing, or upholding an evil report againſt him, ſurely you have cauſe to lay your hand upon your heart, and to toke ſhame to you ſelf. And if this be the mark of thoſe that ſhall dwell in the Lords Tabernacle, that they are ſuch that neither raiſe nor take up a reproach againſt their Neighbour, Pſal. 15, 3. What will become of You [Mr. Wills] and where, & with whom muſt you dwell to Eternity, if God do not humble you, for your ſlanderous and lying Tongue and Pen?

…. Prevarication.Fourthly, are you not truly found guilty of Prevarication, in many particulars, the thing you ſo notoriouſly and falſly charge upon me, which is according to your own definition, p. p. 697. Vind. To coneeal what ought to have been declared on purpoſe to deceive: And of which I ſhall give you a few of many Inſtances that might be produced, viz.

Firſt, Is it not manifeſt, as I have undenyably proved (and in your own word by Mathematical Demonſtration) that you left out ſo many of the moſt conſiderable paſſages of the Waldenſian Confeſſions, as p. 45. 2 part Inf. Bapt. and for which you have given no ſatisfaction, though you was ſo earneſtly called upon by my ſelf, as well as Mr. Tombes for the ſame.

Secondly, by leaving out part of that Confeſſion you took out of Biſhop Ʋſher, p. 119. Vind. which Hoveden calls the Waldenſes, I the Popiſh Inquiſitors, you only taking part of it, which declares for Infant Baptiſm to ſave them; and yet you can tell us at another time, that the Waldenſes affirmed that it profited them not for ſalvation. That the better to hide the cheat can now tell us in their excuſe, that this was a dark time 500 years ſince; but in the mean time conceal that other part, which beſpeaks it wholly Popiſh; viz. for the Maſs, Popiſh-Prieſthood, Real preſence, Penance, &c. which Ʋſher is ſo faithful to give, and which I have at large diſcovered to Mr. B. your Partner, in that evil; p. 84. 2 Reply.

Thirdly, by repeating every ſyllable of that Qu…tati…n p. 169. Vind. called Calvins; yet leaving out the laſt Clauſe Eſtius Annot. on Gen. 17.7. which you know is there, as Treaty p. 176. Vind. And yet ſo often upraid me for not calling it Eſtius's; not only in your firſt Book, but 3 times, and very unmercifully too in your laſt.

p. 70Fourthly, by Concealing ſo much of the Tranſlation of that out of Calvins Inſtitu…es, that you might the better deceive your Engliſh Reader, and make him believe it was the Objection of Fools, and not owned by Calvin himſelf, which his next words, as I have demonſtrated and you very well knew, doth.

Fifthly, by that injurious dealing with me in that Quotation of mine from Spanhaemius, and Oſiander p. 326. of my Treat you only take notice of what Spanhaemius ſpeaks to part leave out what I ſay Oſrander ſaith to the reſt, and reprove me for my miſtake, p. 104. Iuf. Bapt. and though I called upon you in my Reply…, for ſatisfaction, Pref. and p. 148. yet you return ne not one ſyllable in your laſt.

Sixthly, by that injurious leaving out what you in your firſt p. quot from my 20. p. of Reply, which ſpeaks it to be quite an other thing then you make it to be, and thereupon charge me with prevarication, if not madneſs and contradiction, which was an ill beginning that you ſhould ſo ſtumble at the threfhold; as though I quoted Auſtin, and thoſe Antients downwards to prove that the practiſe of Inf. Bapt. was not in thoſe Centuries, when I ſay the quite contrary, and tell you expreſly that I quote them only for their ſayings, which ſpeak ſo fully for Adult Baptiſm only, contrary to their expreſs practiſe. And then by affirming again and again that I contradict my ſelf in owning the Antients were for Infants Baptiſm, and denying there was Antiquity for it: whereas the foregoing words in my 19. p. enumerates them from Auſtin, and not the Antients of the former Centuries, whom I claim for Beleivers Bapt. only.

p. 71Seventhly, by the like injurious dealing with me, p. 57. Vind. taking part of a ſaying of mine in Treat. p. 101. and leaving out the next following words in p. 102. rendring me thereby ridiculous, and then call me at your pleaſure, when I am ſo wholly innocent in the matter; viz. I juſtify my ſelf in my Reply p. 36. from that falſhood you charge upon me, ſuppoſing me to ſay, that dipping was changed into Sprinkling the 3. Centurie, when I only ſay that the Magdeb. do tell us, that many corruptions about Bapt. was creeping in amongſt the reſt I mentioned (as I ſaw cauſe) that of Cyprians Letter to Magnus about Sprinkling, for dipping. But withall do ſay, they tell us they do not find any one perſon was then Baptized with any of their corrupt Ceremonies, having indeed, as they ſoy, no authentik proof of the Baptizing of any one perſon; whereby I ſay it may be conjectured their corruptions were then more in the notion then practiſe, which afterwards came all of them to be in uſe.

You are pleaſed to repeat my former words about their beginning to alter the forme from dippin to ſpinkling, and leave out all my latter words both what I ſo fully ſpeak in the Treat. and my Rep. alſo. And then as p. 51. I ſuppoſe, Reader, thou haſt ſeldom met with the like ridiculous contradiction in any Author— So that he is the Man that hath cauſe to be aſhamed, and is found very unfaithfull in ſpeaking forwards and backwards at his pleaſure; yea, that which is manifeſtly falſe, and then denying in the ſame breath, ſo adding one ſalſehood to another.

And therefore whilſt you judge me ſo worthy of reproof for prevarication (though not at all p. 72proved by you) and you your ſelf ſo guilty thereof, as ſo fully evidenced, doth not this following Scripture concern you?

Rom. 2.1.23. Therefore thou art inexcuſable, O Man, whoſoever thou art that judgeſt, for wherein thou judgeſt thou condemneſt thy ſelf, for thou that judgeſt doth the ſame thing.

But, we are ſure the judgement of God is according to truth againſt them, which commit ſuch things. And thinkeſt thou this, O Man, that judges them, which do ſuch things and doth the ſame, that thou ſhalt eſcape the judgement of God,

Verſe 21. Thou therefore which teacheſt another, teacheſt thou not thy ſelf, thou that preacheſt, a Man ſhould not ſteal, doſt thou ſteal. So thou that teacheſt a Man ſhould not prevaricate, why art thou guilty of ſo much prevarication, and ſo ſelf judged and condemned therein?

And fifthly, is it not evident that you are hanouſly guilty of Forgery; 5. Forgery.viz. pretending Authors ſay ſo and ſo, when they ſay no ſuch thing, or the quite contrary.

Of which I ſhall give you few Inſtances.

Firſt, do not you affirm p. 45. Vind. that Walden ſheweth from Wickliffs works that he was for Infants Baptiſm; whereas he abundantly ſaith the quite contrary, and your own Pen is conſtrained at another time to acknowledge, as p. 125, 172. Vind.

Secondly, do not you poſitively affirme, tha… Auſtin ſaith in bis third Book De Anima, c. 13. that Vincentius Victor his opinion was that Infants that dyed Baptized went immediately to Heaven; whereas there is no ſuch thing ſaid, either in that or any other Chapter that I can find.

p. 73Thirdly, do not you ſay that Rainerius in the Catalogue of the Waldenſian errours brings not one word of their denying Inf. Bapt. as p. 67. Inf. Bapt. whereas he expreſly ſaith in that Catalogue, that they affirmed Inf. Bapt. was nothing worth, and that Goſſips that undertook for them knew not what they did; for which ſee Rep. p. 125.131.

Fourthly, do now affirme that Dr. Taylor in his Book called Conſideration of the Practiſe of the Church, and Dr. Hamond in his Letter of Reſolutions, had given anſwer to thoſe Arguments produced by me, out of his Liberty of Prophecy againſt Infants Baptiſm, as p. 36, 37, 98 of your Infants Baptiſm; whereas in p. 53, &c. of my Reply, it is fully made out from both their words, that they do confirme thoſe Arguments to be good that are therein brought againſt the principle Arguments, the Paedobaptiſts bring for that their pract…ſe.

Fifthly, do not you prodvce Baſil, to be an Eminent wotneſs for Infants Baptiſm in the fourth Century, as p. 136. Whereas there is never ſuch a word to be found in any of Baſils writings that doth yet appear.

Sixthly, you do poſitively affirme from the acquaintance you had with Father Baſil that he in his third Book Contr. Ʋnomiam in the very next lines after thoſe words I had repeated of that quotation, declared himſelf to be for Infants Baptiſm. And for my omitting the ſame, call upon the Reader to have a ca…e henceforwards how they tru t my quotations f…r the palpable abuſe done to that Father, and for a fallacy and falſhood upon the Reader, p. 13. Inf. Bapt. And again in his Preface, charging me for curtailing and leaving out p. 74part of that Sentence of Baſils. About which I got a Friend firſt to write to you, to know where to find it: to which you replyed, that**You charged me not for miſquoting, but for partially quoting and miſapply- it, but could not direct to the page. for which manifeſt injury done to Baſil and me, alſo in that your ſevere Reflection, I called for ſatiſfaction, as p. 48. Reply. But all that I can get yet from you is this, that you miſto…k only a name Baſil for Naziazen, p. 61. Vind. Equilizing my miſtake of Albertus for Aquinus with it, p. 183.

Which I cannot take for due pay: Firſt, becauſe it was not a bare ſlip in haſte, but a thing juſtified by you in coold blood when I gave you time to deliberate upon it, by ſending ſo civily to you that you might have an opportunity to rectify it, or clear your ſelf.

Secondly, by your extenuating it, as though it was juſt like my miſtaking, Albertus for Aquiquinas, which I can by no means admit for that was a quotation for you to prove for Infant Bapt. which cannot demonſtrate any wilfulneſs in me; nor that I could have any end in the miſtake, nor was it improved to your prejudice; whereas that of yours was a great proof againſt me, highly boaſted of by you to diſcover your reading and acquaintance with that Father, and improved much to my diſgrace, and often and very ſeverly inculcated upon me. Therefore I do expect from you more fuller ſatisfaction therein, and your due humiliation for ſuch a notorious miſcarriage.

As well for your vainglorious boaſt as your trampling ſo upon me.

Seventhly, in like manner was your dealing about what you own to be your miſtake, only of a Century reſpectiong Peter Bruis p. 53. Inf. Bapt. out of Oſiander, which was not only ſo, but p. 75the ſever laſhes you gave me about it; viz. That you ſee by this that when Men are ingaged in a Cauſe, and wedded …o an opinion, they will not refuſe the moſt ſordid and ſhamefull waies to promote it fall in with ſlanderous Papiſts, and take up what they ſay to defend their opinions, witneſs my Antagoniſt. And at this rate you go on chaſtiſing of me, and all upon your own groſs forgery and miſtake: For which Sir, I expect your repentance, you did not miſtake a Century only, but Chriſtianity, Civility, and Common Honeſty alſo; and you did not only abuſe me, but Oſiander Cluniacenſis, Peter Bruis, and yet have you the confidence to tell me p. 131. that you could retort upon me, that I belyed Calvin, I belyed the Truth, and by that forgery, I would cover, and hide, and abuſe the World with a cheat, and much more, my own Conſcience, by that piece of folly and falſhood.

Whereas is now manifeſtly appears that I did put Eſtius his name to the Quotation; and therefore there could be neither cheat, abuſing of the World, forgery, nor falſhood in the matter; which doth but heighten your crime, and makes more work for Repentance, which I alſo duly call far from you.

And therefore to further, the ſame deſire you to read and conſider the following Scriptures.

Lev. 19.11. Ye ſhall not lie one to another.

Prov. 14.5. A faithful witneſs will not lie, but a falſe witneſs uttereth lies.

Eph. 4.25. Wherefore puting away lying ſpeak every Man truth with his Neighbour.

Col. 39. Lye not one to another.

Pſalm. 119.69. The proud hath forged lyes.

Jer. 9, 3. They bend their tongues like bows for lies, but are not valiant for the truth.

p. 67With the Scriptures before mentioned, Rom. 2.1, 2, 3, 21. Becauſe you have proclamed me ſuch a forger, and judged me for the ſame, but has yet made no proof thereof.

And ſixthly, are not you guilty of Miſtranſlation, 6. Miſtranſlation.and Miſrendring Authors. For Inſtance;

Firſt, That notorious paſſage about the Miniſts, which you tranſlate quite contrary to Truth; viz. that they were for Reſiſtance in the Munſter way, and for diſtroying the wicked by force of Armes, in order to the ſetting up the Kingdom of Chriſt, p. 99. of Inf. Bapt. when the quite contrary is there ſaid and the conſtant knowledge of their principles and practiſe evinceth.

Secondly, for Miſrendring that paſſage out of Calvins Inſtitutes, before accounted for in the appeal to be the objection of fools, when Calvin owns the ſame to be his Judgement.

Thirdly, for Miſrendring a paſſage out of Auſtins 3. B. de Anima, fathring that upon Vincentius Victor, that is not there ſaid of him.

…ourthly, for tranſlating foreign, to ſignify only an Infant without underſtanding, p. 11. Inf. Bapt. when the contrary is true, as appears 2 Tim. 3, 4. Thou haſt known the holy Scriptures a Child, there is the ſame word.

Laſtly, whether your ſolemn Appeal to the Searcher of hearts, 7. Hypocriſy.that you have no malignity to my Perſon, having ground to hope I am a Godly Man; and in your Preface to Vind. that you love me as a Brother though erring, and had much rather convince then ſhame me, can be well reconciled to ſincerity, and not rather ſpeaking lyes in hypocriſy: when it is conſidered, Firſt, how you have declined all fair Brotherly waies p. 77of receiving ſatisfaction, chooſing rather in this publick manner to reproach and ſlander me upon hear-ſay: 2. Jeer and Scoff at me: 3. to Raile upon and Revile me in that unchriſtian manner you have done, ſpeaking ſo much evil of me falſly: 4. proclaiming me with your Aſſociates in the Gazette and in the Catalogues (where you know I cannot follow you for my vindication) 5. And at laſt ſo groundleſly, diſorderly, not to ſay maliciouſly, to Appeal to the Baptiſt… againſt me, as a perſon that has added contumacy to my miſtakes and evils.

All which is recommended to your Conſcience in the ſight of God, (and all that are conſcienciouſly concerned with you) leaving it to your choice, which of your promiſes you will keep, whether that in the concluſion of your firſt Pref. Vind. To anſwer me by ſilence, becauſe you will not gape againſt an Oven: Or that in the end of your laſt Preface, viz. That if I can make it appear that you have wronged me herein, as you can truly ſay you did it not willingly: So you faithfully promiſe to make me publick ſatisfaction, by acknowledging your miſtakes.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAg. 8. l. ult. r. enjoyned, p. 10. l. 28. r. Rhenanus, p. 14. l. 32. r. obloquy, p. 18. l. 13. dele rhe, and the Comma at Doctor, l. 23. r. to ſpeak, l. 26. r. words, p. 19. l. 28. r. by them, p, 21, l, 15, dele that, p. 35. l. 27 r. ought ſo to do, p. 38 l. 1. r. codice, p. 41. l. 16 & 19. r. Aquinas, p, 51, l, 19, r, philautia, p. 52. l. 8, r, malevolent, l, 17, r. Munſter and, p, 55, l, 21, r, that they, l, 32, r, for, p. 65. l. 23. dele of, p, 67, l, 19, r, every, l, 25, r, venemous, p, 70, l, 12, r, Oſiander, p. 73. l. 8. for do now r. do not you, l. 27. r. Eunomium. p, 74, l, 8, r, Nazianzen, equalizing, l, 9, and 18, r, Aquinas.

I deſire the Reader, where I mention to Mr. Will's (in p, 2, Pref. and p. 51, & 53,) the miſtakes I own, not to underſtand it excluſive of thoſe few ſlight and immaterial ones not mentioned there, as that of the Canon of Conſtant, which I my ſelf found to be ſpurious, that of Chryſoſtom's not being in a different Character, my tranſlating the paſſage of Nazianzen, metaphraſtically, putting Zonaras for the Magdeburgs; that of Mr. Baxters, work, for be no ſuch cauſe.