and so one would indeed for if Faith must go before and Children have no Faith then only professed Believers were the Subjects And again if None but the Catechumens and those instructed in the Faith were to be Baptised then surely no Children were to be Baptised who were so uncapable both of the one and the other Therefore by the way it must be granted that this was a proper proof to evidence that the Eastern Church in his time admitted only of Adult Baptisme which he is pleased to say is so abominably false And to evince my Forgery and Falshood from the good acquaintance he would have you think he had with this Father that the same Author viz. Bazil in the very next lines to which I had above cited speak thus as he confidently affirms What then say you of Infants which neither know good nor evil may we baptise them Yea saith â—e for so we are taught by the Circumcising of Children And therefore saith he hence-forward have a care Reader how ye trust the Authors Quotations for the palpable abuse done to this Father Answer ∣ ed. 8 To which I say but if the abuse prove his own what then And that it is so the Reader will presently understand Know therefore that the Quotations out of Bazil's Exhortation to Baptisme you 'l find in the Magdeburgs Century 4. cap. 6. p. 416. in these words Bazilius non alios quam Catechumenos Baptizatos esse scribit Basil say they writes that none other but the Catechumens were baptised And then in the next lines immediately following nothing intervening say Qui in Paschale convocabantur in Exhortatione ad Baptismum Who are called together at Easter to be exhorted in order to their Baptisme There being no such syllable nor any thing like it either in the forgoing or following words I have also searched all that the Magdeburgs say of that Father and all Bazils works themselves and particularly the third Book against Eunomius but can find nothing like it I have also Examined the great Dutch Book of Martyrs that recites most of the principal passâ—ges that Bazil speaks of Baptisme and who from Mirningus and Montanus their great Century Writers do testify that he was altogether for Adult and wholy against Infants Baptisme He used to say Sicut enim credimus in Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum sic Baptizamur in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti As we do believe in the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit so we may be baptised in their names Cent. 4. p. 235. And in the definition he gives of Baptisme he calls it Sigillum Fidei Tessera Christiani Miliâ—is similitudo mertis sepulturae ac resurrectionis nortuorum The Seal of Faith the Badge of the Christian Soldier and the Symbole of death burial Resurrection from the dead And again very fully Quicunque baptizatur sive Judaeus sive Graecus sive Masculus sive Foemina quacunque generit differentia nominatus exutus in sanguine Christi veterem hominem cum actibus suis per doctrinam ipsius novum in Spiritu Sancto indutus qui secundum Deum conditus est in justitia sanctitate veritatis ac renovatur ad ignitionem secundum imaginem ejus qui condidit ipsum c. That who ever is baptised whether Jew or Greek male or female c. have put off by the Blood of Christ the old Man with his deeds and by his Doctrine have put on the new Man by the holy Spirit who according to God is built up in the Righteousness and holyness of the truth and renewed in knowledge according to the Image of him that created him c. And therefore in his Book of Baptisme doth largely treate of the necessity of partaking of the Lords Supper that other Ordinance of Christ immediately after Baptisme Regenerati vero in nomine Filii baptisati sumus Filii Dei declarati opus itaque deinceps nutriamur cibo vitae aeternae Those of us that are Regenerate and have made declaration of the Son of God and are Baptised in his name it is meet that we should immediately be nurished with the food of Eternal life viz. the Bread of God in that Ordinance And whether all this is not agreeable to what before was said of this Doctor is left to the Reader to judge being also one of those say the Magdeburgs that made that former Decree in the Councel of Neocaesaria But you 'l say how came Mr. Wills by this saying it is to be supposed he did not make it which will be with him to declare and how he came to father it upon Bazil that no man could ever find in him before It is true the words I find exactly to be the words of Gregory Nazienzen but not of Bazil as Cent. 4. cap. 4. p. 234. Oratione in sanctum Lavacrum tertia Quid de Infantibus ais qui neque gratia quid ne sit paena cognorunt nam illos baptizemus Maxime quidem si periculum aliquod imminet melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non signatos initiatos vita excedere all which Mr. Wills leaves out then adds Idque nobis designat post octavum diem Circumcisio illa quae figurale fuit signaculum What will you say of Children which are neither sensible of good or evil shall we Baptisme them yes by all means in Case of urgent danger for it is better to be sanctified without their knowledge then to dye without it for so it hapned to the Children of Israel in Circumcision But suppose there had been such a Sentence as Mr. Wills saith followeth I had cited enough of the Father to confirm the truth of what I asserted viz. that instruction and Faith according to Christs Commission was necessary to precede Baptisme And that none but the Adult that made Profession of Faith were to be baptised And if he should have contradicted himself as some others had done it would have been their parts that should avouch him in the behalf of Infants Baptisme to have reconciled such a contradiction to those his former assertions But to put the matter more out of doubt I procured a Friend to write to Master Wills to know where that passage was to be found in Bazil To which he made this following return viz. As to that passage of Bazil Mr. Wills Letter to his Friend about the Quotation of Bazil I do not charge Master D. with misquoting but partially quoting and misapplying him and upon Examination of my Papers cannot find any Page to which that passage of mine concerning that Father doth refer But when I go to Oxford where I made my Collection I may be able to give better satisfaction Therefore upon the whole respecting this passage I appeal to the Reader whether Mr. Wills is not found tardy and justly reprovable in the following particulars viz. Mr. Wills guilty of much
of Pope Caelestine against them for the same Twelfethly The Decrees and bloody actings of Pope Innocent the third against them for the same The writings also of several learned Men of these times that opposed the Waldenses in this point and charged the whole party therewith viz. Eckbertus Erbrardus Ermigendus Cluniacenses Bernard Durandus Thomas Walden And to whom we add some others of great eminency that have come to hand viz. Ermingerdus Ermingerdus who wrote his Book contra Waldenses in this Age wherein he chargeth them in these words Dicunt etiam quod nulli nisi proprio ore corde hoc Sacramentum pâ—tat potest prodesse Inde adducentes hunc errorem quod parvulis Baptismus aquae nihil prosit They say that the Sacrament of Baptisme can profit none but those who with their own proper mouths and hearts desire the same from whence they draw the error that water Baptisme is not profitable to little Children Vet. Bib. Pat. Tom. 5. p. 1250. And Rainerius Rainerius in his Book contra Waldenses saith De Baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur Infantibus nihil profit item quod patrini non intelligent quià respondeant Sacerdoti Concerning Baptisme they say that that which is given to little Children profits nothing and that the Gâ—ssips understand not their Responses to the Priests Bib. Patr. Tom. 13. pag. 300 301 c. And which evidence I desire the Reader to take the more notice of because Mr. Wills doth so positively deny that Rainerius in the Catalogue of their errors gives not the least hint of any such thing no not one word of their denying Infants Baptisme which he saith is very strange if he had understood any thing thereof Wills p. 96 97 98. You have also Favâ—n Favin the French Chronologer testifying that in these times viz. twelfth and tâ—irteenth Century the Albigensâ—s did deny Infants Baptisme esteeming it superstitious Against all which he gives no particuler exception only saith these two things First that whereas I cite two Canons of Pope Alexander the third that was but just about the rise of the Waldenses who were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons about 1160. as Perin informeth And which is evidence as he supposeth against the former Decrees inferring that those mentioned to be made before that time were before they were a People And Secondly in pag. 60. saith That tâ—eâ—e is no coâ—vincâ—ng prâ—of to be fetcht from hence of their being against Iâ—fants Baptisme because they were their Enemies calumniating malicious Papists that loaded them with all manner of reproaches to render them odious And that unless some one doth out of their one mouths give better â—vidence he shall believe with Mr. Marshal that this Doctrine of opposing the baptizing of Infants of Believers is an Innovation no ancienter then the Anabaptists in Germany and for which he quotes Joseph Vice-comes L. 2. c. 1. pag. 103. in Mr. Wâ—llâ— pag. 60. 2. part 1. Waldense so called from the Vallyes from Ancient time To both which I say First to the first Exception you will find that Beza tells us that they mistake themselves that say they were called Waldenses from Peter Waldo in as much as they were so called from the place of thâ—ir abode in the Valleyes as at large you have it in mine pag. 338 342. And that Claudius Sciscelius Counceler to Charles the Great in the eight Century mentions them by that name in his Book contra Waldenses But however the People or Sect of the Waldenses were known or distinguished by several names as the People of Lyons c. as Eusebius tells us p. 340. And set forth in story under divers names in several Ages as Doctor Vsher tells us and which you have more particulerly p. 338 c. And to the second that there is convincing proof offred from the Decrees of Popes Kings and Councels Mr. Marshals grant let Mr. Marshals grant suffice who in pag. 63. of his Defence for Infants Baptisme saith thus I shall desire you to shew that any Company nr Seâ—t if you will so call them have denyed Infants Baptisme produce if you can any of their Confessions alledge any Acts of any Councels where this Doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councel And which I presume is substantially done both from their Confessions of Faith and from Acts of Councels also where such were condemned And as to that Quotation out of Vicecomes to prove that none denyed Infants Baptisme till the German Anabaptists I heartily thank him for it which you 'l find doth the contrary giving an Account of several that denyed Infants Baptisme before that time as you have it in the Quotation he refers to p. 102 103. telling us in these words That as the Adult Baptisme Vicecom ownes that many had denyed Infants Baptisme of old no one ever doubted thereof witness as he saith the Monuments or Writings of all the holy Fathers and Occumenical Councels as well as the Scriptures themselves especially the Acts of the Apostles But as for Infants Baptisme he tells us that Vincentius Victor Hincmarus of Laudum the Henâ—ricâ— and Apostolici in Bernard and Cluniacenses time John Wickliff in his 4. Book of Trialog c. 2. Walafrid Strabo Ludovicus Vives c. did all of them witness against it in their times So that we have a good confirming evidence from his Authority to establish the truth we have asserted and he denyed It is true Vicecomes in the same place adds amongst the rest of the witnesses against Infants Baptisme Luther Calvin and Beza and the reason is because they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church of Rome ordained and practised it setting it up in a New way without the Services and Ceremonies of the Church and which was all one to them as if it was not practised at all and therefore did the Church of Rome renownce of old as you have heard the Baptisme of the Greek Church as the Greeks renownced theirs rebaptised those that were baptised by either as much as if it had not been at all by either side 4. From the Footsteps they had left thereof in several Countrys And Fourthly That the Waldenâ—es did deny Infants Baptisme appears from the Footsteps we find hereof in those respective Regions and places where they had heretofore imprinted it as appears by the followâ—ng instances it being acknowledged that they were dispersed all Europa over viz. In Germany First In Germany through all the parts thereof where they planted Churches and has Schooâ—s in so much that their Barbes could travel all the Countrey over and lye every night at a Frieâ—ds house wherein both by Dâ—ctrine and suffering this truth was eminently câ—nfirmed and for which you have several instances from most parts of the Country from p. 256 to 260. Sâ—iâ—zâ—rland Secondly In Switzerland where in like manneâ— it was witnessed toâ— from 260 to 267. Flandres
upon it as p. 110. 4. By abusing his Reader with a supposititious Testimony of Athanasius when the Author from whom he brings it owns it to be forged p. 37 38 39. c. 5. His egregious unfaithfullness in that notorious abuse he puts upon Osiander pretending that he certifies several things out of Peter Clumacenses against Peter Bruis belâ—nging to the 12. Cent. when he knew them to be the Lying slanders of the Monks inquisitors against the Albegois in the 13. Cent. and of which he picks only 5. particulars out of 20. as p. 118. to 123. 6. His abusing and mistranslating a passage out of Cassander quite contrary to what he expresseth falsly thereby accusing the Minis's for the very crime therein he acquits them p. 160. to 163. 7. His abusing Erasmus telling us that he testifyes in his Censure before Origens Homelyes on the Romans that it was Jeroms Version and not Ruffinus's and that Jeroms Preface was prefixed thereto Whereas Erasmus saith the quite contrary in both viz. First that it did appear to be Ruffinus 's and not Jeroms and 2ly that the said Preface was a cheat of the Book sellers and none of Jeroms as p. 86. 8. His abusing his Reader by a Quotation from Vicecomes as though he testify'd that till Luthers time none deny'd Infants Baptism when he doth the quite contrary in the same place giving an Account of so many before Luther that did it viz. Vincentius Victor Hinemarus the Henrici and Apostolici Wickliff Strabo Vives c. as p. 127. 9. By further abusing the Reader in telling him that Rainarius in his Catalogue of the Waldensian errors gives not in their denying of Infants Baptism as a great Argument they were for it being one of the Monks inquisitors imployed to that end when he doth it expresly in Totidem verbis as p. 125. 10. His double dealing about Dr. Taylors Arguments against Infants Baptism in his Liberty of Prophecy suggesting as though Dr. Taylor himself and Dr. Hammond had refuted them whereas they suppose most of them to remain good against those common pleas for Infants Baptism but do not undertake to answer them because many of those Arguments usually brought by Paedobaptists are not good in themselves p. 52. Fourthly Fearful ositanacy or heedlesness repeating my words truly in one place and yet afterwards Fathering the quite contrary upon me as p. 32. Fifthly Notoriously partial in his Answers all the Book through replying to some things he judges weak and leaving others unanswered and yet vaunting over the whole as for instance in the 4. Cent. I give the sayings of 10 Fathers for adult Baptisme he replys only to 4. of them saith not a word to the rest and yet concludes against them all as p. 6. c. So in like manner as to the 10. Instances given from the most eminent men not baptized till aged though the children of Christian Parents replys only to 4. and not a word to the other 6. and yet concludes against them all as though he had particularly answered to them as p. 11. to 15. though his reply as you 'l finde is as insignificant in both as his silence And further I produce 3. Councils in the 4. Cent. for the same to which he weakly replyes he can produce 3 times ten Councells for Infants Baptism viz. in after centuryes when by Popish Counclls it was injoind and imposed as p. 10. And again I quote Spanhaemius and Osiander to prove a thing he takes notice only of Spanhaemius that speaks to part but not to Osiander that speaks to the whole and yet reproves me for my mistake as p. 148. c. And further he allows but two witnesses for Beleevers Baptism only viz Boemus and Srabo and yet leaves multitudes of them unexcepted against unreplyd to as p. 2. c. In like manner excepts against but 6. of above 40. particular witnesses against Infants Baptisme and yet allows but 2. viz. Hincâ—â—arus and Adrianus as p. 104 105. And again I quote eleven several Churches denying Infants Baptism he exceps only against 3 saith nothing to all the rest yet owns none of them p. 17. Sixthly the inveteracy of spirit testified all along both against the professors and profession it self of Beleivers Baptism only especially in his railing and false accusations from p. 145. to 171. As for my Epitomizing and repeating some of Mr Tombes s Arguments and not alwayes mentioning his name which he calls Plaigiarisme I do confess in that my collection I have not so punctually mentioned all our own party from Book to book wherein except in the Historical part I do little more then bring to remembrance in a new Method for the benefit of the present age what has heretofore in large Treatises been writ upon this subject which I think is usual in Polemical writings if I mistake not Mr Sydnham doth the same thing without mentioning of names from whom the arguments are brought which may be endless And if I have been thereby injurious to any I beg their pardon I am sure I have not been so to the truth But herein I conceive Mr Will 's hath not dealt fairly 1st to reprove me for the same thing he doth himself for I could draw paralells too upon him if I would be troublesome and impertinent and 2ly to avoid answering the force of the Arguments upon pretence they are anothers not my own which I conceive savours little of ingenuity and will scarse go for current pay It is true it must be owned that Mr Tombes how much soever slighted by M. Will 's though in some things very different from most that own this way hath done very worthily in this controversy was an eminent instrument that God raised up amongst the learned to plead and defend that despised truth whose learned labours and unanswered Books do witness for him in the gate though M. Will 's is pleased so ignorantly to vaunt it tell us in his Epistle that the Arguments for believers against Infants Baptisme are a parcel of Trite overworn things a nauseous crambe or repitition of old routed Arguments that had been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again though his Anti-paedobaptism in 3 parts containing neer as I judge 1500. pages in quarto replying to what had been written by above 20 several persons are all of them if I am not misinformed unreplied to to this day And further I must inform the Reader that had any modest endeavours prevailed these things had more privately without this troubleing the world been rectifyd between Mr Will 's and me But he having as he tells us received from the learned his Album calculum or approbation would not by any means be stopt in his career for the supposed victory and glory And how far he has merrited that high Encomium given by his Imprimatur M. B. in his Epistle Recommendatory is to be considered who tells us that much thanks is due to him the
which was through a superstitious conceit that Baptisme might save them as some give the Eucharist and Extream unction when they are just departing In like manner there was also in this Age an opinion that some had to Baptise Children Sick Persons Baptised for cure to cure them of their Beaâ—ly diseases Magd. Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 423. As they were grown Persons also in the next Age to cure them Aug. to 7. col 89. c. But what are either of these to that Ordinance of Baptisme Tertullian that as Doctor Barlow tells us was so great an opposer of Infants Baptisme as irrational and unwarrentable yet had this fancy of Baptizing a dying Child to save it which signifies just nothing to the thing pleaded for and that Persons may as well bring Protogenes for an Authority that pretended to Baptize the sick Children of this Age to cure their deceases as Gregorie and Tertulian for Baptizâ—ng of dying Children to save their Souls So that all our instances from the sayings of our Eminent Men stands as yet firme for us notwithstanding what Mr. Wills has said to the contrary Secondly as to the Decrees of the three Councels he saith this That if it must go by the number of Councels they shall carry it for if I name three that must be supposed to be against Infants Baptisme he thinks he should not exceed if he said he could name ten times three for it Besides he conceives that these three Councels mentioned by me had respect only to Pagans in those their Decrees from what Mr. Marshall had said in answer to that of Neocaesaria His exceptions against the Councels very frivolous To his first answer I say It is granted I think as I have made it ready to his hand he may quote the Canons of thirty Councels for Infants Baptisme in the following ages and a stout argument no doubt for it But what are such Decrees to this fourth Century wherein I produce three for Believers Baptisme upon Profession and free choice and he not one in this time as indeed it is impossible he should there being none found to ordain any such thing till after this Century And as to his conception that the Neocaesarian Councel means only Pagans and not the Children of Christian Women as he saith Mr. Marshal hath made appear and therefore in his usuall civility tells me how impudent it is in me to trouble us with this silly Ridiculous story He must therefore know that he and Mr. Marshal both do miss the Case the stress of the Decree lyes not about the Parent but for the Exclusion of all Children whether of Pagan or Christian Parents because confession and free choice is required in that Sacrament And therefore saith Grotius from the Glossers That an Infant cannot be Baptised because it hath no power to confess or choose the Divine Baptisme And which speaks reason saith Doctor Tayler and intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of their Creed which is one Argument saith he that either they did not admit Infants to Baptisme or that they did praevaricate egregiously in asking Questions of them who themselves know were uncapable of giving answers So that we have as little prevaricated in our Councels as in our Fathers Thirdly the next exception he makes Excepts against 4. of the 10. not Baptised in their Infancy is against the Instances of those eminent Men not Baptised till aged and of the ten before mentioned he gives in exceptions only against four viz Constantin Nazienzen Chrysostome and Austin By which we have gained six other unperverted Authorities more and surely it is of much weight that if six such eminent Persons the Children of Christian Parents were not Baptised till they could make a Confession of their Faith it is a substantial Argument that Believers Baptisme was the Baptisme generally owned in this Age and that Infants Baptisme was not yet received as an Apostolical Tradition and ordinance of Christ whilst so many Renowned worthyes of this Age the Parents of these great Men should neglect to Baptize them in their Infancy for the Argument lyes there and not as Mr. Wills so weakly reasons from some misapprehensions in the parties themselves as in p. 17. Constant the Son of Christians Parents as But as to the Exceptions themselves First as to Constantin if he and Mr. Marshal doubt whether Constantin had Godly Parents at his birth As good Historians as they do not As Grotius and Dailly Dailly witnessing to Helana's Christianity before his birth as p. 60. 62. And the Magdeburgs Magd. to that of his Father Cent. 4. p. 61. Out of Eusebius in these words Constantinus Constantii Imperatoris Filii bonus a bono pius a pio Constantine the son of Constantius a good man from a good a holy man from a holy one Nazian the Son of Christians Parents as Magd. As to that of Nazienzen I wonder Mr. Wills should cavil about him seeing he knows the Magdâ—burgs in the Account they give of his life tell us from such undeniable Authority That his Father Gregorius was a pious Bishop and his Mother Nonna a gracious holy Woman before his Birth and that she by prayer obtained this her son of God and how from his youth he did patrizare matristatim a puero Paternis moribus imbutus est Mag. Cent. 4. pag. 9â—4 c. Besides in confirmaâ—ion thereof Doctor Hall Dr. Halls as Mr. Tombes tell us in his Honour to his married Clergy 2 Book 8. Sect. saith That Nazienzen was begotten of his Father being a Bishop and to prove it brings his Fathers words speaking to him to perswade him to helpe him in his charge which he translates out of the Greek viz. The years of thy age are not so many as of my Priesthood confirming what was said above out of the Magdeburgs As for Chrysostome he saith Mr. Marshal saith Chrisost Christian Parents as it is uncertain whether Father and Mother were Christians at his birth But as for that we will let it rest upon Grotius's testimony Grotius as you have it p. 61. whom none can think a partiall Author in this Case being so firmly for Infants Baptisme and without dispute so well read in Antiquity And as for Austin I will recommend you to two instances to make it good Austin Christian Parents as and clear Mr. Wills doubts Thâ— one is Doctor Tayler Dr. Tayler not in his Liberty of Prophecy which is excepted against by Mr. Wills but how warrentably we shall hereafter examine but in one of his last pieces viz. in his Deswasive against Popery printed 1667. where you have him in Sect. 3. p. 117. thus expressing himself viz. That there is no pretence of Tradition that the Church in all ages did Baptize all the Infants of Christian Parents it is more certain that thâ—y did not do it then that they did
and many suffred Bonds and Martyrdom from Protestant Brethren for the profession thereof p. 260. 5. Thessalonians The Churches in Thessalonica of the same Faith and practise p. 76. 6. Flemings The Churches of Christ in Flanders asserting the same and multitude of Martyrs that witnessed thereto by blood p. 267 c. 7. Bohemians The Churches in Bohemia witnessing to this truth and their great sufferings for the same pag. 271. 8. Hungarians The Churches of Hungaria of the same practice p. 274. 9. Poles The Churches in Poland of like Faith and practise p. 274. 10. Transilvanians The Churches in Transylvania of the same practice 274. 11. English The Churches in this Nation owning the same Principle and practise viz. First In the time of the ancient Britains p. 226. Secondly Vnder the name of Lollards from the Waldensian Barbe of that Name pag. 278. p. 203 204. Thirdly Vnder the name Wickliffians who asserted also that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptisme p. 283. And Lastly Since Henry the Eight's time under the name of Anabaptists p. 306. Against which latter testimony from these respective Churches in these several Regions he only excepts against the Donatists Waldenses and ancient Britains denying that they were of this Faith and practise which you have particulerly replyed to in the third Chapter where the witnesses against Infants Baptisme are defended But in the mean time it must be remembred that the rest stand good as not excepted against Secondly you have the Testimony 2. The witness born to Baptisme after Faith by those that owned Infants Baptisme born to this truth by many Eminent Men and Churches that have owned and practised Infants Baptisme since the imposing thereof some of whom are these that follow as you find them in the respective Centuries viz Chrysostom Austin Gregory Cassiodorus Haimo Rabanus Anselm Algerus Rupertus Lumbard Albertus Belarmine Grotius Luther Calvin Hamond Dailly Tayler Baxter Church of England All or most of them affirming with the Church of England that Faith and Repentance is required in all those that are to be Baptised viz. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and Faith whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises To all which Testimony Mr. Wills especially quarrels me for perverting as he saith Mr. Wills exceptions against this part for the Testimony their sayings against there intended sences by improving what they say for Adult Baptisme wherein they meant only Strangers and Pagans converted to the Faith against Infants Baptisme which is in an other way and upon an other Account And for being so notoriously contradictious to my self in saying they are for Believers Baptisme in one part of the History and yet the same Men and Councels for Infants Baptisme in an other Replyed to To which I say that by Quoting their sayings that are so expresly for us though it may be not intended so I have done no injury 1. Not quoted for Anabâ—ptist First because I do not quote them as Anabaptists or to prove that Believers Baptisme was the only Bâ—ptisme of those Centuries that would have been madness and contradiction with a witness and which he seems to father upon me 2. But Argumâ—nt ad homineur Secondly because nothing is more fair or frequent then to improve mens own sayings against themselves for their better conviction and clearing the truth as Mr. Tombes has brought Mr. Baxters 20. Arguments against himself and therefore called his Book Felo de se and no more injury done thereby then Mr. Tombes saith was done by Bishop Morton in alledging the Romanists words in there writings as an Advocate for the Protestants against themselves but right done thereby as he saith to the Church of God So that what they say respecting the Commission for the necessity of teaching profession and confession and so as their w rds necessarely exclude any other but such câ—pable Subjects what injury to improve it for the truth and to which I have spoken much to prevent Cavils of this kind as you 'l find it p. 85 86 and in the Praeface Austin so for Adult Baptisme in wâ—rds as to exc â—â—e â—ntanâ—s For instance If Austin tells us in one place That 〈…〉 put due Examination both to Doctrine and Conversation ought to be Baptised and that no igâ—orant or scandelous Pâ—rson without due instruction and fruits of Repentance are to be admitted to Baptisme what can be spoken more agreeable to truth and more indeed to assert Believers Baptisme to be the only Bâ—ptisme and to exclude any other that are noâ— capable to act Faith or testefy fruits for if no other as he saith then not Infants Yet the same Austin in contradiction hereto saith How weakly contradâ—ctiously Austin asserts Infants Baptisme Let Infants be baptised by the Faith of another to take away Original sin without which they can neither be Regenerated or saveâ— Now compare these two together what sound Christian will not say that Austin before spoke the mind of Christ in wholesome sound word and herein his own words if not corrupt and heretical For as one well observes that such Doctrine as this was the greatest poyson that ever the Father of Lyes powred into the hearts of Sinners to make People think that sprinkling a little water on the face could Regenerate take away sin and save the Soul and beget grace ex opero operato by the work done Calvin in one place tells us 2. Calvin for Believers Baptisme by Rule the due and right order of Baptisme from the Commission saying thus viz. That Men may rightly offer themselves to Baptismeâ— Confession of sins is required otherwise the whole action would be nothing else but spâ—rt Yet in another place in contradiction hereto saith Let the Children of Believers be baptised Calvin for Infants Bapâ—isme in contradictâ—on hereto wiâ—hout Rule because God having taken their Parents into Covenant they themselves aâ—â— also to be imbracâ—d in the same Covenant Neither is Baptisme hereby separated from Faith and teaching because though Children have not yet Faith nor are capable of teaching yet their Parents have both But by what Rule or Reason this latter is urged and how possibly to be Reconciled with the former so agreeable to both is the knot to be untyed 3. Mr. Baxter for Believers Baptisme by precept Example So also Mr. Baxter upon Christ Commission Matth. 28.20 This saith he sheweth the Disciples their several works in their several Orders viz. First to make Disciples which Mark calls Believers Secondly is to Baptize them whereto is annexed the promise of Salvation Thirdly to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ And that to contemn this order is to contemn all Rules of Order professing his conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of Faith even saying that must go before Baptisme the Profession whereof the Minister must
Practise of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believiâ—g Parents And withall that though h mselâ— had not anâ—wered those Arguments in his Libertâ— of Prâ—pâ—eâ—y which some thought stood in need of an wering Yet D ctoâ— Hamond hâ—d effectually done the same in his Letter of Resolution to six Qâ—eryes pag. 35 36 c. To which I reply Answ That as to those Arguments of Dâ—ctor Taylers I have already in the Prâ—face of both my Books said to this purpose That what ever was his ju gement or end in writing those things yet it was meet to remark them to the World that the Wisdom and Power of God might more appear if an Eâ—emy to bring â—orth such convincing Aâ—guments and Reaâ—ons from his own mouth to witness to his dispised reproached truth Yet truly Reasons why the pâ—ea for Anabaptists was Dr. Taylers own sence 1. Reason for what as yet appears to the contrary the Doctor seems to have spoken therein his own as well as ur apprehension in the greatest part of those Arguments and that for these following Demonstrations First Because the Doctor having spoken to all the usual Arguments brought by the Protestaâ—ts for Infants Baptisme and answered them distinctly doth in the conclusion speaking his own words say these two things very considerable First that through the weakness of the Paedobaptists Arguments which are nâ—t good in thâ—mselves those other Argâ—ments in plea for the Aâ—abaptists are good in â—pposing them and so they are accidentally strenght ed in their errour as he calls it by the weâ—â—ness and coâ—fiâ—ence of weak oppâ—sition And it is to be observed thâ—t those Arguments which he so reproves as weak and with so much Demonstration hath Baffled are these that fâ—llow summed up bre slâ— in his own words Paedobaptiâ—â—s Argumeâ—tâ— by 〈◊〉 â—aylâ—r Liberty of Prophecy p. 228 First tâ—e Aâ—gumeâ—ts pleaded from the instâ—â—â—tioâ— of the Type viz. Circumcisiâ—n Gen. 17. Secondly From the action of Christ calling little Children to come to him to bless them Matth. 19.14 Thirdly From the Title Infants have to Heaven Fourthly From the Gospel Instruction and Precept Joh. 3 5. Fifthly From the energy of the promise Acts 2.38 39. Sixthly From the Reasonableness of the thing 1 Cor. 7. Seventhly From the infinite necessity on the Childrens part Eightly From the Apostolical practice who having Commission to teach all Nations baptizing them did Baptize whole Housholds Infants being part of Nations and Housholds Tenthly From the universal practise of the Church and Gossips to answer for them to supply incapacity made good by Tradition The Answer he gives hereto These are the Arguments that he answers distinctly which first in the Anabaptists plea he saith pretend fairly and signify nothing some of these Alligaeions being false some impertinent and all the rest insufficient And all which agreeable hereto in his own words after he had replyed to every one of them he was pleased to pronounce weak and insuffiicient and which had therefore given so much strength and confirmation to the Anabaptists way 2. Reason And Secondly concludes all with these words That there is much more truth then evidence oâ— their side and giving no better or other Argument to aemonstrate that truth was with them Now I appeal to all Men of understanding whether any but a Person that disponded the goodness of his Cause and designed wholy to give it up could say that the evidence demonstration or proof was on his Adversaries side all his own pleas brought forth being removed and taken away himself being Judge But 't is said Objection That though he mentioned no other Arguments then yet he afterwards did in that which Mr. Wills calls his Excellent piece for Infants Baptisme Wills p. 36. It is true Answer about six years after he had writen his Liberty of Prophecy that being writ 1647. he did Anno 1653. being much laid at by many of his Friends and having given such general offence to his whole party thereby take himself concerned to say something Being a 3. Reason to perswade the World he was of an other mind though when he had said it it amounts to just nothing to any considering Person and which may appear to you from these Reasons following First Because he undertakes not to answer 1. D. Tayler Answers none of those Arguments or invalidate one of those Arguments whereby he had on the Anabaptists behalf overthrown all those weak Arguments before mentioned and that though some judged they stood in need of answering and that he had thoughts to have done it yet he forbore it upon some considerations which Master Wills repeates from him p. 36. Secondly 2. Repeats only some of the old Baffled Arguments Because what he saith in that Treatise which Mr. Wills so boasts off is not any new thing but some of the very same Arguments he had before juâ—ged so weak and insuffiicient and had so substantially answered and baffled As first that from Circumcisioâ— Secondly From Children right to the Kingdom of Heaven Thirdly To adopt them into the Coverant Fourthly From Apostolical tradition Only adds two or three more savoring more grosly of Popery viz. from the use and necessity of Baptisme to pardon thiir sin Regenerate and save them 3. Because in othâ—r Books he confirmed the truth of them And Thirdly it also appears that he spoke his own mind and sense therein because in those two Books he wrote so many years after viz. in his Diâ—wasive against Popery second part and in his Rule of Conscience he hath spoken so much agreeable hereto as before hath been observed to you viz. That there was no Apostolâ—cal Tradition for Infants Baptiâ—me That it was nâ—t practised fill the third nor judged necessary till the fourth Century That there was no Scriptural proof for Infants Bâ—ptisme That the Children of Christian Parents were not Bâ—ptisme till they came to understanding for the first Ages And that dipping and not sprinkling was the usage of Christ and his Apostles and constant Doctrine and practâ—â—e of the the Ancients for maâ—y hundred years And which I conceive are substantial Arguments to prove the Doctor sâ—oâ—e his owns as well as our judgement therein and which I must stand by till I see better Reason to the contrary Oâ—jection But 't is said one Reason Doctor Tayler gives why he did not answer those Arguâ—ents was because his worthy Frâ—end Doctor Hamond had in charity and humility descended to answer that Collectiâ—n Answer It is true indeed Doctor Hamond in that piece called his Letter of Râ—solutoin to six Queries bound up now in his first volume in Folio p. 481 doth therein pretend to reply thereto as being as he confesseth the most diligent Collection that he ever met with wherein the Arguments of the Adversaries are so inforced that he knew not where to furnish himself with so exact a scheame But how far he hath performed that Task and answered those Arguments
Commentarii Adamantii titulo For so he seems to think whosoever he was whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke under the title of Adamantius which shews saith he that Erasmus took them not to be Origens or at least doubted thereof Vossius And Vossius Disputatio 14. Sect. 8. p. 181. saith thus having cited Origens whole testimony out of Luke c. Sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabimus Graece non extant But we care the less for Origens because the things we cited are not extant in the Greek And Scultetus Scultetus in his Medul Pat. L. 6. c 2. Cum Graeca Originis Opera non extant hodie quibus Latina versio corrigi possit emendari That Origens works in Greek were not at present extant by which the Latin vâ—rsion might be corrected and amended And Erasmus Erasmus Atque utinam extarent Graeca Originis monumentâ— quo Ruffinicas artes possemus deprehenâ—ere And I wish that the Greek Copies of Origen were extant that so we might thereby discover the cheats of Ruffinus 3. Origen was more a Pelagian tâ—â—n to assert Original sin But Serondly there is good Reason to question that those things about Infants Baptisme were not Origens from the Reasons that is added to them viz. to take away Original Sin whereas it is so well known that Origen was not only a great Arian but the very Fountain and head of them as Jerom and Epiphanius calls him Magdeb. Century 3. p. 261. c. But notoriously did deny Original sin as pag. 265. And therefore doth Doctor Owin in his display of Arianisme ch 12. say Nor did Origen Pelaginise a little only but is supposed first to have brought Pelaginisme into the Church And therefore doth Vossius in his History of Pelaginisme L. 4. Th. 6. pag. 153. So much Question whether those passages in his works mentioning Infants Baptisme could be his upon the account of Pelaginisme By all which I doubt not but that the judicious Reader will conclude there is a good Ground to judge this Testimony of Origens upon all these Accounts to be as invallid and insignificant as the former and that as yet we have not the least evidence to prove this our unwriten Tradition to be Apostolicall The Last and chiefest Cyprians testimony examined that is pretended to warrant this an Apostolick Tradition is that of Cyprian in his and his 66. Bishops Epistle to Fidus who is placed by Vsher in the middle of the third Century 250. wherein it is said to this purpose viz. That it seemed good not only to himself An Epitomy of his Epistle but a whole Councel that Infants might be baptised before the eight day the Reasons to inforce it are these that Follow First Because the Baptisme was simpely necessary to Salvation Secondly That it washes away Original Sin so as it is never to be imputed more Thirdly Because the Grace of God is tendered to all therefore all Children should be baptised Fourthly Because Children have lesser sins then others and so they need less pardon then Men of grown years therefore less hindrance in them to come to Gods grace Fifthly Because in their first birth they do nothing but pray by their crying and weeping Sixthly Because the Soul that is not baptised is lost Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 8. Against which I gave in three Exceptions Former Exceptions First Because Infants Baptisme is not hereby urged for an Apostolical Tradition nor upon any Authority of Scripture but upon his own and Bishops Arguments as said such as they are to inforce it though if he should have said it was an Apostolical Tradition his word would no more have been taken then when he tells us Chrysme and other inventions were so too Secondly Because there is ground to Question whether there was any such Councel First Because there is no place mentioned where such a Councel was kept Secondly the grounds are so weak and erroneous Thirdly Because it was a doctrine so much contradicted by his great Master Tertullian Fourthly Because there were many things fathered upon him not his Thirdly That if it did truly appear to be his yet there was as little ground to receive it upon his word as the rest of his corrupt erroneous and Antichristian doctrines vented by him whereof you have some account from the Magdeburgs in his Naevi Mr. Wills answer to the first To the first he says though he did not say it was an Apostolical Tradition it follows not that he did not so own it the Magdeburgs say that he did so affirm it Reply To which I say that in proofâ— of Apostolical Tradition it is necessary to bring such only that upon warrantable ground are positive in it For this at the best can be urged but as a consâ—quential proof and far fetcht too viz. Because Cyprian in his time gave his opinion for it therefore it was practised in that age and because it was practised two hundred fifty years after Christs time therefore it was the practice of the Apostles which if allowed would be excellent authority for all the Superstitious observations of Chrysme Exorcisme and an hundred more of those knacks But he tells us the Magdeburgs say that Cyprian affirmed it was so And that is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm except some antient and authentick authority be produced for the same and it is not yet evidenced out of his writings that he any where saith so But as to what I say Mr. Wills Answer to the 2. part of the first that if Cyprian had any where upon his own word told us it had been an Apostolical Tradition yet it would have signified as little as his telling us that Chrysme was so He replyed And doth not the same exception lye against Tertullian who as the Magdeburgs tell us was the inventer of Chrysme and therefore says he is such inflexibleness stifness and partiality fair and equal To which I say Reply If Tertullian his Master was the inventer of Chrysme which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition what credit then is to be given to his testimony that dares to avouch so fearfull a lye so knowingly Secondly If he should tell us upon his own word two hundred years after that both were Apostolical we have great reason to distrust that of Infants Baptisme when we know the other is a manifest Falshood Neither is there the like reason to reject Tertullians Testimony against Infants Baptisme First because it is only urged as matter of Fact that Infants Baptisme was denyed by him to be an Ordinance of Christ the verity whereof I think never any doubted with the Reasons he gives for the same in his Book de Baptismâ— as Doctor Barlow and Doctor Tayler so fully acknowledge Had he indeed told us that two hundred years before him without any proof but his own say so some of the Apostles had denyed it and at the same
practise of Infants Baptisme fails none proving it higher by any approved Author then the fourth or fifth Century And then no other Baptisme then hath been renounced by most Protestants as corrupt and erroneus And that however the Papists and those that go their way may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth or fifth Century Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his then New England or at the furthest then Luther CHAP. III. Wherein the Witnesses against Infants Baptisme are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions THe Witnesses produced by me against Infants Baptisme were either particuler Persons or Churches as you have them at large mentioned in the seventh Chapter And first as to the evidence from particuler Persons Mr. Wills in his Preface tells us 1. From particuler Persons That notwithstanding all the flourishes Mr. D. makes and the numerous Quotations he hath fetcht from the Magdeburgensian History in his seventh Chapter from the first Century to the end of the twelfeth there are but two Persons to be found against Infants Baptisme viz. Adrianus and Hincmarus Mr. Wills ownes bâ—t two in the whole which is just the same Number he was pleased to allow me before for Believers Baptisme But whether these and their fellows may not speed as well as the former shall be put to as fair a trial and so submitted to judgement The first of my Witnesses urged against Infants Baptisme was Tertullian who doth Tertullian thc first witness as expressed pag. 221. eminently oppose it in six Arguments First from the mistaken Scripture Matt. 19.14 suffer little Children c. by which it seems some would have introduced such a practise which could not as he saith be properly applyed to Infants Baptisme for several Reasons urged from their incapacaties Secondly from the weigthiness of that Ordinanee which required Caution and consideration and no such haste Thirdly from the sinfulness of such a practice by Prophaning an Ordinance and partaking of others sins Fourthly from the absurdety of such a practise in refusing to intrust them with Earthly things and yet commit Spiritual things to their trust Fifthly from the Folly of exposing witnesses propounded it seems to supply the want of capacity in them and to undertake for them Sixthly from the consideration that the Adult upon many considerations were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme And to which we may add a Seventh which he is pleased so falsly to say I purposly and subtilly omitted there being no cause for it that I know viz. From the insignificancy of the end propounded for the same viz. To take away sin from Children Mr. Wills owns Tertullians wit To which testimony in the First place he gives us this acknowledgement pag. 96. viz. That it is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infants Baptisme but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church Where by the way we may take notice that our witness is owned by him but the general custom of the Church he speaks of is yet to be proved as utterly disowned by us and for which there is not the least colour of truth as yet produced And again pag. 6. he doth grant That the Magdeburgs do indeed tell us that Tertullian in this third Age opposed himself to some that asserted Infants Baptisme affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme Charges him witâ— corruption and weakness But what a corrupt Person he was and how weakly he had Reasoned he endeavors with much keeness to demonstrate In answer whereto I say that his witness being allowed and to be such a Doctor of Note too in the Latin Church it is sufficient and I think we need say nothing to those cavils of corruption and weakness the evidence being acknowledged the main thing intended and which will be endless to answer in every Authority that may be urged pro and con But yet in as much as he is our first witness and speaks so much Reason and truth and so much to the purpose And to make Mr. Wills his unreasonable opposition the better to appear we shall give some distinct reply to his Exceptions against this our witness whom he areignes for so much corruption in Doctrine and folly in this his particuler witness And first for that great corruption in Doctrine 1. The corrupt Doctrine he charges Tertullian with he charges him with about Chrysme Exorcisme c. I presume there are none of his ancient Doctors comes short of him and who were as much Montanists as he therein viz. Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin c. only herein Tertullian was more Orthodox holding none of those to be Jure Divino whilest they took them to be Apostolical Traditions and essential to Baptisme Magdeb. Century 3. chap. 10. pag. 240. compard 82. 225. 248. And for those evil sentiments of God and Christ it is certain that Origen did far exceed him as you will find at large in his Naevi pag. 261. c. and which argues a very partial mina to be so quick sighted in the one and so stark blind in the other And as to his being a Montanist before he wrote his Book of Baptisme which Mr. Wills affirms I see it not confirmed by any good Authority the Magdeburgs tell us that from Carthage he went to Rome Tertullian no Montanist before he wrote foâ— Baptisme and lived long there where he wrote against the Montanist and wrote his Book of Prescriptions as Helvicus saith the fifth of Severus which Mr. Wills ownes to be about the fortyth year of his age And the said Helvicus tells us that it was twenty years after before he wrote fore the Montanists And he that writes the lives of the Primative Fathers pag. 82. tells us that in the eleventh year of Severus Tertullian wrote his Book of Baptisme against Quiâ—tila in his third Tome next to his Prescriptions and in the fivetenth year his Book of the Resurrection c. But if he was turned Montanist before the matter is not much for it must be owned that a Man that is erroneous in one thing mâ—y be Orthodox enough in another The business is whether as to matter of fact he spoke these things against Infants Baptisme and that is not denyed And in the next place whether he spoke not reason and truth in that his testimony which in the next place we shall examine Therefore Secondly as to the weakness of his Argument which he renders so contemptible and ridiculous and guilty of so much dotage I make the following particuler reply to each exception viz. First as to his first Argument 1. He abused not the Text Mat. 19.14 from the mistaken Scripture he saith he abuseth the Text by his Paraphrases But second thoughts will I presume tell him it
Horrible things Remarkt by me without Controle as yet out of Mr. Bs. Directory savours not of too much Partiality is recommended to your better consideration Secondly No less infurious are you and Mr. W. also from the consideration of those Waldensian Confessions of Faith where they assert Infants Baptism to infer my mistaking of them in the whole and to soyl all my other Testimonies in the Book without taking the least notice how I cited the late Confessions word for word proving they were not till their Defection in the sixteenth Century and that then other Confessions citâ—â— by me were in the twelveth Cent. 400 years before nor regarding what I Answer to every one of them to which I must refer you and to what I say to Mr. Wills for the like Disingenuity Thirdly Sir I have to blame you for a piece of unfairness not to say unfaithfulness respecting the Ritual part where to avoid the force of the Word Tabal which the Septuagint renders by the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all our Translators by the word Dip. You produce a Text pag. 190 wherein as you deal with it you would necessitate another Interpretation to be put upon it viz. Levit. 14.6 As for the living Bird he shall take it and the Cedar-wood and the Scarlet and the Hysop and shall Dip them and the living in the blood of the Bird that was kill'd there you stop and leave out over the running Water nor taking any notice of what follows vers 51. And Dip them in the Blood of the slain Bird and the running Water But go on with your Inference as though the running Water was not to be concerned in the Case and say Is it credible that the Bird that was killed did yeild so much blood that all those things could be Dipped under it and Covered with it Certainly say you you must at least run a Synechdoche here or else you will make nothing of it And if you do and say a part of them only was Dipt Why will you not at least allow the same in Baptism But whether such dealing with Gods Word comes not under a handling the Law partially and dealling unfairly not to say deceitfully with it is left to your own Conscience to determine Fourthly I must endeavour to vindicate myself in another unhansom Reflection respecting an absurdity you charge upon me and which I conceive will return upon your self and Partner too with disadvantage which is this You are pleased Sir in pag. 117. to tell me in Answer to the beginning of my sixth Chapter That you must crave leave to tell me that I miss it in my Logick in affirming the Right Subject of Baptism viz. a professed Believer to belong to the Matter and Essence of Baptism and which Mr. Wills in conjunction with you carryes a little further and tells me in his usual Stile pag. 90. part 2. chap. 6. It is observeable that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism Mark well saith he should mistake both the Matter and Form of it for certainly he is out in both and to be sure Mr. W. will lose nothing for want of Confidence if that will carry it For the Matter saith he all Divines agree to be Water and the Form the Words of Christ For which he quotes Zanchy and Buchan To which I say as to the point of Logick wherein I own little skill in affirming The Subject belongs to the Matter and Essence of Baptism and that the true Form was Dipping I conceive I am justified by the Learned And as to the first If Burgerdicius understood Logick he tells us That the Subject doth belong to the Matter and is of the Essence thereof Who divides the Matter into the Materia ex qua in qua circa quam of which in which and about which and that the two latter comprehend the Subject or Object And agreeable hereto we have the Learned Tilenus giving us the Logical Definition of Baptism both as to Matter and Form in his Syntag. Theol. Disp de Baptis pag. 376. in these words First That the Matter of Baptism is two fold viz. the Constituens and Recipiens the Constituens of two parts viz. External and Elementary viz. the Water And Internal the Spiritual thing signified And the Recipiens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Subject is the fit Person that is to receive it Secondly That the Essential Form of Baptism is nothing else but the Analogical Reason of the Signes to the Things signified For as the property of Water in washing away the filth of the Flesh declares the force of Christs Blood in the washing away of Sin So Diping in Water is a suitable Analogy of the Death of the Old Man and coming up out of the Water the Life of the New And in full agreement with him the Learned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animad pag. 317. tells us from Alexander Halyes in these words A io cum Alex. de Halys Tinctio est formalis Causa Baptismi si Tinctio non Lotio vel lavatio vel ablutio I say with Alexander de Halys That Dipping is the formal Cause of Baptism and if Diping then not washing or pouring So that if these Learned Men are Right you my Reprovers are Wrong and deserve blame and shame for your Rashness And further that the right Subject viz. a profest Believer is of the Essence of Baptism is manifest because if you may alter and change that you may Baptize a Wall or a Bell a Sword or a Standard or what you will and call it the Ordinance of Baptism So that I am hereby the more confirmed that if you miss it in the Right Subject or Matter of Baptism viz. a Profest Believer and erre also in the due Form or Ceremony viz. Dipping you have neither the Matter nor the Form of Baptism and so though you may call it Baptism yet it is a meer Nullity and no such thing concerning which I refer you tâ— the Scheam thereof in the Broad-side for further Information and so shall Conclude with your own Words If these Debates may be blest to discover the Truth to your self or any other and add any thing to the making up of the Breach that the Lord may be one and his Name one amongst us in these points wherein we yet differ I shall have what I aimed at and the God of Truth and Peace shall have all the Glory And that the Spirit of Light and Truth may lead into all Truth and dispel all the Antichristian Foggs of Ignorance and Darkness is the Sincere Desire of Your Unknown Friend and Servant H. D. The 30th of the 8th Moneth 1674. The Reader is desired to Correct these Escapes in this Brief Reply Viz. Page 178. line 7. r. it is not f. is it not p. 180. l. 20. r. is it not f. it is not p. 183. l. 29. r. Idolatrous f. Idolaters p. 184. l. 13. r. of f. or FINIS