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 verba 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 Matth. 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 are 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 you 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
the Affrican Canons are collected repeated and confirmed under Caelestinus Pope and Theodosius Emperor Anno 424. it is annext And then this 2d Canon of the Milevitan Council with this annexed is made the 77th Affrican Canon And I must further inform the Reader that the Mag'd confounded these two Milevitan Councils together putting the latter which was in the year 416 under the year 402. which was the first Milevitan Council in Numidia in Affrica and both held under Innocent Pope and Theodosius Emperor which mistake is taken notice of in Regia Collectione with the grounds thereof And in p. 541. you 'l find these words beginning the Collection Sequuntur Concilia Affricana sub Innocentio habita which includes the Canon I cite in p. 559. aforesaid 1. About P. Innocents Blasphemy That the 8th is no mis-representation in saying That P. Innocentius attributed divine Honour to the Popedom will be easily conceived inasmuch as he singled out Peter and attributed Divine Honour to him put confidence in him and desired help from him in conjunction with God himself and whether he did it as to Pope Peter or St. Peter is not much material the former is probable And therefore doth Fox 2 Vol. p. 1020. c. tell us in how many things the Popes blasphemously match themselves with God himself The 9th out of Vossius 9. Quotation out of Vossius giving the Reasons from the Ancients why they Baptized Men and Women naked is a full and clear Translation as fully made good from those particular instances given out of Vossius from Cyril Chrysostom Cretensis Anselm Ambrose c. his being a miserable trifle in his Appeal to the Reader whether the Reasons given were not because their naked Bodies were to be Baptized and not the Cloaths as I ignorantly as he saith affirm whereas I give those Reasons why they Baptized their naked Bodies and not the Cloaths viz. That they might be as in the state of Innocency and as in their first Birth and as they expect to be in Heaven or as Christ was was nailed to the Cross From the Ancients which they expresly make out in p. 32. Therefore it is left to the Reader to judge where there is the least mis-representation or false Translation in all these Particulars and what cause to make an Appeal for the same V. Forgery The Fifth thing he complains against me for is For fathering upon Authors that which they indeed say not at least in the places by me quoted whereof he gives 8 Instances Answered 1 Quotation out of Luther The first as to a Quotation out of Luther de Sacrament Tom. 3. fol. 168. I transcribed it out of the same Author before mentioned the plain and well grounded Treatise p. 25. I have since examined that Tome but cannot there find it supposing they either misquoted the Tome or else quoted it out of another Edition concluding so large a Quotation was not fathered upon him he speaking much that Language in other places 2. Out of Bazil To the Second as to the Quotation of Bazil contra Eunom who only say That he saith lib. 3. That Baptism is the Seal of Faith But he will find the rest of the Sentence in that Book of Bazil they refer to viz. lib. 3. p 84. Baptism is the Seal of Faith but Faith the Confession of the Deity for first he ought to believe and after to be sealed with Baptism * Nam credere prius oportet ac postea Baptismate designari 3. Magdeb. To the Third where he saith That the Magdeburgs do not say it was the universal practise to Baptize the Adult under the 4th Cent. as I affirm they do I say That I have made it appear they do by those Instances mentioned by them from the sayings of the Doctors and the Decrees of Councils that Decreed only for Adult Baptism and for which I refer you to the former Chapter for further proof that I did not mis-represent them therein If I speak their sence though vary in words and contract what they say at large I do them no injury But so they do express it 4. Arnobius To the 4th That I quote Arnobius a spurious Author whilst I blame him for such and which I say I take out of the Magd. whereas the Magdeburgs have it not To which I say first I do not know that Arnobius upon the Psalms is a spurious Author should I have quoted him out of Perkins who Mr. Wills saith tells us it is spurious as he did Athanasius's questions out of the Magdeb. which they said was so I had been lyable to like Reproof Neither 2dly did I say I took Arnobius out of the Magdeburgs I said the Magd. did give some of those that followed not all he being mentioned upon the 146. Psalm and not from any Book or Page in the Magdeburgs The Fifth 5. Out of Aquinus it is true is a mistake as placed by the Printer but not intended as easily discern'd by the Reader being put down as an additional Proof out of Albertus having Inserted 3 before the Printer putting Aquinus before the last of them and so made that which I had put viz. And again to belong to Aquinus and not to Albertus Which Venial mistake he makes equivolent with that grand one of Bazil for Nazianzen which he so egregiously abused me for and boasted what great acquaintance he had with Father Bazil putting it down as a great remark 3 several times This of mine being a proof for him viz. to prove Infants Baptism therefore it matters not much whether from one or the other they both speaking the same thing that of his wholly against me As to the 6th the Magd. tell us 6. Out of the Magd. That Infants as well as the Adult were Baptized and instance onely in a Queen then Baptized whom Zonaras calls Rossorum Reginam And that 's all I confess that Zonaras is concern'd in it The 7th is such another trifle I say 7. Out of Vossius Vossius saith for he was a Collector from Authors and those he quotes we may in propriety of speech attribute to him That Nectarius was made Bishop of Constantinople before he was Baptized he says he was but appointed so the stress of the proof lying That he was a Believer at age before he was Baptized there being no such great difference betwixt being made and appointed Bishop in the Case And Beza there gives instances not of obscure persons but of persons as he says that had the eyes of all upon them Baptized at Age viz. Constantine Nectarius and Nazianzen 8. One of Mr. B. The 8th is much like his fellows in a Quotation from Mr. Baxter proving against the Popish Doctrine ex opere operato to work Grace by the deed done I brought him to say That Baptism of it self cannot give Grace or Regeneration nor can work any such cause for Water he saith is not
a subject either capable of receiving or conveying Grace to the Soul But he saith I abuse Mr. Baxters words who saith That Baptism can be no such cause whereby I do as he saith attribute Non-sence and Absurdity to him and that there is neither Innocency nor Truth in so affixing it If to work no such cause be such an error it is a venial one and I can say not wilful but certainly this Man would make notable work with me if he had matter to work upon But what just cause of Complaint or Appeal in all this I profess seriously I see not Misplacing Quotations VI. The 6th is for picking out of Authors here and there and joyning them together as if they were one intire Sentence whereof he gives four Instances To the 3 first viz. Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen Answered and Dr. Taylor I say I have put down nothing but their own and what is congruous one thing answering properly and naturally with another which if it did not we should I presume have heard of And for what relates to himself which is the 4th I have done him no wrong the Pages mentioned by me viz. p. 36 38 101 131 132. I have particularly examined and desire the Reader so to do and let him judge betwixt us whether he doth not in those Pages compared again and again say That as there is no Scripture expresly commanding so neither is there any Scripture excluding Infants from Baptism nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infant Baptized each Page I would have put down but that I would not burden the Reader which you find exprest by me in my Reply p. 63. and the several Pages particularly exprest I refer to And what good cause is given to complain of me in this I see as little as the former VII The 7th is for asserting notorious untruths Notorious untruths giving Instances of Eight The first for affirming 1. Answered That Antiquity it self so much boasted of is altogether for Believers and not for Infants Baptism 1. About Antiquity for Infant Baptism an Assertion as he saith so notoriously false that I have confuted my self in owning the ancients asserted it This is already answered again and again I hope to satisfaction viz. That primitive Antiquity is only for Believers and not for Infants Baptism and the Ancients in latter not former Centuries onely for Infants Baptism 2. About Christning a Dead Child The Second for saying That a Child that dyed unbaptized was taken up and Christned putting in the Margent a dead Child Christned the Boy was not taken up and Baptized Dead but after he came to life again he was Baptized In the first place I conceive there is no untruth in my rendring the words Is puerum sine Baptismo mortuum resuscitarit ex mortuis tandem Baptizarit That a Child that dyed unbaptized was taken up and Christned being not exclusive of the sence Mr. Wills would have it bear But 't is the Margent that saith a dead Child Christned he mainly quarrels at which indeed is wholly mine and therefore my sence or explanation of my own words is to be received which admits of a Two fold or double Interpretation viz. either that Child that was Dead now Christned and so not to be blamed in Mr. Wills own sence Or if I should intend the Child then dead when Christned I know no reason but I may have my liberty of Conjecture as well as Mr. Wills And the rather because though resuscitare be generally understood to raise to life yet the phrase here may without any such palpable absurdity be understood a taking up from among the Dead or out of the Grave especially because such an Interpretation so exactly agrees with their then usual practise to Baptize the Dead that dyed unbaptized which certainly is more likely and far more agreeable to truth then that such a Miracle was wrought of raising to life Besides why may not the Dead be sometimes used for the Grave as the Grave is often Metonymically used for the Dead and Death as I could instance with great variety had it been necessary So that this latter should I persist in it is so far from being blameable that it is indeed very probable and therefore Reader take it which way you will no such notorious untruth as he talks of can hence be justly chargeable upon me The third notoâ—ious untruth he saith I assert is from the Magdeburgs Cent 13. p 419. viz. That the Magd do say 3 About Gulielmus blasphemy that as to the form of Baptism Gulielmus added to the Father Son and Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary viz. I baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary which saith he is another notorious untruth for the Magdeburgs say nothing of the Virgin Mary but which of us speak truth let the Reader judge The words of the Magdeburgs are these in the Cent and p above-said viz Male Gulielmus ad Formam Baptismi addidit Mariam 〈…〉 Baptizo te in Nomine Patris Omnipotentis Filii Spiritus Sancti Beatae Mariae Virginis De Bapt ejus part c. 2. Magd. Cent 13. c 419. i e. Gulielmus wickedly added Mary to the form of Baptism I Baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary in his 2. ch of Bapt. and its parts Therefore if this be not daring temerity I know not what is To the 4th that the Donatists were against Infant-Baptism 4 About the Donatists which he saith is as true as that a Dead Child was Baptized and that Pope Innocent was the first Inventor of Baptism and Antiquity altogether for Believers and not for Infants Baptism What ground I had to affirm the Donatists were against Infants Baptism I have given at large enough at least if not to make it good yet to free me from a Forger Whether the Child taken up was living or dead when Baptized what I writ being capable of being iâ—terpreted either way is left to better judgment that I any where have said that Pope Innocent was the first Invetor of Infants Baptism is I presume Mr. Wills his Invention not to be maâ—e good from my writings I do indeed say p. 111. And this was that Innocent who was the first great Patron and Imposer of this Invenâ—ion viz. In his Canon in the Milevitan Council and so saiâ—h Dr. Taylor Grotius Strabo p. 107. as well as my self that Infants Baptism was never determined nor enâ—oyned nor imposed till thâ—n And whether Antiquiâ—y viz. of the first Centuries was not for Be ievers and not for Infants Baptism Let Mr. Baxter himself wi h what hath been said deâ—ermine 5 About Lanfrank The 5th about Lanfranks Testimony one of my witnesses to prove Berengarius denyed Infants Baptism is I fully acknowledg my mistake which a Person of quality a worthy Friend