in the first Age St. Ambrose St. Jerom and St. Austin were born of Christian Parents and yet not Baptised until tâ—eful age of a man and more that the Apostles did Baptize any Children is not at all reported by any câ—edible Tradition The other is Mr. Bazter Mr. Baxter an evidence that in this Case is not to be rejected who is pleased to tell us in a very late piece viz. his Principles of Love p 7. That he knew that in the days of Tertullian Nazienzen and Austin men had liberty to be Baptised or to bring their Children when and at what age they pleased and that none were forced to go against their consciences therein And that he knew not that our Rule or Religion is changed or that we are grown any wiser or better then they And again Christian Direct p. 827. Thus That ancient Christians had liberty to let their Children stay till age as they thought best And that Austin and many Children of Christian Parents were Baptised at age And upon the whole we may add what Doctor Barlow Dr. Barlow saith to this purpose pag. 64. I am sure that in the Primative times they were Catechumeni then illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted but Children of Christian Parents also Thus we have gone through our first four Centuries and the proofs urged to this point of History from them and therein I hope the Reader will fully acquit me from that charge of Prevarication in perverting the Authorities brought by me to witness that in these times Confession and Profession of Faith was held necessary to precede Baptisme That only the Adult Baptised in the first ages confirmed by Divert And that I am not mistaken nor alone in my apprehension herein I shall repeat a few both of the Ancient and Modern Writers that have so fully confirmed the truth hereof affirming with much positiveness that only the Adult upon Confession of Faith were the Subjects of Baptisme in these first times Walafrid Strabo Strabo in Rebus Eccles p. 26. That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them Only who were come to that integrity of mind and body that they could know and understand what profit was to begotten by Baptisme what was to be confessed and believed and lastly what was to be observed by them that are new born in Christ Beatus Rhenanus Rhenanus in Anotat sup Tertull. saith That the old custom was that those that were come to their full growth were Baptised with the Bath of Regeneration which custom he said continued for some of the first Ages Rupertus Rupertus in his 4. Book of Divine Offices cap. 18. saith That in former times the custom of the primative Churches was that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration but Only to the Chatecumens who were instructed in the Rules of Faith Rehearsing the same Jo. Boemus Boemus Lib. 2. de Gent. Mor. It was in times past saith he the Custom to administer Baptisme Only to those that were instructed in the Faith c. Doctor Hamond Dr. Hamond in his Cat. lib. 1. c. 3. p. 23. saith That All Men were instructed in the Fundamentals of Faith anciently before they were permitted to be Baptised Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter in his Saints Rest part 1. cap. 8. Sect. 5. saith That Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who lived in the 2. and 3. Centuries do all of them affirm that in the primative times None were Baptized without an express covenanting wherein they renounced the World Flesh and Divel and ingaged themselves and promised to obey him The Testimonies for Adult Baptisme after Infants Baptisme was enjoined 1. From particular Persons 1. that denyed Infants Baptisme In the next place for further confirmation of this truth I gave you in some Testimony that was born thereto after Infants Baptisme was established in the fifth Century and that not only from those that denyed Infants Baptisme but from those that owned and practised it Papists and others through the rest of the Centuries Of the first I produced several Eminent men as pâ—rticular witnesses some of which I shall mention viz Crescon Cresconius pag. 230. who said that there was no true Baptisme but such as was administred after Faith Faustus Faustus Regienses pag. 230. That personal and actual desire was requisite in every one that was to be Baptised Albanus Albanus who was put to death for his witness hereto p. 230. These eminent People called Swermers The Swermers in the sixth Century That from Christ Example of Baptisme reproved the evil custom of Infants Baptisme p. 231 Bishop of Apamen The Bishop of Apamen and Zoroaras who did defend the Baptisme of Believers to be the only Baptisme pag. 231. Adrianus Adrianus Bishop of Corinth in the 7. Century who did stoutly defend Believers Baptisme not permitting an Infant to be Baptised in his Diocese page 231. Hinemar Hinemarus Bishop of Laudum refusing Infants Baptised only Believers 235. The Egyptian Divines Egyptian Divines in the seventh Century taught Faâ—th before Baptisme in opposition to the Romish Baptisme p. 232. Carolus Carolus Bishop of Maylant taught that only such as were instructed and confessed Faith and manifested a holy life were to be baptised Jacob de Roor Jacob de Roor owned only that Baptisme that Christ commanded after teaching and believing and which the Apostles did also practise and which saith he must needs be after believing bâ—cause it is for the burying of sin the Bath of Regeneration the Covenant of a Christian liâ—e and the puting on the Body of Christ and plantiâ—g into the true Olive-tree Jesus Christ and for the right entrance into the Spiritual Ark c. Besides many others I forbear to mention but refer you to the Book it self And which I suppose are all fâ—ll pâ—oper and pertinent witnesses in the case and against none of which he makes any excepâ—ion and which I hope you will add to all the rest besides the two he will please to allow me I do also bring into this evidence 2. The Churches that denyed Infants Baptisme witnessing for â—â—lievers oâ—â—â—â— besides many particular Persons an Account of several Churches that have in their Principles and Practises confirmed this of Believers Baptisme after profession of Faith and which are as followeth The Donatists 1. Dâ—natists that taught that none should be baptised but those that believed and desired the same p. 222. The Waldenses 2. â—â—â—dense that taught that by Baptisme the Believers weâ—e Received into the holy Congregation there protesting and declaring openly their Faith and amendment of life p. 239. 3. Germans The Churches of Christ in Germany owned and contended for this Faith and practise and many sealed the same with their blood p. 157. 4. Helvetians The Churches in Helvetia asserted the same
Infants Baptisme Because Mr. Fox tells us out of Bede and Fabian and others that they refused to baptise after the manner of Rome which Fabian as I find more particularly explains to be in the point of Infants Baptisme and in confirmation thereof gave five Arguments First Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine so ezpresly to the Scripture there being no express Scripture for Infants Baptisme as confest on all hands Secondly Because they were such zealous impugners of Tradition that being as Austin confesseth the only Divine Authority for it Thirdly Because Constantine the Son of Christian Parents was not baptised in this Island in his Infancy Fourthly Because their custom was to baptise after Confession of Faith being in Vnion and Communion therein with the French Christians whereof Instances are given Fifthly From the Question that was here put to Austin viz. how long a Child that was no in danger of death might stay unbaptised which he could not resolve till he sent to Rome for the Solution And to which me may add what the Magdeburgs tell us from Hilaries testimony p. 55. that none but the Adult were baptised in the Western Churches in his time Mr. Wills opposeth Fabians testimony from Bede To which he replyes as followeth First as to that oâ— Fabians testimony he saith it is only a mistaken Paraphrase of Bede and that Bede mentions nothing hereof And thâ—refore gives what Austin replyed to the Brittains in Bedes words L. 2. c. 2. vâ—z That in as much as you do contrary to our Custom in many things yea to the Custom of the Vniversal Church nevertheless if you will obey me in these 3. things viz. that you keep Easter in its proper time Administer Baptisme whereby we are born of God after the manner of the Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation we will patiently bear all other things you do although contrary to our Customes but they answered they would none of these nor own him for Arch-bishop To which I say Answer Fabian did not mistake Bede and why that it doth appear from his Repetition out of Bede that Fabian has fully hit his meaning First Because he tells the British Christians that amongst many things where in they were contrary to the Church of Rome one was in this particuler about Baptisme wherein they did not only contradict the Universal but Apostolick Church Now this must needs be in their refusing to baptise Children First Because as to the baptizing the Adult they were not contrary to the Church of Rome the Universal or Apostolical Church as appears p. 228. Secondly Neither could it respect the particuler Mode Rite or Ceremony of Baptisme for the Custom of the Church of Rome was not Vniversal which was so much opposed by the Greeks and Eastern Churches and not at all to be made out to be Apostolical Thirdly Therefore must needs respect Infants Baptisme First Because the Church of Rome had particulerly enjoined and imposed it to beget Infants to Regeneration that they might be born of God as the words of their Canons demonstrate and which words carry the Reason and ends of it and that they intended the substance and not the particuler Ceremony of the Ordinance Secondly Because Infants Baptisme was so universaly received in this seventh Age in other parts of the World to this end here mentioned Thirdly Because it was also received and enjoined to be an Apostolical practise Fourthly It would have been Childish and ridiculous to have said Baptisme in general was Apostolical which none ever denyed and so fully before received by them therefore Austin could intend nothing else nor Bedes words import any thing else which therefore Fabian did so fully and significantly represent in saying give Christendom to Children viz. let them as the Church of Rome has received and enjoined it be born of God by Baptisme and become Christians as so generaly also receiv d. And for Mr. Wills saying They did no more reject Infants Baptisme then they did preaching to the Saxons with Austin Is very true having as much Reason to reject the one as the other for by preaching here with them must be understood Authoritively by being ordained by them that they might not preach as they did as a company of Lay-men and Mechanicks but to be set apart thereto by this Apostolical Embassador or proud Lordly Prelâ—t which they refused not admitting him therein to be their Arch-Bishop and which explains Austins meaning in the business of preaching and their denying thereof which they hâ—d as good Cause to do as to deny their Romish Infants Baptisme and their Superstitious Observation of Easter And therefore it was that this Ante Christian Wolf did devoure and worry this Flock of Christ because they refused the Popish Baptisme and Ministry Secondly As to those five other Arguments given by me to confirm the former he saith they are meer trifles which is an Excellent way of Answering and next to Bellarmin thou lyest which is submitted to judgement And Lastly He gives another Argument Mr. Wills saith Pelagius was a Monk of Bangor for Infants Baptisme why the Brittains were not against Infants Baptisme viz. Because Pelagius who as he saith was one of their Fellow Monks of Bangor yet did owne Infants Baptisme which was two hundred years before this and which was a good Argument that they did also To which I say Questionable that as to Pelagius being one of these Old Brittains and belonging to this very People is by no good Authority to be found For though it is true Humphry Loyd and Mr. Fuller do so guess yet they produce no Antient Author to confirm it It is true in Austins 106. Epist he is called Pelagius Britto to distinguish him from another Pelagius of Tarentius but whether because he was sent into that Nation or of it not certain But Secondly If it be granted It follows not that the Britains where of his judgemenâ— why that he was a Brittain and one of these Monks it no more follows that they must all be for Infants Baptisme because he was so then that they were all for the Pelagian Heresy because he was the head thereof which it is eminently known they rejected when they sent for the help of those famous French Christians Germanus and Lupus who were sent to them again and again from the Elders and Ministers about Lyons to expel that Poyson and therefore do I call them the Waldesian Christians who inhabited those parts where their abode was Magdeb. Cent. 5. p. 1147 c. An Hist Account of Pelagius But as to Pelagius the Magdeburgs do give us this Account of him from Austin and Lucelbergius Cent. 5. pag. 1453. viz. that he was full of zeal and affection a d that his beginning was good and holy so that if he was a Monk of Bangor he began well And that
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
Congregation of the People of God their professing and declaring openly our faith and amendement of life We esteem for an abomination and Anti-Christian all humane inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit When humane Traditions are observed for Gods Ordinances then is he worshiped in vain as Es 19. Matth. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without faith and truth That Anti-Christ attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of baptizing Children into that Faith and teacheth that thereby Baptisme and Regeneration must be had grounding therein all his Christianity which is against the holy Spirit What he makes their Confessions to be p. 45 c. God hath ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with the word as a means to unite us unto and to make us partakers of his benefits And that there are only two of them We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptisme water is the visible and external sign which represents unto us That which is within viz. Renovation of the Spirit and Mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ We esteem for an abomination and Anti-Christian all humane inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit When humane Traditions are observed for Gods ordinances then is he worshiped in vain as Es 19. Mat. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without faith and truth That Anti-Christ attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of baptizing Children and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had Whereby you have demonstrated his great unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions by leaving out so many material and considerable parts thereof that make against him and then so unfairly and untruly to say That there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestants Churhes in the World in those Articles and the Waldenses because all that are for Infants Baptisme believe the same But whether it be so indeed let us examine the particulers 1. Infants not capable to hear the Word First Do all the Paedobaptists believe That Baptisme and preaching the Word are joined together to instruct the Baptised partyes and that thereby they have union with Christ and partake of his benefits Pray how is that to be made good in any Infant that has no actual knowledge Faith or understanding 2. Nor of the Lords Supper Secondly Do they indeed believe the Lords Supper to belong in Common with Baptisme to all the Members of the Church why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other since it belonges to them in Common if Members of the Church as Mr. Wills saith they are 3. Nor to understand the Symbole thereof Thirdly Do Paedobaptists with the Waldenses believe as you say That water in Baptisme is the usual sign representing to the Subjects thereof the invisible vertue of God operating in them viz. Renovation of the Spirit and Mortification of their Members And can it be truly said it is so to an Infant that is not capable to put forth any act of Faith Repentance or Mortification or discern any the least sign in the water of any such things signified thereby Fourthly 4. Nor to make Confession of Faith before it Have they indeed a Harmony with the Waldenses in what further they confess concerning this Ordinance viz. That by it tâ—ey are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God there professing and declaring openly their Faith and amendement of life But how is the Infant capable with the Waldensian Christiaâ—s not Pagan converts to profess and declare openly their Faith and Repentance and so to be received into the Congregation thereby Fifthly Do Paedobaptists indeed believe with them That humane Traditions and Inventions 5. That Infants Baptâ—sme is a humane Tradition and why are to be esteemed Anti-Christian â—bâ—mâ—na ions and vain worship and that that worship is vain and Traditional when Persons are enjoined to it without Faith and truth Why then are Infants baptised by them that have no Faith or knowledge of truth and for which there is neither Precept or Example in Gods word and by themselves owned to be an unwriten Tradition Sixthly Do they believe 6. Anti-Christ groundsall Religion in it That Anti-Christ Grounds all Châ—istianity and Religion in the Baptisme of Childreâ— attributing Regeneration to that outward work done contrary to the holy Spirit Why then do they baptise Children which as acknowledged is the basis and Foundation of the false Church and so contrary to the Spirit and for which there is nothing but the Decrees of Popes and Anti Christian Councels to warrant it Whereby you see that Infants are manifestly excluded Baptismâ—â— in these six particulers in these Coâ—fessâ—â—â—s and that Paedobaptists cannot assert the same without evident contradiction to themselves Objections to the contrary Confessions But in the next place if these Confessions be good as you say against Infants Bâ—ptisme yet what do you say to those contrary Confessions that own the Baptizing of Infâ—nts as Master Wills hath given them from Perin p. 62 63 65. Answer To which I say it is to me matter of the greatest admiration that I having with that exactness especially in the last Edition given you such a particuler Account of all tâ—ose Confessions word for word both of that of Bohemia and that of Provence and proved to you by such ample Dâ—moastration the following particulers viz. First That none of them were extant till the sixteenth Century whereas the other are upon Record in the eleventh or twelfeth Centuries so many hundred years before Secondly That that Confession said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia to King Ladislaus were not Waldenses as they themselves acknowledge in the preambule thereof Thirdly Have given an account how and by what means and when those of Provence came to introduce that Custom so contrary to what their ancient Barbes had instructed them in How sadly they had â—eclined even to going to Mass And how contradictious that practice was to other parts of the Confessions into which it was foisted And that these Waldenses of Provence that made these Confessions were inconsiderable to the Body of that People that was dispersed into so many parts of the World that held the contrary Yet Mr. Wills should take so little notice of what I have said and Mr. Blind-man that has written since who has also transcribed the said contrary Confessions without the least notice to what I have said in answer thereto which I think is such an abuse as was never offred by any pretending to answer Books and therefore I must refer them and all others that desire satisfaction therein to what I have so fully and as I humbly conceave unanswerably spoken to each Confession The Second Demonstration
Thirdly In Flanders where it was also coâ—firmed and seal d with much blood pag. 267 to 269. Holland Fourthly In Holland or low Countryes wâ—ere it was also witnessed too with much blood and Martyrdom p. 269 to 271. Fifthly In Bohemia Bohemia where it was eminently confirmeâ— also p. 271 to 273. Sixthly In Hungaria Hungaria in like manner p. 273 to 274. Seventhly In Transylvania Transylv evidenced also as p. 274. Eightly In Poland Poland a confirmation thereof pag 274. In England it hath also been confirmed through many Ages by Christians under several denominations viz. By Waldenses Lollards Wickliffians and Anabaâ—tists through all the Kings Reigns from the Conquest to this very day as at large you have it from p. 275 to 310. To all which he saith thus much by way of Concâ—ssion viz. that the Waldenses were indeed spread not only by perâ—â—â—ution but by their own volontary choice before into all these Râ—gions is not to be doubted But that the Opposers of Infants Baptisme in the Vpper and Lower Germany were the remains and offspring of those the Waldenses is a conceit forreigâ— to all Hâ—story and hath no Foundation in reason or truth and that his ipse dixit or saying so is no ground for us to believe it he affirming it only from conjecture and that ariseth also from his will according to that saying Quod volumus facile credimus What we would have we easily believe To which I say Answer that if I have proved that this was their Doctrine and practise by their Confessions of Faith the practise of their ancient and honourable Barbes and Worthyes by the Decrees of Popes Emperors and Councels by the prints they have left thereof in the several Countryes 't is confessed they were driven into and all this by ancient Recoras and authentiâ—k Testimony which I presume I have as yet undenyably done Then I rest confident that the judicious Reader will acquit me of this slander of an ipsa dixit and that it is only my will and pleasure to say all this of my own head and Fancy without proof The German Baptists do in their Martyrology prove their dissent from the Waldenses through out the Centuries Perin tells us that Lollard was a Waldensian Barbe and that Jo Wickliff asserted no other but the Doctrine of the Waldenses being instructed therâ—â—n by the Lollaras This further Testimony â—â— have met with in the Dutch Book of Martyrs which I desire the Reader to take notice of as full measure and heaped up as Mr. Wills words it Caesarius First They tell us from Jacob Merningus p. 733. Cent. 13. ch 5. out of Caeâ—arius That the Waldenses and Albigenses have rejected Infants Baptisme saying that it is of no force nor profitable to any before they are taught and do believe but concerning that Baptisme according to Christs appointment they have a very high valew and esteem Dutch Martyr pag. 307. Dubravius c. Secondly That the Waldenses were called Anabaptists long before John Hus they quote the testimony of several viz. Dubravius Mâ—chovius Cromerus Mr. Glancus from Merningus p. 733. Rainâ—riuâ— Tâ—iâ—dly That the said Merningus pag. 618 619 629. makes it good from Rainerius the Monk Inquisitor that wrote his Book contra Waldenses in the 12. Century That the Waldenses did deny Infants Baptisme and produceth divers of Rainerius his Arguments against them for the same and which he quotes from the Bib. Patrum Tom. 13. p. 300. Though Mr. Wills is pleased to tell us p. 97. that Rainerius saith never a word about their denying Infants Baptisme Fourthly they tell us that Balthazar Lydias Balthazar Lydias in his Treat of the Church and of the Waldenses p. 86. Col. 1. tells us that they reprove many things in the Popish Sacraments and say that the bapâ—izing of Children is not profitable to them Dutch Martyr p. 309. Fifthly That Abraham Mellinus Ab. Mellinus in his History of Martyrs p. 447. Col. 1. doth tell us That the Waldenses no cast far from them all the Sacraments of the Romish Church and amongst them do wholy reject that of Infante Baptisme as unprofitable and unnecessary Dutch Martyr p. 320. And therefore the whole of this Story concerning this ancient honourable People the Walaenses is submitted to judgement and whether I have not good cause to conclude it with the return of Mr. Wills his own words upon himself which he speaks to me upon this very occasion p. 44. viz. And is it not a miserable Cause indeed Mr. Wills his words returned upon hâ—mself whose Advocates must still have recourse to lyes for its dâ—fence and an Argument of the want of hoâ—esty and conscience for Men to persist in this Course when more then enough hath been said to convince them of the evil thereof It was a solemn Rebuk which Job gave his mistaken Friends c. Will you lye saith he for God Surely he hath no need of nor doth he require us by any sinister and sinful way to justify him in his attributes providences cause or truth As touching the matter in hand before us if the Paedobaptists have the truth on their side yet certainly it is little beholding to some of them who have attempted to defend it by so mâ—ny unwarrentable wayes In particuler I have made it appear that the present Author with whom I have to deal with is fowly criminal in laying out the utmost of his skill in traducing those famous ancient Christians as if in their several Generations heretofore they had not witnessed for Believers against Infants Baptisme when he cannot but knew they were not only falsly and maliciously charged but cruelly and murderously handled by their Anti-Christian Enemyes for their faithful witness to these dispised truths c. The witness born by the Donatists against Infants Baptisme confirmed Donatists THe next witness he opposeth is that of the Donatists concerning whom I gave divers Authorities proving that they did deny Infants Baptisme To which Mr. Wills is pleased to say that it is only my ipse dixit and that I do thereby render my self guilty of a great mistake to say that of them whereas neither the Magdeburgs â—or Danaeus in his Opusculum nor several other Writers do charge any such thing upon them To which I say that herein Mr. Wills deals Mr. Wills very disingenious according to his wonted manner very disingeniously with me First That having given so many Authorities and of such Antiquity to prove it to tell the Reader it is my Ipse dixit only Secondly To deny them and yet give no just exception against them Thirdly To produce the negative or silence rather of some modern Authors to oppose so many positive Authorities produced by me one of which in all pleas is worth a hundred Negative ones But that the Reader may be satisfied I had good warranty to justify my said proofs and that it was not my Ipse