Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant bap∣tisme, and the Apostolicalness thereof.
[ 1] FIrst then I begin with the words of the Apostle so long insisted on, and vindicated from Mr. T. his exceptions, and by so anti∣ent a writer as Tertullian &c. applyed to this matter.
[ 2] And that first Epistle to the Corinthians being written at the end of his three years stay in Asia Act. 20.31. i. e. An. Chr. 54. I shall there place my first testimonie.
[ 3] In the middle of the first Centurie S. Paul delivered these words, Now are your children holy, i. e. your children new-born (as appears by the context and Tertullian) are sanctified, as that sig∣nifies baptized, in the style of the New Testament and the antient Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they are vouchsafed the good things that come by baptisme, saith the Author of the Respons: ad Orthod: whether that were Justine the Martyr, who suffered Anno 163. or another very antient writer under that name; And this of that Apostle is an evidence of the practice of the first, [ 4] or Apostolical age, soon after Christ, and is not contradicted by any that wrote in that age.
In the next age after the Apostles flourished S. Irenaeus, said to be martyred at Lyons (the seate of his Bishoprick) the 5t of Seve∣rus, An. Chr. 197. he had been an auditor of Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna (styled by that Church an *Apostolical and Propheti∣cal Doctor) and is by * S. Hierome lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times, and by *Tertullian as a most accurate searcher of all doctrines, and so is a most competent witnesse of the Aposto∣lical doctrine and practice; and thus he speaks l. 2. advers. har. c. 38. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare, omnes in∣quam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, Infantes, & parvulos, & Page 97 pueros, & juvenes, & seniores▪ Christ came to save all by him∣self, all I say who are born again unto God by him, Infants and little ones, and children, and young men and older men, where it is evidently his affirmation, that infants (expressely) are by Christ regenerate unto God, and that must be in baptisme, that laver of regeneration, and so they are not, in his opinion, excluded from baptisme. And so this is a testimonie of the second Century, not found or praetended to be contradicted by any other of that age.
[ 5] Immediately after Irenaeus followed Tertullian in the end of the 2d, and beginning of the 3d Century, a man of great learning, and a diligent observer and recorder of the customes and practices of the most antient Church. And he lib. de Animâ c. 39. affirmes it from the Apostle, ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos pro∣creari, that when either parent is sanctified or believer, i. e. baptized, the children that are born from them are holy, and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ, quàm ex institutionis disciplinâ, both by praerogative of their seed, and by the discipline of the insti∣tution, i. e. (as hath been shewed) by baptisme, adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words, 1 Cor. 7.4. that his meaning was that the children of believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis, and evidencing what he means thereby, by the following words, of Christ's definition, Joh. 3. Ʋnlesse a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdome of God, i. e. non erit sanctus, shall not be holy, where baptisme is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity; and more he addes in the beginning of the next chapter to the same purpose. And so he is a competent witnesse for the beginning of that third age, and is not found contradicted by any other passage in his works, or by any of his time; But on the contrary,
[ 6] Origen, who died at Tyre, An. Chr. 254. hath three most irre∣fragable testimonies for it; first on Luke Hom. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum, little ones are baptized into the remission of sins; and quomodo potest ulla lavacri in par∣vulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulò autè diximus, Nullus mundus à sorde &c. How can the account of baptizing little ones bold, but according to that which before was Page 98 said, none is clean from pollution, no not if he be but a day old, and per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur & parvuli, by the sacrament of baptisme the pollutions of our birth are put off, and therefore little ones are baptized.
[ 7] Secondly, on Leviticus Hom. 8. Requiratur quid causae est cum baptisma Ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur, secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari— Let it be considered what the cause is when the baptisme of the Church is given for the remission of sins, that baptisme should according to the observation (or custome) of the Church be given to little ones.
[ 8] Thirdly, on the Epistle to the Romans, l. 5. Ecclesia ab Apo∣stolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare — the Church hath received tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme to little ones also, such little ones still (as by the former words ap∣pears) as those of a day old and the like. And so here is a full con∣cord of testimonies both for the practice of the Church, and tradi∣tion received from the Apostles for baptizing of infants, and so is a farther evidence of the doctrine of the third age, not contra∣dicted by any of that time.
[ 9] About the same time, or without question soon after, wrote the Author (under the name of Dionysius Areopagita) de Eccl. Hie∣rarch. For, as by *Photius it appears, Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question, whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the Acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very antient and learned Author. He therefore in his * 7. chap of Eccles. Hierarch. proposeth the question, as that which may seem to profane persons (i. e. heathens) ridiculous, why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God, i. e.* evidently of baptisme (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the baptizing of infants, saith Maximus his Scholiast) adding to the same head also, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, others in their stead pronounce the abrenunoia∣tions and divine confessions,* And his answer is, 1. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉many things which are Page 99 unknown by us why they are done, have yet causes worthy of God, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that we affirme of this the same things which our divine officers of the Church, being instructed by divine tradition, have brought down unto us, and again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — our divine guides (i. e. the Apostles,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Maximus) considering this, appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner, nothing can be more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this antient and elegant wri∣ter vouched for the baptizing of infants, as a sufficient account of that matter, against the reproaches and scoffes of profane, or heathen men, who deemed it unreasonable. And so there is a most convincing testimonie for that time, wherein that author wrote, which must needs be in the fourth Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him, but most pro∣bably more antient, and so to be placed in this third age.
[ 10] In the midst of this third age, An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bishop of Carthage, and ten years after he suffered mar∣tyrdome, i. e. 158 years after the age of the Apostles. In the year 257 he sat in Councell with 66 Bishops (see Justellus in his Preface to the African Canons p. 21.) and their decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem, which is now among his works. Pamel. Edit. p. 80. The Councell was in answer to some questions about baptisme, and accordingly▪ he there sets down his own opinion, together with the decrees of that Councell of 66 Bishops which were assem∣bled with him; And so this, as it is an antient, so it is more then a single testimonie, that of a whole Councell added to it; and yet farther, to increase the authority of it, S. Augustine cites this Epistle* more then once, and sets it down almost intire, as a testimony of great weight against heretikes, and so tis cited by S. Hierome also, l. 3. dial. contr: Pelag.
[ 11] In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus, whether infants might be baptized the 2d or 3d day, or whether, as in circumcision the 8th day were not to be expected, he answers in the name of the Councel, Ʋniversi judicavimus, twas the reso∣lutionPage 100 or sentence of all, nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei & gratiam denegandam, that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denyed to any humane birth, to my child, though never so young, (by that phrase [mercy and grace of God] evidently meaning baptisme, the rite of conveighing them to the baptized) adding, that tis not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized, pro atate accipientium vel minor vel major tribuitur, is given to them in a greater or lesse degree in respect of the age of the receivers; and that God as he accepts not the person, so nor the age of any, confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean, and that if any were to be kept from baptisme, it should rather be those of full age, who have committed the greater sins, and that seeing those when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptisme, quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quòd secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit? qui ad remissam peccatorum accipi∣endam hoc ipso faciliùs accedit, quòd illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata, how much more ought not the infant to be for∣bidden, who being new born, hath no sin upon him, but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born, who therefore should more easily be admitted to pardon, because they are not his own, but others sins which are then remitted to him. Con∣cluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptisme, tum magis circa infantes ipsot & recens natus obser∣vandum atque retinendum, so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new born children.
[ 12] Thus much and more was the sentence of that antient Father and that Councel, and as the occasion of that determination was not any antipaedobaptist doctrine (there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church, that we can hear of) but a conceit of one, that it should be deferr'd to the 8th day, which was as much infancy as the first (and so both parties were equally contrary to the Antipaedobaptists interests, the condemned, as well as the Judges) so that it was no new doctrine that was then decreed, or peculiar to S. Cyprian (who had one singular opinion in the mat∣ter of baptisme) appears also both by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him, and by the expresse words of Page 101 Saint Augustine Ep. 28. ad Hieronym: Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens novum sed ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans — mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit, Blessed Cyprian, saith he, not making any new decree, but keeping the faith of the Church most firme, decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops, that a child new-born might fitly be baptized. Which shewes it the resolution of that Father also, that baptizing of Infants was the faith of the Church be∣fore Cyprians time, not onely the opinion, but the Faith, which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles.
[ 13] In the next or fourth Century, about the year of Christ 370. flourished Gregorie Nazianzen, and dyed in the year 389. who though he be by Mr. T. affirmed to dissuade from it but in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death,* will yet give an evi∣dent testimonie of the doctrin of the Church of that age in this matter.
[ 14] In the * 4th oration written on this subject of Baptisme having gone through all the ages of man (to demonstrate a proposition pre∣mised by him, *〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it belongs to every age and sort of life) he at length comes to the consideration of infancy, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If thou hast an infant, let not iniquity get time,*let it be sanctified (certainly baptized) in infancy, let it in the tender age be consecrated to Gods spirit, and whereas the heathens use amu∣lets and charmes to secure their children,*〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do you give it the Trinity (the Fathers the Sonne and the Holy Ghost in baptisme) that great and good phylacterie, or preservative. A plain testimonie of the Churches doctrine at that time.
[ 15] Afterwards in the * same oration he returns to this matter again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what, saith he, will you say concerning those that are yet children, and neither know the losse nor are sensible of the grace of baptisme, shall we also baptize them? And his answer is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Yes by all means, if any danger presse, tis better they should be sanctified (baptized) when they have no sense of it, then that they should dy unsealed, uninitiated, adding for proof of this the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Page 011〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉circumcision on the eighth day, which was, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉an initial seal, and yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used to those that had no use of reason, and (in a lower degree) the anointing of the posts, which were insensible also, was yet a means of saving the first-born.
[ 16] After this, tis true that he proceeds to consider those children, that are not in any danger of death, and of them he gives his opi∣nion (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the style which S. Paul useth, when he speaks his own sense, as that is other from the revealed will of Christ) that staying about three years, at which time they may be taught to answer somewhat, though they understand it not per∣fectly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by this means they may be baptized, souls and bodies, by this great Sacrament of initiation.
[ 17] But of this, 1. It is is clear that it no way prejudges the doctrine and practice of the Church formerly set down, and approved by him, that infant children, indefinitely considered, might be bap∣tized, and if danger approched, must, how young soever they were; which is as contrary to the Antipaedobaptist, and so to Mr. T. as any thing.
[ 18] 2dly. That it is but his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that, or former ages to authorize it.
[ 19] 3dly. That the state of children being so weak and uncertain, that tis hard to affirme of any that they are not (for the first three years) in any danger, his counesl for deferring will hardly be ever practicable to any.
[ 20] 4thly. That the deferring, of which Nazianzen speaks, is most probably to be understood of those whose parents are newly con∣verted, and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptized or no, for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A.
[ 21] Lastly, That the deferring till three years old, if it were allowed, would no way satisfie the Antipaedobaptists praetensions, and so still the former passages ought be of force with all, and no heed given to the whispers of Mr. T. and others, as if this holy Father dissuaded baptisme in any age unlesse in case of danger, when he clearly saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him in the tenderest age be bap∣tized and consecrated to the Spirit.
Page 103 [ 22] In the same Century S. Ambrose must be placed, being a wri∣ter about the year 380. he in his 10th Book, Ep. 84. ad Deme∣triad. Virg. speaking of those that made Adams sin no otherwise hurtfull to posterity, then by the example (exemplo non transitu no•uisse) he presseth it with this principal absurdity, Hinc eva∣cuatio baptismatis parvulorum, this evacuates the baptisme of infants, which should then be capable of adoption onely, but not of pardon.
[ 23] And in like manner on Luke, by Jordans being driven back, saith he, are signified the mysteries of baptisme, per quae in primor∣dia naturae suae qui baptizati fuerint parvuli à malitia refor∣mantur, by which the little ones that are baptized, are reformed from their malignity to the first state of their nature.
[ 24] In the beginning of the next or fift age, flourished S. Chryso∣stome, that famous Bishop of Constantinople whose death is placed in the year of Christ 407. he in his homilie to the Neophyti hath these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉for this cause (i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptisme, there recited, ten in number) we baptize children, though they have not sins.
[ 25] Which words are the more worth remembring, because they had the hap to be made use of by the Pelagians, and consequent∣ly vindicated by S. Augustine, The Pelagians urged them in this forme, Hac de causa etiam infantes baptiz•mus, cum non sint coin∣quinati peccato, for this cause we baptize infants, when they are not polluted with sin, understanding it of original sin, but S. Augustine appealing to the Greek, shewed that the right rendring was, quamvis peccata non habentes, although they had not sins, i. e. propria, their own or actual sins, of which these infants were not supposed to have any.
[ 26] So in his * 4th Homilie on Genesis, speaking of baptisme as of the Christian circumcision, among other things he affirmes of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it hath no determinate time but 'tis lawful both in the first age (the childhood, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, with him, * else where applied to the time of circumcision on the 8th day, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —) and in the middle, and in Page 104 old age it self, to receive this circumcision made without hands.
[ 27] In the same Centurie, very few years after, if not before Chry∣sostome, S. Hierome must be placed, born in the year 342. and deceased in the year 420. And he in Ep. 7. to Laeta telling her that whilest the child was yong and not come to Pythagoras's Y. the bivium or two wayes, the knowledge of good and evil, tam bona ejus quàm mala parentibus imputantur, his good or evil deeds are imputed to the parents, addes that this must needs be acknowledged, nisi forte existimas Christianorum filios, si bap∣tisma non receperint, ipsos tantùm reos esse peccati, & non etiam scelus referri ad eos qui dare noluerint, maximè illo tempore quo contradicere non poterant qui accepturi erant, sicut è regione salus infantum majorum lucrum est. Ʋnlesse, saith he, you believe that Christians children, if they receive not baptisme, are the onely per∣sons that are guilty of the sin, and that the offence is not charged on them which would not bring them to baptisme, at that time espe∣cially, wherein they that were to receive could not contradict, as on the other side the salvation of infants is the gain of the elder, adding that the parent which was thus to prepare his child for the Kings i. e. Christs embraces, si negligens fuerit, punietur; shall, if he be negligent therein, be punished.
[ 28] Words of no very conformable aboad to the opposers of Paedo∣baptisme, I wish Mr. T. who thinks fit to make use of S. Hieromes name (it now appears how luckily) would be at leisure to consider them.
[ 29] So lib. 3. contr: Pelag. the question being asked by Crito, Qua∣re infantuli baptizentur, why infants are baptized, the answer is made by Atticus, Ʋt eis peccata in baptismate dimittantur, that their sins may be pardoned in baptisme, and again, qui [ 30] parvulus est, parentis in baptismo vinculo solvitur, the infant is freed in baptisme from the band of Adams sin.
Paulinus, we know, was his Contemporarie, and from him we have this testimonie, Ep. 12. Inde parens sacro ducens de font• sacerdos, Infantes niveos corpore, corde, habitu— The Priest brings the infants out of the font white as snow in body, in heart, in habit.
[ 31] Next to these succeeds S. Augustine, who died in the 30th year of this 5t age, and was the great champion of the Church against all the invaders of the depositum committed to it. His passages on Page 105 this subject are to many to be enumerated, and some of them have already been set down in the Resol. of the Quaere p. 217. making it the perpetual doctrine of the whole Church of all ages before him, and expressly including that of the Apostles.
[ 32] So de Bap: contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli infantes baptizantur, qui certè nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam, & ore confiteri ad salu∣tem— & tamen nullus Christianorum dixerit eos inaniter bapti∣zari. This is held as tradition by the Ʋniversal Church, when little infants are baptized, which are sure yet unable to believe with the heart or to confesse with the mouth, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose: (a severe sentence again for the Antipaedobaptist) adding the Ecclesiastical rule by which to judge of Apostolical tradition, and evidencing the be∣nefit of infant baptisme by the example of circumcision, that as in Isaac, circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteousnesse of faith preceded, and the righteousnesse it self followed in his riper age by his imitating his Fathers faith, ita & in baptizatis in∣fantibus praecedit regenerationis Sacramentum, & si Christia∣nam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur in corde conversio, cujus my∣sterium praecessit in corpore, so also in baptized infants the Sa∣crament of regeneration praecedes, and if they hold fast Christian piety, conversion in the heart followes, the mystery whereof had been formerly received in the body.
[ 33] So De verb: Apost. Serm. 14. being come to handle this sub∣ject of the baptisme of infants, he begins thus, sollicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ summâ authoritate fundata, sed disputationes quorundam— The doctrine it self gives us no trouble, being long since founded in the Catholike Church by the highest authority (that sure must be by Christs and the Apostles) but the disputings of some men— and again, Non enim quaestio est inter nos & ipsos, utrum parvuli baptizandi sint, Baptizandos esse parvulos nemo dubitat, quando nec illi hinc dubitant qui ex alterâ parte contradicunt — the question betwixt them and us is not, whether infants are to be baptized; Let no man make doubt of this, seeing neither do they doubt of this which contradict us in the other question concerning the benefit of it.
Page 106 [ 34] And again, in a farther process with those disputers, Dic mihi, obsecro te, parvulis baptizatis Christus aliquid prodest, an nil prodest? Necesse est ut dicat prodesse, Premitur mole matris Ec∣clesiae. Doth Christ profit infants that are baptized, or doth he not? He must needs say that he doth profit, he is prest with the weight of the Church our mother.
[ 35] And again, authoritate reprimuntur Ecclesiae, si enim dixerint Christum nihil prodesse baptizatis infantibus, nihil aliud dicunt quàm superfluè baptizantur infantes. They are represt by the authority of the Church, for if they say that Christ profits not in∣fants baptized, they plainly affirme that infants are superflu∣ously baptized, but this those very heretikes (the Pelagians) di∣cere non audent, dare not say, and so were faine to secure their hypothesis by another evasion, viz. that they were baptized not for salvation but for the kingdome of heaven.
[ 36] And yet farther, Hoc habet authoritas matris ecclesiae, hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon, contra hoc robur, contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur. Fundata ista res est, ferendus est peccator errans in aliis quae∣stionibus — non tantum progredi debet, ut & fundamentum ipsum ecclesiae quatere moliatur. This the authority of our mother the Church is possest of, this the grounded Canon of truth holds fast; against this fort, this invincible wall whosoever makes assault, is broken to pieces. This is a grounded thing: Hee is to be born with who erres in other questions, but he must not proceed thus far (as the Antipaedobaptist certainly doth) as to indeavour to shake the very foundation of the Church, i. e. cer∣tainly a doctrine laid by the first planters of the faith, Christ and the Apostles themselves.
[ 37] So Ep. 89. Non est superfluus baptismus parvulorum, ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt, per rege∣nerationem ab eâdem liberentur. The baptisme of infants is not superfluous, that they who by their birth are bound to that condem∣nation which came by Adam, should be freed from it by regene∣ration, and more to the same purpose in that place.
[ 38] So in Enchirid. c. 42. à parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepi∣tum senem, sicut nullus prohibendus est à baptismo, ita nullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo. From the infant new Page 107 born to the decrepit old age, as none is to be kept from baptisme, so there is none who dyeth not to sin in baptisme.
[ 39] Which words are soon after transcribed by Leo (ad Episc. Aquileg:) who was advanced to the Papacie about the year 440.
[ 40] About this time was the Epistle of the Councel of Carthage written to Innocentius (made Bishop of Rome about the year 400.) In which these words we find by way of Decree, Quicunque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi à perditione liberari & salutem percipere sempiternam, anathema sit. Whosoever denyes that Infants are by the baptisme of Christ freed from perdition and receive eternal life, let him be anathema.
[ 41] About the same time, whilest Innocentius lived (and to the same purpose) was the Milevitan Canon, at which S. Augu∣stine was present, a Bishop in that Councel. This hath been set down in the Resol: of the Quaere, p. 219. and is an evident te∣stimonie that this doctrine was such as Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit, the Catholike Church every where diffused, alwaies understood and asserted, and so it is that Councels witness of the Apostolicalness of it.
[ 42] To these it were easy to adde Theodoret also, and Leo (alrea∣dy cited) soon after him, both falling within the former part of that fift Centurie, and in every age after this, store enough. But the question is not, and in any reason cannot be extended to those times, the clear definitions through all those first ages, being all that could be required to decide the controversie concerning the matter of fact, whether it were practised or not practised by the Apostles.
[ 43] And having so largely deduced them, it is not imaginable what should be now wanting to the completing of the evidence, when I have onely added, that there is no one testimonie of dissent, either pretended or producible from the writings of all those first ages, nor consequently the least appearance of obstacle, why the recei∣ving of Infants to baptisme should not be resolved the doctrin and practice of the first and purest ages of the Church, avouched and testified to be delivered to them by the Apostles of Christ, who could not mistake his meaning in the Institution.
[ 44] What artifices the Antepaedobaptist can make use of to cast a Page 108mist before our eyes, in the midst of so much light, I can no way divine: sure I am that the prejudices which Mr. T. hath in few words indevoured to infuse (as that some are counterfeit authors, some suspected, some misinterpreted; that some maintained infant baptisme but in case of danger of death, that others which avouched this, avouched either Rebaptization or Communion of Infants also) are all of them unjust and causeless, and have severally and punctually been prevented in one or both of these discourses, and so there remains not the least scruple of difficulty, that I can fore∣see in this matter, to adde to the bulke of this vindication.
[ 45] God assist it with his blessing to the disabusing those that are seduced, and regaining them to the waies of Peace.