A Rejoinder to Henry Danvers, Tract
A Rejoynder to Mr. Henry Danvers his brief friendly Reply (as he calls it) to my Anſwer about Infants Baptiſm.
I Shall acknowledg his Reply to be brief, he having replied to little of my book; but how friendly it is, ſhall afterwards appear.
It ſeems by his Frontiſpiece to Mr. Wills, he knew my name to be Blinman, though he was pleaſed to call me Blindman, in the head of every leaf; whether deſignedly or no, he beſt knows.
As for the ſevere reflections he charges me withal, I ſhall anſwer to them when I come to his particulars. Only I ſhall at preſent ſay in general, that divers judicious perſons, that have read my anſwer to him, do ſay, that I have dealt more gently with him than any they have yet ſeen, who have written againſt that perſwaſion.
I ſhall deſire the reader to obſerve, how either ignorantly, or knowingly, he obſcures my Argument, and the ſcope of it, concerning womens receiving the Lord's Supper; as may appear in my Book, pag. 2, and other places. The force of my Argument lay againſt the Expreſſneſs both of the command, and example that he brought: ſhewing that he could not prove it in expreſs terms] from thoſe Scriptures, it being not ſaid there expreſly] that thoſe women were believers, and that they did receive the Lord's-Supper; but it muſt be gathered by conſequence, and deduction from thoſe, and other Texts. A thing conſtantly diſowned by thoſe of that perſwaſion, that I have diſcourſed with upon that point; for, though they will grant conſequences from Scriptures in matters of Faith, yet they profeſſedly deny them in matters of Worſhip, and conſequently in this of the baptizing of Infants. Mr. Danvers might therefore have been yet more brief in his Brevity, if his Bolt had been ſhot leſs at random, and been levelled point-blank at what I aſſerted. Let him ſhew it, if he can, in expreſs] terms: if not, as he cannot, let him and others rid themſelves and their hearers of that dangerous principle, which inſtead of eſtabliſhing the ordinances of the Goſpel, and the priviledges of the Church, and members of it, (which they pretend to) will ſhake ſome of them at leaſt, if not ſhatter them wholly. And if conſequences be lawful (and indeed neceſſary) in matters of worſhip at all, why not then allowable in this point of Infants Baptiſm, which concerns the ſubject of it?
As for my exception, which ſeems to him to be defective in Grammar, as well as in Divinity.] He to prove it to be ſo, brings in examples of the figure Syllepſis; whereby the more unworthy Gender is comprehended under the more worthy; the female under the male. He might have taken notice, if he had not been wedded to his pre-apprehenſions; that I did not deny women in Church-eſtate, to have a right to the Lord's Supper, any more than I denied men; but I only denied them to be expreſly] ſaid, to have received the Lord's Supper, in the proofs that he produced; which I pray the Reader to take notice of, as the hinge upon which the controverſy here depends. And therefore I ſaid, pag. 10. of my Book; What Arguments do ſatisfie me concerning the right of women to the Lord's Supper; and how I can reſolve this Text (the like I ſay of others) to my own ſatisfaction, is not my work at preſent to declare. Whence he might eaſily judge, that I underſtand the figure Syllepſis (ſit verbo venia) as well as he. He might therefore have ſpared thoſe lines; to wit, Why ſhould you ſo forget your ſelf, as to think it ſtrange, that the believing women ſhould be comprehended under the believing men? — I did not forget my ſelf, but through grace, knew what I did; as the judicious Reader will eaſily perceive.
As to my defect in Divinity,] I bleſs God I am ſomewhat ſenſible of my deficiency therein; and I think it would do him no harm, if he were more ſenſible of his alſo. But I do not think my ſelf ever the more deficient becauſe this Gentleman tells me ſo; nor upon the ground on which he ſaith it. His inſtance of male and female, both called Adam, &c. makes not againſt my Argument, nor do prove me defective in Divinity. And I wiſh he had ſhewn, when, or where I ſaid, that the article foreign, is limited to the maſculine gender ſo, as [always] to underſtand thereby the man only, ſo as to exclude the figure Syllepſis; which every judicious Reader will ſee muſt be his meaning, if he ſay any thing. But this I ſay, and ſhall ſtill affirm, that the article foreign, doth expreſly] indicate men, or (if you will) males; and not expreſly] women, or females. I ſay expreſly,] and therein lies the force of my Argument againſt him, and others of his perſwaſion, who admit only of expreſs] Scriptures in matters of worſhip, and not deductions or conſequences. And yet they are forced to make uſe of them (though they will not openly own them) to maintain ſome things in matters of worſhip; as in this very inſtance of his doth plainly appear. And the other inſtances he brings, are ſo far from an expreſs] mentioning of women or females, that he muſt flie to the figure Syllepſis, to comprehend them under the article foreign, which is of the maſculine gender. And hence, he may not only hope, out be aſſured of it, that I will ſay the article foreign, doth not expreſly] ſignify females; and that as to the expreſneſs of it, it is limited to men, and not women; there being another article foreign, expreſly to denote the feminine gender, or females.
And this will ſerve for anſwer to his other exceptions concerning the other Greek words, foreign and foreign whence may be ſeen, that my exceptions unto his examples are not inſignificant, much leſs utterly inſignificant, as he terms them.
As my own conſcience ſeals to this truth, that women have a right to the Lord's Supper as well as men; ſo I have without being forced (as he pleaſes to phraſe it) willingly declared it. And that it is not pleaſing to me (take it in my own words, as in pag. 10.) to raiſe objections againſt any truth of God; nor yet would I loſe any grain of truth that will flow from a Scripture. This laſt he hath left out; as perhaps not willing to admit grains of truth, in a point againſt which he hath been ſo deeply engaged.
The verity confirmed by me is plain and ſo, I hope, ere this, is the falſity oppoſed by me; which this Gentleman would confirm, or at leaſt ſo darken, that it might not be perceived.
I come next to the parallel; whether the examples I bring from Lydia and he houſe,Act. 16.15. 1 Cor. 1.16. or houſhold, (for the Greek word is uſed for both) and the houſhold of Stephanas, be not as clear a proof at leaſt, for Infants (or under-age children) baptized, as the proofs he brought from Acts 1, and Acts 2; for womens receiving the Lord's Supper, which he excepts againſt. — Becauſe,
1. Not one Infant is ſo much as named in either, much leſs that they were baptized in them.
I anſwer; he ſhould have taken my words, and ſenſe; viz. children; that is, ſuch as are under age, though not Infants, which he knows to be meant as well as Infants. And it is apparent in Scripture, (which is a better expoſitor of it ſelf, than he, or all the men in the world) that houſe, or houſhold, doth frequently ſignify children, yea one child, 1 King. 17.12, 13, 15. And there being no other converted perſons mentioned there, (as in ſome other Scriptures there are, which I then purpoſely omitted) it is to me more than probable, that by the houſhold, is meant a child, or children; which is further illuſtrated and confirmed upon other grounds in my Book. It is as expreſly] ſaid, that a child, or children are the houſe, (or houſhold) and that the houſhold was baptized; as it is expreſly mentioned, that women were of the number of the 120 Diſciples, and that all that believed, broke bread.
Secondly. He asks, are children as expreſly owned to have right to Baptiſm, and enjoyned thereto, &c. as women are expreſly owned to have right to the ordinance of the Supper?
As for other things in that Queſtion about their capability to diſcern the ſpiritual myſteries thereof, &c. they are anſwered to in my Book, to which I refer the Reader. Nor ſhall I ſay much to the other here, I having there alſo ſpoken more largely to the ſubſtance of it. Only I ſhall ſay in brief, they are ſo expreſly owned by the Lord in his Covenant made with Abraham, and his Church-ſeed, Gen. 17.7. (which is now come upon us Gentiles, Gal. 3.13.) the ſeal only changed; and owned to have a right to the initiatory-ſeal then, and never caſt out, but confirmed, Acts 2.39. and alſo comprehended within Chriſt's commiſſion, Matt. 28.19. (as I have made appear in my Eſſay) that it ſhould make him tremble to diſown them, as he hath done. Add to this, that he whoſe males were not circumciſed, was counted uncircumciſed himſelf, and debarr'd from the Paſſover, Exod. 12.48. A like proportion there is now as to Baptiſm. I do here but darken what I have more clearly ſpoken to in my Printed Book, becauſe I would not be tedious; and yet forced to ſay ſomething to it. Dum brevis eſſe laboro; — Obſcurus fio.
Thirdly, To his third queſtion, I return, the more is their evil; that the Baptiſm of the children of in-churched Parents is not acknowledged by them; and that it is not unpleaſant to them to raiſe arguments againſt it. Ingens gloria!
At length, ſuppoſing he hath gotten the victory, he marches off with his colours flying; ſaying, that there is not the leaſt parity or compariſon to be made betwixt the one and the other; nor the leaſt conſiderable pretence to imagine, that any Infants were baptized, becauſe 'tis ſaid that houſholds were; and he gives two reaſons.
1. Becauſe there are many houſholds wherein are no children, and no proof of one infant belonging to either of theſe two houſholds.
2. Becauſe in the four houſholds mentioned to be baptized in Scripture, at leaſt in three of them, only ſuch as were taught believers are comprehended.
Anſw. One will ſuffice our turn: what if no infant were expreſly mentioned in thoſe two houſholds I mentioned? In Lydia's houſe there's no mention of any beſides her ſelf converted, and yet her houſe or houſhold ſaid to be baptized: as if the Lord would point out unto us, her child, or children, which in other Scriptures are ſet forth by the name of houſe or houſhold, as hath been ſhewn. And ſuch a ground of an interpretation from the holy Scriptures, ought to be of more value to us, than 10000 cavils of men to the contrary: and would be ſo, if we had that degree of reverence for the wiſdom of God in the Scriptures, as there ſhould be.
Suppoſe Lydia were a ſingle perſon: is not a Widow ſo? and hath not many a Widow a young child, or children? I ſhall therefore return the Replyers words, vvith ſome variation, upon himſelf; viz. Surely it is on their part, that ſay ſhe had no children, and that her children vvere not baptized, to prove it: eſpecially that ſhe had ſervants, or other grovvn perſons in her houſe, and that they vvere converted, and were the only houſhold there baptized, Acts 16.15. A bold aſſertion without ground from Scripture, is not ſufficient to prove it. Were the brethren that Paul and Sylas ſaw at Lydia's houſe, and comforted, of Lydia's family? ver. 40. Let him make it appear, or elſe never produce it to overthrow an interpretation grounded upon, and warranted by the Scripture. Paul and Sylas ſaw the brethren, and comforted them at Lydia's houſe; ergo they were of Lydia's houſhold. Negatur argumentum.
As for the houſhold of Stephanas, it ſeems they were baptized when the Apoſtle firſt preached the Goſpel in thoſe parts; which ſeems to be ſome years before, (how many I cannot yet find). And then thoſe that were baptized in their childhood might be grown up, and converted, and ſo with their godly Father addict themſelves to the miniſtry of the Saints. What Dr. Hamond, or other men of note (Salva reverentia) may confeſs or hold concerning this, is no rule to me, nor to any others, who in humility look up to the Lord for his ſpirit to guide them into the right underſtanding of his word.
In the next place, Mr. Danvers comes to examine the parity betwixt the command for womens receiving the Lord's Supper, and that which is pretended (as he pleaſes to ſay) by me, for Infants Baptiſm. Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo eat, &c. 1 Cor. 11.28.
He is pleaſed to term what I have ſaid to that command urged by him; A meer trifling in the things of God, and a playing with words to pervert the truth. And a little after, he verily believes that I know there is little but deceit in it.
It ſeems then he believes I know ſomething (notwithſtanding his hard cenſure) that is not deceit in it. But I muſt here tell him, and others of his mind, that I abhor the things he charges on me, and his very belief of them. Is this the Gentleman that taxes Mr. Wills ſo ſeverely for his uncharitableneſs towards him, and many other things? I am ſure I gave him no ſuch occaſion, whatever he conceives of Mr. Wills. But to return; I know not any deceit in what I have ſaid, nor any purpoſe I had to deceive; but it was to ſhew his deceit (which I would have rather called his miſtake, but that he hath put the word in my mouth) who will allow of nothing but expreſs Scripture, (I ſay again, expreſs) in matters of worſhip; particularly of the Sacraments, and the Subjects-recipient of them. I produced the Greek words in the context, 1 Cor. 11. ſhewing that they were expreſly] of the maſculine gender, and not of the feminine: and ſo did expreſly] I ſay again, expreſly] denote males, not females. And though the word Anthropos in ver. 28. be of both genders in the general; yet that it was there expreſly limited with a relative of the maſculine (foreign). I ſay again expreſly]; for there is not a word, that I find in the Text, or Context, as to this matter, which is expreſly] of the feminine. There is no foreign nor foreign. What I have ſaid therefore, I hope is in ſeriouſneſs, and Chriſtian ſobriety, to diſcover, and refute his trifling, and miſtakes, and leading others aſide: and that he cannot hence expreſly, I ſay expreſly] prove, that women ſhould receive the Lord's Supper; but muſt infer it thence by deduction, and by his figure Syllepſis, ſpoken of before; which I do not deny, nor ever did. But thence I took, and now do take an advantage, to urge him, and others of his mind, to admit of conſequences and deductions clearly ariſing from the Scriptures of truth rightly underſtood, in this point of Infants right, in the Covenant of Grace Eccleſiaſtically diſpenſed, and of Baptiſm the initiatory ſeal of it.
Here Mr. Danvers is in his Trophies again, concluding my exceptions to his command, are as inſignificant as thoſe to his example. Let him pleaſe himſelf in his gloryings, till the Lord convince him of the reaſon he hath to repent of them.— He next falls upon the command I produced for the Baptiſm of the Infant, &c. of an inchurched Parent, or Parents; and that was Chriſt's commiſſion, Matth. 28.19. Where I alſo expounded, Mark 16.15, 16.
Inſtead of replying to the interpretation of thoſe Texts, (in which, I believe, I had the gracious aſſiſtance of God, which I thankfully acknowledge) he refers me (as he ſaith) for my better information, to the account Mr. Baxter gives of it, &c.
Is this a ſatisfactory anſwer to the things there delivered. I ſuppoſe Mr. Baxter himſelf is more ingenious, than to bind up all other men to ſay only that, and no more, or no otherwiſe than he ſaith upon that or other Scriptures; yea, than to bind up himſelf only to his former notions, in all that he hath written. I could refer him to arguments in Mr. Baxter's Books, that undermine his opinion; but I ſuppoſe they will not take with him. Doth the Gentleman think I have laid aſide my Reaſon and Religion alſo? I honour and eſteem the labours of learned and pious men, but am not willing (nor I believe are they) that any ſhould make them Lords of their faith, and Maſters of their apprehenſions. That would be too much Phariſee-like, Matth. 23.7, 8.
But I doubt Mr. Danvers continues his diſtorting of Mr. Baxter's words, in extending that more generally, which he profeſſedly ſpake and meant of adult perſons only, as Mr. Wills hath evidenced to him. But I ſhall leave it to him to vindicate his own meaning.
His Reply to what I ſaid of Infants diſcipleſhip, from Acts 15. is nothing againſt my argument thence. Let the judicious Reader conſider of both. Thoſe that the falſe Teachers preſt circumciſion upon after the manner of Moſes, ſome of which were children of eight days old, the Holy Ghoſt calls diſciples.
Mr. Danvers his Reply to my Book, is never like to put an end to the controverſy about Infant-baptiſm; but as he began the fire, ſo he increaſes it: the Lord alone can quench it. And I ſhall here let him know, that I am reſolved at preſent not to trouble the Preſs, nor others after this, about this point; which I am ſufficiently ſatisfied in, and have my ſmall ſhare in endeavouring to ſatisfie others, which I hope the Lord will accept, though he rejects them, and ſome others of the more rigid of his perſwaſion reſpect me the leſs becauſe of them; which ſignifies no more with me than ſome of them would ſignify (to moſt that know them) if they and their mony were ſeparated.
I ſpeak not this as if I were unwilling to ſerve the Lord in pleading for the truth I have aſſerted for the future; or afraid of what can be replyed againſt it; but becauſe I ſee no end of controverting; and no further good to be expected from it. They will have the laſt word, and let them have it. There hath been enough ſaid to ſatisfy thoſe that are willing to receive ſatisfaction.
I muſt now give him leave to anſwer to three or four ſmart and unhandſome reflections, and rejoyn to them, and then I ſhall end.
1. The firſt is, that I gave him juſt occaſion of offence, ſo unduly to mention his not taking notice of Mr. Baxter's Errata, without any the leaſt regard to what he had ſo largely ſpoken for his ſatisfaction, and his own vindication; and reproving that his omiſſion with ſuch ſeverity, and wholly paſſing over thoſe horrible things remark'd by him (without controul as yet) out of Mr. Baxter's Directory. This he counts partiality in me.
What juſt occaſion of offence I gave him, and what ſeverity I uſed, let the Reader judge by my words, in my Preface to Mr. Danvers. Sir, hearing of ſome things in your Book relating to a perſon of note, who not long before had printed ſome paſſages, the noiſe of which (by the coming abroad of your Book, and as repreſented by you) filled the minds of many with admiration and aſtoniſhment, I could not reſt till I had gotten a ſight of them.
And in my margin I ſay this; viz. one of which, and a groſs one, was from your leaving out the word [not,] mentioned in the Printers Errata, with an Aſterisk prefixed to it. This is all I ſaid to it; and this was occaſioned by a Bookſeller, a friend of mine, who in his Shop, turned to the place, and ſhewed it to me. Judge here the ſeverity of my reproof.
If Mr. Danvers hath ſo largely ſpoken for Mr. Baxter's ſatisfaction, and his own vindication], it was wholly unknown to me, till I read it in this his Reply.
And as for paſſing over thoſe horrible things remark'd by him, &c. I did not judge it belonged to me to enter the liſts with Mr. Baxter in my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers; yea, though I had been fully ſatisfied that Mr. Danvers had dealt fairly in thoſe Collections, which yet I never examined; though I hear what ſome others ſay. Beſides, Mr. Danvers there intimates, as if more would be ſaid to them, or to that effect, (whether by himſelf, or others, I know not); and it may be he might have counted me unmannerly to have intruded my ſelf, and ſo to have prevented others. Why ſhould he think me, whom he judges to be ſo defective in Grammar, and Divinity, to be fit to grapple with ſo eminent a perſon in controverſies of that kind?
2. The ſecond ſmart Reflection he charges me with, as being injurious to him, is about the Waldenſes, whom I produced for Infant-Baptiſm, faithfully quoting the places, and words, out of Paul Perrin's Hiſtory againſt Mr. Danvers his allegations.
I can truly ſay, I never heard of this diſtinction he gives to clear himſelf, till I read it in this his Reply; viz. That the ancient Waldenſes were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, but the more modern he grants were for it; whereas my ignorance ſuppoſed, both ancient and modern, to be for it. And I muſt ſtill ſuppoſe it, and hold faſt to what teſtimonies I have produced, till I can ſee better proof of what he ſays; and that thoſe teſtimonies I brought, did none of them concern the ancient Waldenſes, but the modern only. And he muſt alſo prove that the body of the ancient Waldenſes were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and not here and there one of them; or elſe his teſtimony will be notoriouſly fallacious. Theſe things I may hold without being injurious to him, or to my own conſcience.
Where Mr. Danvers anſwers to every one of them, which, he ſaith, I have not regarded] he doth not tell me. He may pleaſe to know, if he knew it not before, that my Book was in anſwer to his firſt piece, and in a few weeks after his came forth, ready for the Preſs, and was in London about ten or twelve months before it was printed. As for his ſecond piece, I never read it to this day; nor have I mony to ſpare to buy ſuch Books. If this anſwer ſatisfie him not, he may charge himſelf with diſingenuity, and not me.
3. He hath to blame me for a piece of unfairneſs, not to ſay unfaithfulneſs, about the word Tabal, foreignwhich he would have to juſtifie the dipping of the body all under water, as the only outward way of Baptizing. I produced that Hebrew word, pag. 190 of my Book, out of Gen. 37.31. Ruth 2.14. Againſt which he makes no exception; but he is againſt my dealing with it in Levit. 14.6. and tells me, as I deal with it, I would neceſſitate another interpretation to be put upon it, than to dip (to wit wholy under) contrary to the Septuagint, &c. and the true force of the word.
My words are theſe; Is it credible that the Bird that was killed did yield ſo much blood, as that all thoſe things (viz. the living Bird, and the Cedar-wood, and the Scarlet, and the Hyſop) could be dipped under it, and covered with it? Here he taxes me that I left out the next words, [over the running water.] So I did, as conceiving them not at all to the matter in hand. And I heartily deſire that I may never be guilty of unfaithfulneſs, partiality and deceit, in dealing with the holy Word of God, more than I am guilty in this particular; and then I doubt not, but through Chriſt, to look up with comfort. It is not ſaid in ver. 6. That he ſhall dip them, and the living Bird, in the running water; but he ſhall dip them, & the living bird, in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water, as in ver. 5.
But he taxes me that I took no notice of what follows in ver. 51. viz. And he ſhall dip them in the blood of the ſlain Bird, and the running water: but that I went on with my 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 yield ſo much blood, that all thoſe things could be dip'd under it, and covered with it? &c.— And ſo I ſay ſtill, and ſhall clearly ſhew, how unfairly he deals with the Word of God, that I may not ſay (to uſe his own ſenſe) unfaithfully, partially, & deceitfully. I ſhall deſire the impartial Reader (for I have no hope to prevail with others) to obſerve how this Gentleman deals with the holy word of God, & with me alſo, & his readers, in this point.
In ver. 5, 6. is handled the caſe of a leaprous perſon; and there thoſe things, and the living Bird, were to be dip'd only in the blood of the Bird, that was killed over the running water, but nothing there ſpoken of dipping them into the water it ſelf. But in ver. 51. the caſe is concerning a leaprous houſe, how that ſhould be cleanſed? and there it is, that the things fore-mentioned, and the living Bird, are to be dip'd in the blood of the ſlain bird, and in the running water.
Let now the judicious Reader judge which of us hath dealt unfairly, unfaithfully, partially with the Law, and deceitfully, he or I. How hath he leaped over above forty verſes, to bring in dipping in the water, to maintain his aſſertion, not at all belonging to the thing treated of? in ver. 5, 6. I ſhall leave it to his conſcience in cool blood, and to all impartial Readers to determine, whether he muſt not run to a Synecdoche here, that a part of thoſe things only, was dip'd, and not the whole. I would have tranſcribed ſeveral things out of the Jewiſh Rabbins, quoted by Mr. Ainſworth, but that I ſhould be too prolix. The water was, as they ſay, as much as an egg-ſhell and an half.
4. His laſt unhandſome reflection charged upon me, reſpects an abſurdity I charge upon him, which he conceives will return upon my ſelf, and my Partner too, with diſadvantage. (I ſuppoſe he means Mr. Wills, I can aſſure him, his information failed himwho was far enough from being my Partner). And that is, of his miſſing it in his Logick, in affirming the right ſubject of Baptiſm (viz. a profeſſed believer) to belong to the matter and eſſence of Baptiſm: for Anſwer;
Mr. Danvers ſaith in his Book to which I anſwered, that the nullity and utter inſignificancy of Infants Baptiſm, is made appear, in that it wants the eſſentials; to wit, matter and form. And coming to ſhew that it hath not a right matter, inſtead thereof, he brings in the ſubject, and ſays, the right ſubject of Baptiſm is wanting.
Here I ſaid, he miſt it in his Logick; for matter is one of the two eſſential cauſes that gives being to the effect; but the ſubject is not ſo, but in order of nature at leaſt, follow the effect. It is Argumentum modo quodam conſentaneum, and not Abſolute conſentaneum, as cauſe and effect are.
To this he replies, that the ſubject belongs to the matter and eſſence of Baptiſm, will be juſtified by Burgerſdicius, who tells him, that the ſubject belongs to the matter, [and is of the eſſence thereof], &c. To which I rejoyn, that I cannot find in Burgerſdicius the leaſt foot-ſtep of this laſt aſſertion, to wit, that the ſubject is of the eſſence of the matter, but in effect, the quite contrary; as appears by his definition of the ſubject. A ſubject, ſaith he, is that to which ſomething is adjoyned beſides the eſſence.Subjectum eſt cui aliquid praeter eſſentiam adjungitur. Cap. 19. Inſtit. Log. p. 79. Quae de aliquo praedicantur eſſentialiter, huc non pertinent, ut ex ſubjecti & Adjuncti definitione intelligitur. Therefore (I infer) the ſubject cannot be of the eſſence of the matter; for that gives part of the eſſence to to the effect. And again, thoſe things that are predicated, (that is, ſpoken of another thing) eſſentially, do not belong to this, as appears (ſaith he) by the definition of ſubject and adjunct.
It's true that Burgerſdicius diſtributes matter into of which,Materia ex qua, in qua, & circa quam in which, and about which (and ſo do other Logicians). But in the ſame Theorem (in Cap. 16. de Mat. & forma Theorem; 3 Sect. 2.) he alſo tells us, that the matter in which] is the ſubject; and the matter about which] is the object, which he refers to be ſpoken of in their proper place; to wit, his 19th. Chapter de Subjecto & Adjuncto. Materia eſt id, ex quo inexiſtente, aliquid fit. Materia eſt cauſa interna ex qua aliquid fit, vel conſtat. Sect. 1. Theor. 3.But the matter of which] ſaith he, is matter properly ſo called, which in his 16th. Chapter, where he treats of matter and form, as eſſential cauſes, he defines thus; Matter is that, of which inexiſting, any thing is made. And again, matter is an internal cauſe of which any thing is made, or conſiſts. And this is the only, matter that is eſſential, and gives being to the thing, together with the eſſential form; and not the matter in which], and about which], which are ſubject and object. The matter is indeed part of the eſſence of the ſubject, and not the ſubject of the eſſence of the matter.
Let the Reader now judge what diſadvantage hath befallen me, or the truth I have aſſerted, by this of Burgerſdicius; and whether it hath not wholly fallen upon the Replier himſelf, and the cauſe he pleads for. I cannot but obſerve how unhappy this Gentleman is in his dealing with Authors, ſo as to miſs the right ſenſe of them. Unto which I ſhall further add, that if that ſentence, to wit, that the ſubject is of the eſſence thereof (i.e. the matter) be not to be found in Burgerſdicius (as I cannot yet believe it is) then he hath clearly forged one falſhood to eſtabliſh another.
And as for that out of Tilenus, it makes not againſt me at all; for, he ſaith not, that the ſubject-recipient is the materia ex qua, the matter of which] of Baptiſm. Beſides, if he had ſaid ſo, his foreign would not have ſwayed any man, except one reſolved to ſubjugate his Reaſon and Religion alſo to his dictates. I ſuppoſe Mr. Danvers would be loth to ſtand to his judgment in ſundry other things.
As to that out of Alex. de Halys; if the authority of both thoſe mentioned be worth any thing in this caſe, yet ſurely Mr. Danvers his Tranſlation is worth little. Tinctio eſt formalis cauſa Baptiſmi, & ſi tinctio, non lotio, vel lavatio, vel ablutio: which he tranſlates thus; Dipping is the formal cauſe of Baptiſm, and if dipping, then not waſhing or pouring. How ablutio ſhould [directly] ſignify pouring, is beyond my Conſtruing-book to inform me; however, I am very willing to accept of his grant, that it ſignifies ſuch a waſhing as is by pouring on water, oppoſed by him to dipping; and then it will yield us ſomething, which draws near at leaſt to ſprinkling. If my memory fail me not, he uſeth it in his firſt Book, to ſet forth dipping; (I have not the Book by me, to ſearch it out). But that by tinctio there, the Authors mean, not dipping, but rather aſperſion or ſprinkling, I ſhall offer theſe two things for.
1. A phraſe that Dr. Couper in his Dictionary hath out of Ovid, who doubtleſs well knew the ſignification of Latin words. Corpus tingere ſparſa aqua; which the Dr. renders, To waſh his body by caſting water on it. Whence it ſeems tingo] is not always uſed, for to dip, but ſometimes to aſperſe or ſprinkle. Sparſa aqua.
2. The oppoſition here, between tinctio on the one part; and lotio, lavatio and ablutio on the other. If tinctio here, be dipping, then the others muſt be ſprinkling, which he renders pouring; a waſhing by pouring on water. It muſt be one of theſe two; for there's no other way of Baptizing, beſides dipping and ſprinkling; if dipping, then not ſprinkling; if ſprinkling, then not dipping. And it ſeems Mr. Danvers could not avoid the tranſlating of ablutio, by pouring], if he meant to make tinctio, dipping. I am much miſtaken if lotion and ablution be not uſed by him in the Book I anſwered, contra-diſtinct to ſprinkling, and for dipping; but I will not poſitively aſſert it, for I would not wrong him.
To draw to an end, I return his own words, with a little mutation, and addition; if thoſe learned be not right, or he hath miſapprehended or miſuſed them, then ſure, he my reprover is wrong, and deſerves blame and ſhame for his raſhneſs, or ſomething more.— By what I have ſaid will appear, that his Logick hath not proved the ſubject to be of the eſſence of the matter of Baptiſm.
In baptizing the infants, or young children of an inchurched Parent, we do not alter and change the ſubject, but do give them what God hath appointed ſhould be given to ſuch, whoſe Parent is externally in covenant with him: and that is, the initiatory ſign and ſeal of that covenant of grace which God made with Abraham and his Church-ſeed. See more at large in my Eſſay. But I am forced to ſay ſomething to it, that the Truth of God, and the Church of God, may not ſuffer by my ſilence.
As or the baptizing of Swords, &c. he may pleaſe to remit it to the Pope, and his Croiſſadoes.— Nulla ſelus bello, pacem te poſctmus.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Blinman, A Rejoinder to Henry Danvers (1675)