Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism, Chapter 1

Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism · Chapter 1

p. 1Mr. Danvers's Defence from the Charge of Prevarication, Falshood, and perverting the Testimonies of the Ancients, found insufficient; and the same further made good against him.

IN the 20th page of his Reply, entituled Innocency and Truth vindicated, he tells us, That he doth not quote the sayings of the Ancients as if they had been Anabaptists, or to prove, that Believers Baptism is the only Baptism of those Centuries; for, he saith, that would have been Madness and Contradiction: and indeed to quote them for such an end had been little less; and I presume, if that were not his design, he will be hardly put to it, to give any rational account why he produced them, and not be found at last to contradict himself: For in his Treatise of Baptism Edit. 1. (which was the Book I answered) next to the Preface we have the Contents of his Book, consisting of two parts: the first proving Believers, the second disproving (as he tells us) that of Infants-Baptism, under these two Heads.

1. That the Baptising of Believers is only to be esteemed Christ's Ordinance of Baptism.

2. That the Baptising of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ.

p. 2The first of these he attempts to prove in seven Chapters, and the last is from the Testimonies of learned men in all ages since Christ, witnessing to it. Witnessing to what? Why, to the truth of his first Assertion, viz. That the Baptism of Believers is the [Only] true Baptism: Had he said no more than A true Baptism, he had been safe. And again, in his 7th Chapter of the same Treatise, p. 56. he thus expresseth himself: Not only Scripture, but even Antiquity it self (of which they so much boast) is altogether for Believers, and not for Infants-Baptism: Now whether these sayings of his, compared with that above-mentioned, that he doth not quote the Ancients to prove That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism of those Centuries, be not Pro and Con, and evident contradiction, I will not say Madness; and whether he hath not shamefully relinquished his Thesis, yea whether he doth not prevaricate to free himself from the Charge of Prevarication, is submitted to the judgment of the Reader. And although it must needs be obvious to every impartial eye, that Mr. D. is herein found tardy; yet, as one that hath quite forgotten himself, he doth also in the third page of his Reply tell us, that he hopes it will be acknowledged he doth not prevaricate and pervert the Testimonies in the three first Centuries, and that Believers Baptism was the only Baptism for near 300 years, flatly gain saying what he hath in the 20th pag. of the same Book, as we have above mentioned. Thus, Proteus-like, he often changeth Shapes, and being so wavering and fickle, as we have noted, it is a shrewd Sign he will also faulter in making good what he pretends to as to the 3 first Centuries; namely, That he hath not prevaricated or p. 3perverted the Testimonies thereunto belonging. Which whether it be so or not, we cannot come to know but by making some Reflections upon the 7th Chapter of his Treatise of Baptism, where he begins with the first Century, thus—The Magdiburgenses in their excellent History do tell us, that as to the subject of Baptism in the first Century, they find they Baptized Only the Adult or Aged, whether Jews or Gentiles. How well Mr. Danvers doth excuse himself for adding the word only, we shall hereafter see. We are now upon the trial of Prevarication; which is a concealing or letting pass that which ought to have been declared, on purpose to deceive; and this I charge him with: for though the Magdiburgs do say (what every one knows) that we have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Gentiles that were baptized, but as touching Infants there are no Examples recorded, Exempla annotata non leguntur; yet they add in the very next line, that Origen and Cyprian affirm, that even in the Apostles days Infants were baptized, & since these Fathers lived in the next Century after the Apostles, they may very well be thought to understand what the Apostles did.

In the 2d Century, Mr. Danvers quotes from the Magdiburgs some of Justin Martyr's words in his Apology to Antoninus Pius, where mention is made of Instruction and fasting, and prayer before Baptism, but withal conceals what in the same place the Magdiburgs tell us, that this was the Method which was used in reference to Aliens upon their Conversion to Christianity; for these are their words—Cum qui ad fidem Christianam conversus esset sat instructus &c. that is, when any one was converted to the Christian Faith, he was sufficiently instructed before Baptism.

p. 4In the 3d Century he doth egregiously prevaricate in telling us, that the Magdiburgs say, As to the Rites of Baptism they have no Testimony of alteration: for hereby he doth suggest to the Reader, that in this Age as well as in the former there was no Baptism owned but that of the Adult: whereas,

1. Those words [as to the Rites of Baptism they have no Testimony of alteration] are his own words, and not the Magdiburgs, who say only this, viz. Baptizandi ritus in Ecclesiis Asianis observatos hoc seculo, quia omnium ferme Doctorum Asiaticorum scriptis destituimur, commemorare non possumus; that is, We cannot rehearse the Rites of Baptizing observed in the Asiatick-Churches, because we want for the most part the Writings of the Asiatick [Doctors.]

2. He silently passeth by what they do expresly say was in use in this Age, namely, that Adult persons of both sexes, and also Infants, were baptized; Baptizabantur in utroque sexu, Adulti simul et Infantes, Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124.

3. Further: under this head he perverts the Sence of Mr. Baxter's words, and carrys them quite off from the intent and scope of his Discourse, as you may see in his Saints Rest, Part 1. c. 8. sect. 5. For what is there spoken from Origen and Cyprian of an express Covenanting before Baptism, is meant of Adult Strangers; nor is Mr. Baxter treating there of Baptism, but something else. And at this rate what Author can be secure from the Violence of his interpretations? And if he had thought on it, he might have urged for Adult Baptism that of the Magdiburgs, Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. where having said as before, That persons of both Sexes, both Aged and Infants, were baptized; the words immediately following p. 5are these, Adultorum autem aliquandiu antequam baptizabantur, fides explorabatur, i. e. But as touching the Adult, they enquired after Faith and Repentance before they were baptized. Thus much for the 3 first Centuries, wherein as you see Mr. Danvers is sufficiently faulty; and yet as if he were most innocent, he doth (in the preface to his Innocency and Truth) most confidently address himself to the Reader, and complements him in a high strain, saying, that at his Bar the matter is now brought betwixt me and him; and all that he asks, is only to do themselves and the Truth in question so much right, as to afford the Common Justice of an open ear; that having heard the Recrimination (he means Crimination) they will also attend to what is said for Vindication.

But the specious Title of a Book, or Daring Preface, will never blind an intelligent Reader, who will judg of things not by a parcel of confident words, but secundum allegata & probata, according as things are alledged and proved.

In the next place we come to the 4th Century, concerning which Mr. Danvers saith, I make a great Cry; though I know no such Vociferation, but only a just Censure made against him, by reason of the Authorities of this Age which he hath so much abused.

For in his Treatise of Baptism in both Editions he thus speaks—In this Age they [the Magdiburgs] tell us, That it was the universal practice to Baptize the Adult upon Profession of Faith: if he quotes it not to shew that it was the practice to Baptize only the Adult, it is impertinent; but his grand Assertion both in his Treatise of Baptism and in his Reply, p. 4. That Adult Baptism was only practised in the 4th p. 6Century, denotes in what sense we are to understand him. Now for Mr. Danvers thus to father on the Magdiburgs what they never spake, and also to pervert what they did speak, renders him chargeable with Falshood and Prevarication; for,

1. They say no such thing, that it was the Universal Practice to baptize only the Adult upon profession of Faith. But of this in its proper place, when we shall make good the Charge of Falshood against him in divers other things as well as this.

2. They do indeed tell us, That in the Churches of Asia the Baptized were for some time first instructed, and were called Catechumens; wherein then lies the prevarication? Why,

1. Because the Instances there given by the Magdiburgs were Aliens: For they tell us of some Jews (taking it from Athanasius) that being newly converted to Christianity, prostrated themselves at the feet of the Bishop, and desired Baptism. Narrat de Judeis Berythi Athanasius in lib. de passione Domini, quod ad Episcopi ejus urbis genua advoluti Baptisma petierint, quos ipse cum clericis suis suscipiens per dies multos in doctrina Christianae pietatis, erudierit; which Jews, after they had been for many days instructed in the doctrine of Christian Piety, the said Bishop with his Clarks baptized.

2. Because a little before in the same Chapter the Magdiburgs have these words—Baptizabantur autem aquâ publicè in Templis cujuscunq▪ sexus aetatis et conditionis homines; men of all ages, sexes and conditions were baptized publickly in the Temples, (how could this be by dipping) and lest it should be thought Children were not comprehended under those universal terms, they say in the same chapter—De Asianis p. 7Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes baptizandos esse ait &c. Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith, That Children were to be baptized. And note here by the way, Reader, That because in my Answer I have not gone on with the following words of Nazianzen, si aliquid immineat periculi, that is, in case any thing of danger happen, Mr. Danvers doth in his Preface exclaim against me for curtailing that Father: but the judicious Reader may understand▪ that he quarrels at me without a cause; for my business was to prove, that Infants Baptism was owned in that Century, as to matter of fact, and not to discourse the ground of it, or to enquire in what cases it was done, and therefore he might have spared his frivolous charge about that matter.

It is truely observed by one of the Anabaptists party, That my Antagonist is so tenacious that he will stand in a thing, although all the World gainsay it: for though the Baptism of Infants in this 4th Century, be so frequently attested by the Magdiburgs, yet he will not receed from his former Position; but hath invented a threefold evidence (as he calls it) to prove, that Adult Baptism was only practised in this Age.

1. From the sayings of the Fathers and great men of this Century, both in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

2. From the Positive Decrees of the three eminent Councils of this Age.

3. From the pregnant Instances of the most eminent men that were not Baptized till aged, p. 8though the Children of Christian Parents in this Century.

1. He begins with the sayings of the African Doctors, Athanasius and Arnobius, two of the most eminent of this Age, who (saith he) do positively affirm, That Teaching, Faith, and Desire, should, according to Christs Commission, preceed Baptism; whereby it appears that no other than Adult Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa.

To this I answer, That having searched after the Doctrine of Athanasius in the 4th Century of the Magdiburgs, I find not any thing of him mentioned about Baptism, but only one saying contra Arrianos sermone tertio, viz. That the Son is not therefore commemorated in Baptism, as if the Father was not sufficient, but because the Son is the Word of God, and the proper Wisdom and Brightness of the Father, with a passage or two more concerning Christ's Divinity. Nor is there any word concerning Baptism to be found in Athanasius his life, Cent. 4. C. 10. from pag 1027 to 1053, for so far it reacheth. But suppose this Father hath something of that import elsewhere, according as Mr. Danvers reports of him in his Treatise of Baptism, namely, that our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize; for first of all he said, Teach, and then Baptize, that true faith might come by teaching, and Baptism be perfected by faith. Will this think you do the business? will this prove that he owned no other Baptism but that of Believers in opposition to that of Infants? No such matter: For, as hath been shewn in our answer, the Commission it self for Baptism doth not exclude Infants that priviledge, as appears by the consideration of the p. 9condition of the persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles who were Aliens; and of such ought we to interpret the sayings of Athanasius, because of the instance before-mentioned from him, viz the Jews at Berythrum, who being proselyted to the Faith of Christ craved Baptism of the Bishop, and they were made Catechumens, and instructed & fasted 3 days, & baptized by the Bishop. But Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindication, examining a book called a Well-grounded Treatise &c. takes notice of this very passage mentioned by Mr. D. from whom I suppose he therefore had it. And page 219, 220. Mr. Cobbet demonstrates that Athanasius's words are wrested to another sense than the scope of his Discourse tended, and some words left out which served to declare his meaning, and other words so palpably mistranslated, that the Reader is grosly abused thereby as well as the Author.

The next is Arnobius upon the 146 Psal. It is very strange to me that when Mr. Danvers had rejected Origen upon the Romans. as spurious, though Perkins only tells us, it was not faithfully translated by Ruffinus; he should quote Arnobius upon the Psalms for his own opinion, which is altogether spurious; being (as Perkins saith) of a far more modern forge. It seems it is lawful for Mr. Danvers to quote spurious Authors, though not for the Pedobaptists. But I hope the judicious Reader will hereby be satisfied that this testimony doth not prove his Assertion, That no other than the Adult-Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa in the 4th Age.

He also adds a saying of Optatus Milevit. out of the Magdiburgs, Cent 4. p. 237. Namely, that none deny but that every man by nature, though born of Christian p. 10Parents, is unclean, and that without the Spirit he is not cleansed; and that there is a necessity of the Spirit's cleansing before Baptism; so that the house must be trimmed and fitted for the Lord, that he may enter in and dwell in it. But this Authority signifies as little as the other: for suppose this passage rightly translated, as it is not, yet the quotation is very insignificant to prove that for which he brings it, viz. that no other than Adult-Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa in the 4th Cent. for Optatus presently adds, Hoc exorcismus operatur, Exorcism doth this; which Mr. D. knows an Infant as capable of as the Adult, and which was equally practised on both; and therefore he did discreetly to leave it out, but how honestly, is left to the Reader to judg, and to his own Conscience. But indeed the whole sentence is miserably mistranslated, as all Scholars may see by the Latin which runs thus:

[Neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur quamvis de parentibus Christianis nascatur, sine spiritu mundi esse non possit, quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi & separari. Hoc exorcismus operatur, per quem spiritus immundus depellitur & in loca deserta fugatur. Fit domus vacua in pectore credentis, fit domus munda, intrat Deus & habitat, Apostolo dicente, Vos estis Templum Dei, et in Vobis Deus habitat.] Another by this true translation viz. [Every one knows that every man that is born, though of Christian Parents, cannot be without the Spirit of the world (the unclean spirit he means) which ought to be cast out and separated from a man before Baptism. This Exorcism doth, by which the unclean spirit is driven away and flys into desert places. The house is made empty in the breast of a p. 11Believer, the house is made clean, God enters and inhabits there according to the Apostle, Ye are the Temple of God, and in you he dwells.] And is it not strange that Mr. Danvers who in his Preface charges me with the notorious abuse of Authors in curtilations and mistranslations, should be thus notoriously guilty of both himself? Qui alterum accusat moechum, seipsum intueri oportet.

2. Thus having travelled through Africa, we shall now set footing in Asia, where Mr. Danvers would have us believe, That it was the Faith and practice of the Churches, to baptize the Adult, in opposition to that of Infants. And this he saith appears by the like sayings of Bazil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrim Syrus, Epiphanius.

Reader, thou must know that Mr. Danvers cuts out work for me that I am not concerned to take notice of; for my Business was to answer his first Treatise of Baptism, and these two last men are not therein mentioned, but brought in since, as Auxiliary forces: nevertheless I shall not wave them.

1. For Bazil, the passage which Mr. Danvers quotes from him and inserts in both his Tratises of Baptism is this, viz. Must the faithful be Sealed with Baptism; Faith must needs preceed and goe before. Contra Eunomium. In answer to which, 1. I deny that any such Sentence is to be found in Bazil, for I have perused all that he saith in reference to Baptism in his 3 Tomes, nor have the Magdiburgs any such saying of his where they repeat his Doctrine and sayings, Contra Eunomium; they mention only this against Eunomius, That Baptismus est Sigillum fidei, Baptism is the Seal of faith, Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 234.

p. 122. There is a great absurdity in the words, as they are placed by Mr. Danvers. For the Interrogation is, Must the Faithful be Sealed with Baptism? and the Answer is, Faith must needs preceed and go before; and how absurd is it? for it supposeth that the faithful could be without Faith. But what can be said to that which is further urged from Bazil? That none were to be baptized but the Catechumens, and those that were duly instructed in the Faith. I answer, that those words are not to be found in terminis in any part of his discourse about Baptism: But do not the Magdiburgs say thus, Bazilius ait non alios quam Catechumenos baptizatos esse; Bazil saith none but the Catechumens were to be baptized? But when I tell Mr. Danvers that Cyprian held Infants Baptism an Apostolical Tradition, as the Magdiburgs inform us, he replyes, That is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm except some Authentick authority be produced for the same, pag. 91. of his Innocency &c. And may not I be bold to assume the same freedom, and retort, that if we cannot find the afore-mentioned words in Bazil, though the Magdiburgs tell us so, 'tis just as much as if Mr. Danvers should so affirm. But suppose Bazil had said it, what will it amount to? surely no convincing Testimony: since whether the non alii quam Catechumeni, No other than the Catechumens doth exclude the Infants of Believers from Baptism, we are yet to seek; For that passage may very well be interpreted that no Pagans were baptized till first they were made Catechumens or instructed; so that it is left to the Reader to judg whether from that speech of Bazil (if it were his) it may groundedly be concluded, he was against Infants. Baptism, which that he was not, I shall give you Reasons shortly.

p. 13The next is Nazianzen, who was very positive and express for Childrens Baptism, as shall be demonstrated when we come to discover the weakness of our Antagonists Cavils against it.

The third man is Ephrim Syrus, the Monk, whom the Magdiburgs so much blame for ascribing such wonders to the Cross, that (if you will believe him) the Devil flys and is not able to stand before it, as the other said of Baptism (strange Anabaptists as ever the world heard of!) This Ephrim termed the Cross Daemonum expultrix, et Paradisi reseratrix; That which routs Devils, and opens Heavens-gate, and therefore adviseth all Christians to cross themselves in divers places of their Bodies, which will notably fortify and preserve them from the Devil. Madg. Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 302. This is a Witness that seems to be spit out of the Popes mouth, for he is for praying to the Martyrs and Saints departed, and helps us to some pretty little forms, As, pro nobis miseris peccatoribus interpellate; pray for us miserable Sinners. And, O gloriosissimi martyres Dei me miserum vestris juvate precibus; O ye most glorious Martyrs of God help me a miserable Wretch with your prayers. But it may be said what of all this, he may not withstanding his superstition be an Authentick Witness of what was in his day as to Matter of Fact: It may be so: What then is his Testmony as to Baptism? why, this: Those who were to be baptized did profess their Faith before many witnesses, & renounce the Devil and all his works, &c. as it is in the Church-Catechism. And Ambrose that was so much for Infants-Baptism, and lived in the same Century with Ephrim, speaks his very words, as the Magdiburgs inform us from his 3d Book of the Sacraments. Chap. 2. p. 14Confessos baptizandos scribit &c. Ambrose writes there, That those who confest were to be baptized, where he recites, how that the Baptized declared, he renounced the Devil and all his works; and then withal in the same place tells us, that in his 84 Epistle of his 10th book of Epistles, he is for Infant-Baptism, Cent. 4. p. 239. which clearly makes this quotation of Ephrims very insignificant as to his purpose; because he might say that, and yet be for Infant-Baptism as Ambrose was. But Mr. D. quotes his 3d Orat. of Baptism for this passage; which I presume is a Manuscript, as not being to be found among his printed Works. And if so, I hope Mr. D. will discover himself such a friend to the Common-wealth of Learning, as to bless the world with its publication. But I am afraid at last it will appear that Mr. Danvers is every whit as guilty in mistaking Nazianzens 3 Orations of Baptism for Ephrims book de Paenitentiâ Cap. 5. as I was for mistaking Bazil for Nazianzen. And it is as much a making an Authority.

3. Mr. Danvers tells us, it was the Universal practice of the Western or European Churches, as appears from Hilary, Ambrose, Jerom, and Marius-Victorinus, to which I reply more generally.

1. That in this he doth designedly go about to delude the Reader, for these four Ancients were contemporaries, and flourished in the 4th Century; And they are all put together by the Magdiburgs in one chapter, where they give us their saying from their several works. One of them speaks of Baptism upon profession, and there is no sentence quoted from him in reference to Infants, whereas they give the words of all the rest of these Fathers concerning p. 15profession before Baptism, and withal divers passages of the same men asserting Infants-Baptism▪ which being so, Mr. Danvers can never be excused for his Partiality and Falshood, in saying as he doth, That it was the Universal practice of the Western Churches to baptize the Adult, that is, only such, which is the point prae manibus.

2. particularly. 1. For Hilary, he doth very ill in saying as he doth expresly, Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. That all the Western-Churches did only baptize the Adult, quoting Hilary lib: 2. de Trinitate; whereas Hilary hath no such saying there, but is for Infants Baptism, as appears in his 2d Epistle to Austin.

Then for Ambrose, he is large for it in his 2d. Book of Abraham, Chap. 12. which the Magdiburgs have amply set down, Cent. 4. C. 5: p. 239. and in the same Chapter Nazianzen is mentioned for it, whom we shall suddenly vindicate, and evince, that he was absolutely of our side, notwithstanding the frivilous distinction whereby Mr. Danvers would render him otherwise.

2. Marius Victorinus speaks nothing about Infants.

But lastly, as for Jerom, the Magdiburgs give his Testimony for Infants Baptism in words at length, and not in figures, Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 239. Hieronimus quoque lib. 3tio Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos Critobulo sic scribit: Jerom also (having spoken of Ambrose just before) in his 3d Book of Dialogues against the Pelagians writes thus to Critob. Tell me, I pray, and resolve the question, why are Infants baptized? Attic. That their sins may be done away in Baptism. Critob. But what sin have they commited? p. 16is any one loosed that is not bound? Attic. Dost thou ask me the question? The Evangelical Trumpet or Dr. of the Gentiles, that Vessel that shineth throughout all the world will answer thee—Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them that have not sinned after the manner of Adams transgression, which is the figure of him to come: But all men are guilty either in respect of themselves, or Adam; Qui parvulus est parentis in Baptismo vinculo solvitur: he that is a Child, is freed in Baptism from the Bond of his Parent [that is, Original Sin, or guilt contracted from them].

2. His second Medium or Argument, to prove that Adult Baptism was only practised in the 4th Century, is the Positive Decrees of the 3 eminent Councils of this Age, viz the Garthaginian, Laodicean, and Neocesarean; which, he saith, do positively decree that Teaching, Confession, Faith, and Free-choice ought to preceed Baptism.

We omit speaking to these Councils for the present, intending to do it in a more convenient place.

3d Argument that Adult Baptism was the only approved Baptism of this Age, is, his Ten remarkable Instances in this Century, that were not baptized, though the Children of Christian Parents, till they were able to make profession of Faith, viz Constantine, Basil, Gregory, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin, Nectarius, Valentinian, and Theodosius.

Here Mr. Danvers (and others of his party, as I hear) triumphs over me, because in my Answer I speak not to every one of these, and besides I am upbraided by him for excepting only against 4 of the Ten Testimonies of the Fathers, viz Athanasius, Bazil, p. 17Ambrose, and Nazianzen, who, as I told him in my answer, were for Infants Baptism.

To which he Replys;

1. That if but four of the Ten be excepted against, then he hath six more stands good, besides the former (viz. 15 not excepted against as perverted). But really I have endeavoured to understand his Account, but cannot: and therefore either he is very confused, or I am very dull.

2. The four that I lay claim to, viz. Athanasius, Bazil, Ambrose, Nazianzen, he will not grant me, being, as he saith, full in their Testimonies for Adult Baptism; He begins with Bazil's saying, That Faith must preceed Baptism. To this I have already reply'd, that notwithstanding this he might be as much for Infants-Baptism, as Ambrose, who spake the same words; and moreover, I shall now give you some Reasons from whence we may conclude, That Bazil was for Infants-Baptism.

1. Because two of the most eminent Greek Fathers his contemporaries, were for it, viz. as Nazianz. appears in his Oration in Sanctum lavacrum, Madg. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. likewise Chrysostom in his Homilies ad Neophytos, besides those eminent Latin Fathers, as Ambrose, Jerom, and others that were such zealous Assertors of Infants-Baptism who lived in the same Age with Bazil.

2. Because in all the three Tomes of Bazil, there is not one word to be found against Infants-Baptism (though he be very large in his discourses about Baptism) and certainly he would have said something against it, had he deem'd it an errour, for as much as it was practised not only in the Age wherein he lived, but in the Churches of Asia, where he was p. 18Bishop. Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia, saith, Infants were to be baptized. Mag. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 461.

Because Nazianzen his most intimate friend and fellow-student was for Infants-Baptism. The Magdiburgs say there was so great an endearedness between these two Fathers, that they had as it were but one Soul. Nazianzen is called animae Bazilii dimidium, the half of Bazils Soul, if in them both, say the Magdiburgs, there was not Una prorsus atque eadem anima. They further tell us that from the time of their first acquaintance there was such a Conjunctio animorum et Studiorum, such a conjunction of spirits and studies that they continued in most entire friendship ever after. Cent. 4. C. 10. p. 939, 940.

4. We do not find that in any of their Epistolary Entercourses, any thing that may argue them to be of different judgments in this point; hence I suppose it may be rationally concluded, that as Nazianzen was for Baptism after preparation and confession, and condemns those that enter upon it rashly, Magd. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. And yet in the fore-going page tells us, the Churches of Asia owned Infants-Baptism in case of danger, and declares his own judgment absolutely for it, without respect to danger. Orat. quarta ad Baptismum, as you shall hear more anon; so might also Bazil be notwithstanding he hath any-where said, Faith should preceed, or go before Baptism.

5. Tis no wonder we read not of Bazils insisting upon Infants-Baptism, for such was the Errour, and superstition of those times wherein he preached, ascribing such Virtue to Baptism to do away the guilt of Sin, that they would delay the taking up that Ordinance, till they thought they should dye, that p. 19so they might depart with pure Souls; so that, as far as I can find, Bazil had much ado to perswade his Hearers to be baptized, and spends abundance of his pains in quickening them to take up Baptism, without longer delay: as appears in his Exhortation to Baptism, where he doth most sharply inveigh against procrastinating the same. If Mr. D. would but weigh these things without prejudice, I doubt not but 'twould abate much of his Confidence that Bazil is on his side.

Nor will he allow me Athanasius, but concerning him we shall speak in another place.

Then for Ambrose he saith, that he is full also, That the Baptized should not only make profession but desire the same. But then (as conscious of prevarication) he adds, that if any of them should contrary hereto say, they would contradict themselves and the practice of the Age: But this is meer shuffling. Since the practice of the Age, as to profession, had respect to Pagans as we have often told him, and in this sence we are to understand Ambrose; and whereas in my Infants-Baptism Asserted, I prove Ambrose was for us from those words of his lib. 2. de Abraham. C. 12. being these—Because every Age is obnoxious to Sin, therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament; to this he replys, that this is no proof that he was for Infants Baptism. First, because Circumcision is hereby meant. Secondly, if Baptism, then those of every Age that are fit for that Sacrament, must not be supposed, viz. those that are capable to confess Faith, and desire Baptism, otherwise not only Children but all good and bad, being obnoxious to Sin are to be esteemed fit subjects for Baptism. Neither will this Evasion serve Mr. p. 20Danvers turn to put by this our Testimony; and I wonder, he should labour thus to darken Truth, and delude the Reader; for 'tis true, those words beforementioned were spoken of Circumcision, but he knows it was by way of introduction to the Baptism of Infants; and therefore that he may not impose upon the Reader, I will give the whole Sentence of Ambrose from the Magdiburgs, Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 240. The Law commands the Males to be circumcised when newly born, and as soon as they begin to cry; because as Circumcision was from Infancy, so was the disease [Sin]: no time ought to be void of a Remedy, because no time is void of Sin—Neither the old man that is a Proselyte, nor the newborn Infant is excepted; then comes in those words, Because every age is subject to Sin, every age is fit for the Sacrament; and the very next words are these, eadem ratione Baptismum asserit Pervulorum, lib. 10. Epistolarum, Epistola 84. that is, by the same reason he asserts Infants-Baptism in the eighty fourth of his 10th Book of Epistles. Whether now Mr. Danvers hath not weakly opposed and dealt sophistically with this Quotation of Ambrose, and whether it be not a pitiful shift in him to say, the being fit for the Sacrament of which Ambrose speaks, must be supposed to be meant of those only who are capable to confess Faith, is submitted to the judgment of the impartial Reader. As for what he objects that if every age be fit for the Sacrament, in regard every age is obnoxious to sin, then Infidels are fit subjects of Baptism: I answer that the foregoing words of Ambrose, viz. Neither the Old man that is a profelyte, nor the New-born Infant is excepted, shew, that he speaks of those who are within the Church.

p. 21The last man that we bring for Infants-Baptism, and excepted against by Mr. Danvers is Nazianzen; and 'tis observable, that he confesseth what we urge from him hath most in it: It seems then I was mistaken, for I thought what we bring from Chrysostom and Ambrose, had altogether as much in it, as what is re-urg'd from Nazianzen. The words quoted from this Father are out of his 40 oration, viz. Hast thou a Child? let it be early consecrated foreign from its Infancy. To which he replyes, that I impose a fallacy upon the Reader, for translating the greek word foreign, Infants, thereby concluding him absolutely for Infants-Baptism, and that because, saith he, the word signifies a State of Childhood, as 2 Tim. 3. 15. And therefore Nazianzen must be understood by his early consecration to mean, not in the Cradle, but as he explains himself, so soon as they are able to understand Mysteries, except in case of death: and when I pray according to Nazianzen were they capacitated for the understanding Mysteries? the Magdiburgs inform us from his 3d Oration, it was about the age of three years: Extra periculum, triennium aut eo plus minusve expectandum esse censet, Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 416. that is, if there be no danger of Death, his judgment was, they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less, and so be baptized; nevertheless, say they, in some other place of that Oration Nazianzen declares, omni aetati Baptisma convenire, That Baptism is fit for every age, comporting herein with Ambrose as before: But whether I or Mr. Danvers do impose a fallacy, let the Reader judg by what follows.

1. Nazianzen was for baptizing Children in case of danger, though as young as the Children of p. 22the Jews that were circumcised the 8th day, as appears by the reason which he gives for their Baptism, viz. It is better to be Sanctified (by which he means baptized) without knowledg, than to die without it; for, saith he, it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel, upon which Vossius hath this note, in his Thesis of Baptism, Non igitur Nazianzenus &c. Nazianzen was not against Infants-Baptism, and his judgment will be taken as soon as most mens.

2. Though [foreign] should be taken for a state of Childhood, yet in that place of Nazianzen we mention, it is not to be taken so largely (that is, Children of some understanding,) as Mr. Danvers doth suggest, because of the instance of Circumcision given by the Father.

3. Nazianzen being a Greek-Father, intends the word according to its proper signification, and as it is generally taken in the New-Testament as well as in prophane Authors, and that is a state of Infancy; for foreign signifies an Infant, saith Mr. Leigh, Crit. Sac. and is properly spoken de partu recens edito, of a Child newly born, quoting Beza on Luke 18. 15. who saith, the word properly is taken for Infantes teneri nimirum, & adhuc ab uberibus pendentes parvuli, (i. e.) Sucking Babes, such as are carried in arms. The same word is given to Christ, when the Wise-men found him in swadling-clouts, Luke 2. 12. And we have it again for a new-born Babe, 1. Pet. 2. 2. As new-borne Babes desire the sincere Milk of the word &c.

But Mr. Danvers hath not done with Nazianzen yet, and therefore frames an Objection for us and answers it himself thus. It is not manifest p. 23that in case of death, he would have an Infant baptized? To which he answers, It is true, but that was not quà Infant, but as a dying person.

We see by this acute distinction that our Antagonist is not only a Critick, but that he hath some Logick too, in which he saith he owneth little skill; but that little, I suppose, is in that part which they call Sophistry, or the abuse of Logick. But that the weakness of this distinction may appear, consider,

1. That it is true Nazianzen would not have an Infant baptized quà Infant.

2. It is untrue, that Nazianzen would have an Infant baptized quà a dying person; for if they were to be baptized under either of these Considerations, then had he been for the baptizing all Infants, and dying persons promiscuously.

3. But Nazianzens judgment was to have them baptized because they were the Children of Christians in iminent danger of death; They were such as were capacitated for that Ordinance on the account of God's Covenant; else why doth he speak of circumcising Children in the very place which is now under debate; Melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non Signatos et initiatos vitâ excedere, Nazianz. Orat. 40. It is better, saith he, they should be consecrated without their knowledg, than to die without the Seal, and not be initiated, idque nobis designat octavum diem circumcisio illa, itaque fuit figurale signaculum ac propter irrationales introducta: For so it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel. But let the account be what it will upon which Nazianzen would have Children baptized, it is not material; since he owned p. 24their Baptism in some case, which is sufficient, if we had no more to overthrow Mr. Danvers's Position, That the Baptism of Adult persons was the only Baptism owned in this Age; and it is excentrical to the question to talk of the Consideration on which they were baptized

But to give Mr. D'anvers full measure, pressed down, and running over, we shall acquaint him with some other place of Nazianzen, where he is for the Baptizing Children absolutely without respect to dying state, and that is in his 4th Oration, p. 648. Edit. Lutetiae Par. foreign. 1. It belongeth to all degrees of Ages, to all Kinds and Manners of Life. Wherefore it should be carried through all: Art thou a young-Man? Then 'tis of use against the turbulent motions of the soul: So he speaks of its conveniency for old Age. Then he comes to Infants, foreign, &c. Hast thou an Infant? let him be sanctified [baptized] from his Infancy, let him be dedicated to the Spirit, lest wickedness should take occasion, &c. And then he concludes, foreign. Art thou afraid of the Seal (Mr. D'anvers will not have Baptism to be a Seal) because of the tenderness of his nature? foreign; Thou art a pusillanimous Mother, and of a weak Faith.

As for that jeer with which he concludes, that we may as well bring Protogenes for an Authority, that pretended to Baptize Children in this Age to cure p. 25Diseases, as Gregory Nazianzen to save their Souls; I shall retort what I find in his Friend Haggar, in his Book called The foundation of the Font discover'd, pag. 94. Where he thus speaks I can boldly say with a good conscience, in the presence of God to his Glory, I have known many weak and sickly before, that have recovered health and strength afterwards (that is, after being dipt) and some immediately in a few days, yea and that when they have been so ill, that all Doctors have given them over. A good encouragement to proselyte credulous souls to their way, and to augment their Churches apace; for if Dipping prove usually so medicinal and succesful, even in desperate cases, it will undoubtedly impair, if not render altogether useless, the Practice of Physick. But whether this story of Haggar be not as fabulous as that of Protogenes, I leave to the Reader to judge.

2. Mr. Danvers in the next place comes to the Decrees of the three Councils, to prove that it was the universal practice of this Age to Baptize upon the profession of Faith.

To which I gave this Answer: 1st, That we have ten-times three for Infants-Baptism, and if we must go by number of Councils, we shall carry it.

2. I told him that the 3 Councils, which he mentions for Adult Baptism, had respect only to Pagans; To which he gives this answer, It is granted I think (as I have made it ready to his hand) he may quote the Canons of thirty Councils for Infants-Baptism in the following Ages (and a stout Argument no doubt for it): But what are such Decrees saith he to this 4th Century, which are for Believers-Baptism on profession, and free choice, and 'tis impossible to produce one for p. 26Infants-Baptism till after this Century.

To this I reply: 1st, Mr. Danvers boasts too much in saying he made the 30 Councils ready to my hand for Infants-Baptism; and he is too vain-glorious to confess who made them ready to his hand; but, without disparagement to his reading, I think verily 'twas Baronius or Vossius, or some other. 2dly, He confesseth that we have 30 Councils for Infants-Baptism; what then is become of his stout Assertion in his Treatise of Baptism? Chapt. 7. p. 56. That not only Scripture but Antiquity it self, which (saith he) hath been so much boasted of, is altogether for Believers and not for Infants-Baptism. 3dly, Let it be further noted, that we can produce 30 for it, and he not one against it; but he tells us 'tis impossible for us to produce one for Infants-Baptism till after the 4th Century. But 4thly, Mr. Danvers hath forgotten himself; for we have an African Council about an Age before his three Councils, consisting of 66 Bishops (where Cyprian was present that flourished in the year 250) who determined, that Children might & ought to be baptized, before the eight day. Cent. 3. Cap. 9. p. 205. Synodus Africana de infantibus baptizandis, and to which Synod Jerom refers for the Antiquity of Infants-baptism, mentioning Cyprians Epistle to Fidus, as the Magdiburgs have it, Cent. 4. c. 5. p. 239. nor is that to be slighted which Austin speaks concerning this Synod, Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans &c. Cyprian was not devising any new Decree, but followed the most sure Faith of the Church, Aug. Epist. 28. ad Hieronimum.

But if Infant-Baptism was owned in the 4th Century p. 27why is it not mentioned in any of those three Eminent Councils which were then held, the Carthaginian, the Laodicean, and Neocesarean? They speak not a word of it, but positively decree that Teaching, Confession, Faith and free choice, ought to preceed Baptism.

I answer, That as it is certain that almost all the Canons of those Councils are taken up about Discipline, and have hardly any thing of Doctrine in them; so it is to be observed that Councils do not mention all things controverted in one Age, but rather are concerned in resolving the doubts which troubled the Church when such Councils were convened; since therefore there is no Canon in those three Councils before-specified for Infants-Baptism, it may well be thought the reason was, because in those dayes none did scruple it; which we may the rather believe because it was in practice before those Councils and in the same Century also, as is before fully shewn. But since Mr. Danvers glories so much in these Councils, and prefers them before all those many ones that follow after, it will not be amiss to examin what they are that he stands so much upon; for certainly if we must give them the preheminence, it must be upon account of their purity, whereas truly we shall find if they are not altogether as corrupt as those that follow, yet certainly in some things as gross for Error and Superstition, as the Popish Councils themselves.

The 4th Council of Carthage, whichSynodus 4tae Carthaginensis Cent. 4. cap. 9. pag. 873. is that Mr. Danvers intends, and it is the 85th Article, Those who are to be baptized, must give in their Names, p. 28and Abstain for a long time from Wine and flesh, and after often examination may receive Baptism.

The 7 and 90 Canons owneth Exorcism, or conjuring out the Devil. Though, if Mr. Danvers is to be believed, Exorcism was added to the former filthy customs in the 9 Cent. as he tells us in his 2d Ed. p. 11, 7. The 74, 75, 76, Canons are for Penance.

Also the 76 Canon is for pouring in the Eucharist into mens mouths that are upon the point of dying. But notwithstanding Mr. D's. confidence, it is very clear that that 85 Canon was not intended by the Council to exclude Infants from Baptism, because Augustin, who was (as Mr. D. tells us 2d Ed. p. 108) a great Patron and Defender of Infants-Baptism, subscribed all the Decrees of this Council: So that only the Adult are herein intended.

Next for that of Laodicea, TheLaodicens. Concilium Cent. 4. cap. 9. p. 833. 2d Canon is for Penance according to the quality of the Sin. The 26th owneth Exorcism, the 48th for Anointing with Oyle after Baptism; the 59th contains the Canon of Scripture, and rejects the Revelation, and what then will become of Mr. Danver's Theopolis, or discourse made upon some part of it, which is in print?

But what doth this Council say against Infant-Baptism? why, that the Baptized should rehearse the Articles of the Creed (2 Ed. p. 59) but do they say that none must be Baptized but such? and why may not this intend only the Adult as well as that above? let Mr. Danvers render a satisfactory reason against it if he can.

Synodus Neocaesariensis, Lastly the Neocaesarean Council, upon which Mr. Danvers lays so much p. 29Stress, determines in the 6th Canon, that a Woman with Child might be baptized; Because the Baptism reached not her Womb, for in the Confession made in Baptism each ones free choice is shewed; hence Mr. Danvers from Mr. Tombes concludes against Infants-Baptism. To this I answered in my Infants-Baptism Asserted &c. That the Canon respected Pagans, as Mr. Marshal notes from Balsamon the Glossator, who saith, Such Women as went with Child, and come from the Infidels▪ And what is this to the Question which is about Children born in the Church, of Believing Parents? and Balsamon himself upon this Canon, saith with respect to these, they may be said to answer by such as undertake for them. But Mr. Danvers out of self-Opinion that he is still right in his Baptismal notions, and that no Gloss can be good that thwarts with him, rejects it, and tells us we do miss the Case. But what thinks he of Dr. Hammon: he may be thought to hit the case as likely as Mr. Danvers. The said Dr. speaking of this Cannon brought against the Baptizing the Children of Christians, saith, Is it far enough from it, for as for the words of the latter part of the Canon: Each ones will or resolution, which is professed or signified in the Confession, or Profession, (for so he words it in his translation of the Greek) it imports no more than that the Confession or) Profession of a Woman that being with Child is baptized, doth only belong to her self, not to the Child, and consequently that her Baptism belongs only to her self; [so as the Child cannot be said to be baptized because the Parent is]. And all, saith he, that can be concluded from hence, is, that the Child of such a Parent that was baptized when that p. 30was in her Womb, must when it is born have a Baptism for it self, and the Baptism of the Parent not be thought to belong to it. And this, as he observes, in opposition to the Conceit of the Jewish Rabbies, who say, si gravida fiat proselyta, adeo que lavacro suscipiatur, proli ejus Baptismo opus non est; that is, if a Woman great with Child become a proselyte, and be baptized, her Child needs not Baptism. But if this will not satisfie Mr. Danvers, I must tell him that the Magdiburgs do question (If I understand them aright) whether that Council ever made this Canon. Canon Concilii Neocaesariensis (si unquam fuit) permittit, &c. And certainly those Excellent Historians (as Mr. Danvers calls them) would never have put such an If to it, if they had wanted ground for so doing. And Mr. D. cannot be ignorant how usual it hath been, to have Canons foisted in by others that were never thought one by the Councils themselves. Nay, I think I have more reason to deny the very Being of this Council, than Mr. Danvers hath that of Cyprians 66 Bishops. For neither Eusebius, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor Sozomen, nor Evagrius, those ancient Ecclesiastical Historians, make any mention of it, that I can find; nor our modern Collector of the Councils, Sympson: but however suppose there was such a Council, and that they made such a Canon, just as Mr. Danvers words it; There is nothing positive against Infant-Baptism, (which certainly there would have been, had their Judgments been against it): And Mr. Danvers only gathers it by Consequence, because they say, that Confession and free-choice was necessary to Baptism. But this is not sufficient; For Our Saviour tells us, That he that Believes not shall p. 31be damned; which is as much against the Salvation of Infants, as these words of the Council against their Baptism. And yet Mr. D. will not deny but that some Infants are saved. And why may not the other expression be as well taken in a limited sense? But suppose not; Mr. D. must remember that he tells us in his second Ed. p. 65 That Austin saith, That none without due Examination, both as to Doctrine and Conversation, ought to be admitted to Baptism; And yet Austin was for the Baptizing of Infants. And why may not this Council be supposed to be as inconsiderate? Certainly they were corrupt eonugh in Mr. D's. Judgment, to take up such an Antichristian error (as he is pleased to call it.) For the 1st. Canon is against Ministers Marriage. The 2d. is for Penance. The 3d. against often Marriages, and Penance for the same, &c.

Thus far we have tried Mr. Danvers his strength, and let the Reader Judg upon the whole, whether he hath any ground to conclude himself free from Prevarication both in Councils as well as Fathers: For after all this Clutter, and great noise of Councils and Fathers, he hath not produced so much as one man that denyed, and condemned the practice of Infants-Baptism, nor one Canon that ever was discharged against it.

Thirdly, in regard I except only against four of those eminent Men before-mentioned, as not baptized till Aged, though born of Christian Parents (as Mr. Danvers will have it) and they are, Constantine, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Austine, he therfore triumphs, and saith▪ he hath six other unperverted Authorities unexcepted against, who were p. 32not baptized till they could make confession of Faith, which he conceives, is a substantial argument, that Believers Baptism was the Baptism generally owned in this Age.

To this I answer. 1 That for to say Believers Baptism was generally owned in this Age, comes short of his former Assertion, that it was the only Baptism owned; 2. And that it was generally owned because of those six mens not being baptized till aged, is a non-sequitur; and the quite contrary may be much more rationally argued: for, if upon his inquisition through Asia, Africa, and Europe, [that is, all the world where Christianity was professed] he can find but six persons born of Christian Parents remaining unbaptized, till they were able to make a profession of their Faith, will it not follow, that the Baptizing of Believers Children in their Infancy, was generally owned in that Age? especially if we consider, upon what suspicious grounds Baptism was retarded in those days; sometimes to the very point of dissolution, concerning which we have spoken before. But I shall not contend with Mr. Danvers about the grounds, why the Baptism of all those ten was delayed, since neither of us, without great presumption, can absolutely determine; and unless we are instructed by a sure light, from the records of Antiquity, when all is said that we can say, we shall but impose upon the Reader our uncertain guesses. But having a good foundation in History for what I have formerly said, concerning Constantine and Austine not being baptized till Aged, which was their Fathers being Infidels at their Birth, and so continuing (for ought we can learn to the contrary even to p. 33their death. I conceive Mr. Danvers cannot clear himself from perverting their Testimonies, being unserviceable to his purpose: For,

1st. For Constantine, we have told him (in our Infant-Baptism) from Mr. Marshal, that it doth not appear that his Mother Helena was a Christian at his Birth; and for his Father, Constantius, every one knows that is acquainted with History, that he was none, although he favoured the Christians, and grew into a good esteem of their Religion, especially towards his latter end. Mr. Danvers hath only this to say against it, that good Historians are of another mind, and that Helena was a Christian, before the birth of Constantine, quoting Grotius and Dailly for it: But if this were so, what hath he to say for Constantius his Father? Why, the Magdeburgs give this account of him from Eusebius, that Constantine was Bonus a Bono, Pius a Pio; a Good Man from a Good Man, a Holy Man from a Holy Man. To this I reply;

1. That Constantius his being denominated a Good Man, doth not argue him to be a Christian, but only morally good, as many other Heathens were; nor is Pius always taken for a holy man though Sacer be: For Antoninus, the Pagan Emperor, (to whome Justin writ an Apology for the Christians as Mr. Danvers notes, (Treatise of Baptism. p.) was called Pius for his Clemency, and modest behaviour, having raised no persecution against the Christians, and putting a stop to the same, when moved, by sending Edicts into Asia, prohibiting all persecution, meerly for the profession of Christianity. Fox Act. & Mon. V. 1. p. 37, 38. But if it could be proved that Constantius was at any time a Christian, yet p. 34that would not serve our Antagonists turn, unless it could be made out, that he was such at Constantine's Birth, which no man will affirm. Neither is it likely he was a Christian, when Constantine was grown up; for then how could he have permitted his Son to be educated in the Court of that Tyrannical Pagan Emperor, Dioclesian; So that it is no wonder Constantine was not baptized till aged, especially if it be considered, that he continued a Pagan sometime after the Imperial Crown was put upon his Head. For Socrates in his first Book and first Chapter, tells us at large, Qua ratione Constantinus Imperator ad fidem Christianam se contulerit, by what means Constantine the Emperour became a Christian; and the Story is to this effect, viz. That when he heard how Maxentius ruled Tyranically at Rome, he was resolved to go against him, and as he was marching with his Army thither, he considered with himself (being not without some fear of Maxentius, by reason of his Sorceries and Devilish Arts) quem deum sibi adjutorem ad bellum gerendum advocaret, what God he should invoke for his assistance in the War; and being in doubtful deliberation, he saw a Pillar of Light representing the effigies of a Cross. And for the more credit of this Apparition, Eusebius in the first Book of the life of Constantine witnesseth, that he hath heard Constantine himself oftentimes report it to be true, and that not only he, but his Soldiers saw it. At the sight of which being much astonished, and consulting with his Men upon the meaning thereof, it so happened that in the night-season, in his sleep Christ appeared to him, with the sign of the same Cross which he had seen before, bidding him to p. 35make the figuration of it, and to carry it in his Wars before him, and he should have the Victory. Where by the way, let us observe what Mr. Fox saith concerning this Story: It is to be noted, saith he, That this Sign of the Cross, and these letters added withal, In hoc vince, that is, In this overcome, was given to him of God, not to induce any superstitious Worship, or opinion of the Cross, as though the Cross itself had any such power or strength in it, to obtain Victory: But only to bear the meaning of another thing, that is, to be an admonition to him, to seek and aspire after the Knowledg and Faith of him, who was crucified upon the Cross▪ For the Salvation of him and all the World, and so to set forth the Glory of his Name; as afterward it came to pass. Fox Act. and Mon. lib. 1. p. 77.

2. That Austin had Christian Parents Mr. Danvers cannot prove by any Antiquity, but recommends us to Dr. Taylor, and Mr. Baxter, who have, it seems, said somthing to that purpose, when in the mean-while he makes no reply to what I alledg to the contrary, in my Infants-Baptism Asserted &c. part 1. p. 21. Where I prove from Austin's own pen that his Father was an Infidel, when he was grown up to understanding, and he relates how he came afterward to be converted: Aug. Confess. lib. 2. c. 6. And though Dr. Taylor and Mr. Baxter may be of another mind, yet Dr. Owen, who is not inferior in learning to either, tells us in his late Book of the Spirit, p. 294. Sec. 11. that the reason why Austin was not baptized in his Infancy was, because his Father was not then a Christian.

By this time I suppose the Reader may guess how p. 36well Mr. Danvers hath purged himself from the charge of prevarication, and proved his grand Assertion, That Believers Baptism was the only Baptism for the four first Centuries. For if he reflects upon the whole that hath been hitherto disputed between us, he shall find that as to the first Century, the Magdiburgs (from whom we have our light in the History of Baptism) tells us, that Origen and Cyprian affirm, that Infants were baptized in the Apostles days. In the 2d Century, he perverts the words of Justin Martyr by applying that which was spoken of baptizing Pagans against the baptizing of Believers Children, as appears by what the Magdiburgs say in that very place. In the 3d Century, he suggests that no Baptism was owned but that of the Adult, when they tell us plainly, both persons grown up, and Infants of both Sexes were baptized. And for the 4th Century, Mr. Danvers is so bold as to say, that the Magdiburgs tell us it was the Universal Practice to Baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith; Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. p. 64. when they say otherwise, namely, That persons of all ages were baptized in the Temples, and cite Nazianzen for baptizing of Infants in the Churches of Asia, to which also we have added the Testimonies of Hillary, Ambrose, Jerom, Chrisostom, Austin, all of the 4th Century: and for Infants Baptism, lastly he brings the Canons of the 3 Councils of Carthage, Laodicea, and Neocaesaria, which have not a word in them against Infants Baptism, and what is decreed about Confession before Baptism relates to Strangers, as I presume I have made it appear beyond all doubt in the two last of them (if that of Neocaesaria ever had a being.)

p. 37But I must proceed on, and follow Mr. Danvers, for he tells us he is not alone in his Opinion, and therefore brings in divers Authorities to confirm it; that only the Adult upon confession of Faith were the subjects of Baptism in the first times, p. 14, 15.

He begins with Strabo, that saith, In the first times Baptism was wont to be given to them only that could know and understand, what profit was to be gotten by it. But it seems by the story, that Strabo his first-times go no higher than Austins Days; for he instanceth in his being baptized at Age, when-as we have Testimony that Childrens Baptism was in use in the Church above a hundred years before Austin was born. And Austin (that lived about four hundred years nearer the primitive times than Strabo) affirms, that the Church always had it, and always held it. Besides, the Testimony of Strabo) is not to be valued, being condemned by Vossius and others for a false Historian: We have formerly in our answer given instances thereof, and particularly we noted that gross mistake of his, That Sureties (called God-Fathers, and God-Mothers, were first invented in Austin's days, when Tertullian speaks of them, above a hundred years before.

Next follows Beatus Rhenanus, Rupertus, Boemus, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Baxter; the eldest of whom lived but in the 12th Cent. according to Mr. Danvers, and had no other way of knowing what was don in the first times than we: and therefore let them affirm what they please, unless they can prove it by the records of those times, it signifies no more than if Mr. Danvers told us so. And the contrary to what he asserts is apparent from Antiquity. But because Mr. Danvers shall p. 38not say I slight his Authorities, I shall particularly examine them. And as for B. Rhenanus (who lived in 15. Cent.) what Mr. Danvers makes him say is very impertinent to his purpose. For his business is to prove, that only the Adult were then baptized, which his quotation affirms not: and what then doth it signifie, but to help to swell his Book? But I shall make it appear that Mr. D. hath shamefully mistaken Rhenanus's sense, and thereby exceedingly abused him. For B. Rhenanus in his Annot. upon Tertullian's Corona militis, on those words, Aquam adituri, saith thus, p. 500. Baptizandi ritum ostendit, qui in usu Veterum fuit, de quo Consuetudo quaedam mutavit. Nam tum Adulti regenerationis lavacro tingebantur, quotidie externis e Paganismo ad nostram Religionem confluentibus. Siquidem id temporis ubique reperire erat Ethnicos Christianis admixtos. Postea statis temporibus nempe bis in anno celebrari baptismus caeptus, ejus enim rei nullam hic facit mentionem, alioqui non omissurus. Qui mos antiquus etiam per tempora Caroli Magni et Ludovici Augusti servatus est. Judicant hoc Leges ab illis sancitae, quibus cavetur ne quemquam sacerdotes baptizent (excepto mortis articulo) praeterquam in Paschate & Pentacoste. That is, He (Tertullian) shews the Rite of baptising that was in use among the Ancients, from which a certain custom hath made a change. For then for the most part the Adult were baptized, strangers daily flocking from Paganism to our Religion: because at that time Heathens were every-where to be found mixed among the Christians. Afterwards Baptism began to be celebrated at stated times, to wit, twice in the year, for of this thing [the two stated times of Baptism] He p. 39[Tertullian] makes no mention here; otherwise [had it been in use] he would not have omitted the mention of it. Which ancient custom [to wit of celebrating Baptism at two stated times of the year] was also observed in the days of Charles the Great, and Ludovick the Emperor, as appears by the Laws made by them, whereby care is taken that the Priests Baptize none (except those at the point of death) but at Easter and Whitsontide. By this it is apparent (1st.) that by the Adult he means only Heathens newly converted, and (2.) By the ancient custom▪ Baptizing at the two stated times of Easter and Whisontide; and not the baptizing those that were come to their full growth, as Mr. D. saith. And to assure him Infants are not hereby excluded, Rhenanus presently adds, Hoc sic accipiendum ut sciamus Infantes post Pascha natos ad baptismum Pentacostes reservatos, et natos post Pentacostem, ad Paschatem festum diem Bapismo offerri solitos, excepta, seu dixi, necessitate, una cum adultis Catechumenis qui de externis nationibus Danorum, &c. & similium populorum, Christianae Religioni initiabantur. That is, this is so to be understood that we may know that these Infants that were born after Easter were reserved to the Baptism of Whitsontide, and those that were born after Whitsontide to the Easter following, except in case of necessity, &c. And now I perswade my self Mr. D. for very shame, will take no more notice of this Quotation, unless it be to acknowledg his Inadvertency in producing it.

His next Author is Rupertus in his 4th Book of Divine Offices, c. 18. Here Mr. D. is guilty of most notorious forgery. For in his second edition, p. 73. he hath the same quotation, and there he tells us Rupertus p. 40saith, that in former times the custom was that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration but only at the Feast of Easter and Pentecost. And here in his Reply, p. 15. he alters the words and makes him say, that they administred but only to the Catechumens, &c. If Mr. D. must have the liberty thus to deal with Authors, I confess there is no standing against him. But I hope the Reader will hereby be satisfied, that this signifies no more as to his purpose, than the former, but deservedly renders him unworthy of belief in his Quotation of Authors.

Boemus follows who lived in the 16 Cent. (though M. D. brings him into the 12th (2. Ed. p. 73.) And he tells us there, that he saith, That in times past the custom was to administer Baptism only to those that were instructed in the Faith, and seven times in the week before Easter and Pentecost, Catechised. Suppose this to be a right Translation, it makes no more against the baptizing of Infants than the other of Rhenanus: for it clearly appears that by in times past, Boemus intended then when Persons were appointed to be baptized at Easter and Pentecost; at which very time Rhenanus tells us Infants were baptized. And it is most certain that baptizing of Infants was before then, because Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, do all mention it, who lived before that custom was brought into the Church.

Dr. Hammond is the next; and I need not search to see whether he is rightly quoted; for he makes the Dr. say nothing but what all the Paedobaptists acknowledg, viz. That all men were instructed in the fundamentals of Faith anciently, before they were baptized. But how doth this prove that only the Adult. were then the subjects of Baptism? I wonder p. 41Mr. D. is not ashamed to quote Authors at this rate.

His last is Mr Baxter. And he tells us that Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian do all of them affirm that in the primitive times none were baptized without an express Covenanting. But this falls out very unluckily for Mr. D. For those three Fathers being every one of them for Infants-Baptism could intend no other than Heathens converted to Christianity; which all acknowledg; And it is plain Mr. Baxter so intended it, because he hath written largely to prove that none are to be baptized but such, and the Children of such. And after this manner doth Mr. D. prove his Assertions. But I am confident it will prevail with none that have not given themselves over to an implicite Faith.

His next Testimonies for it (beginning with particular persons) are from Duch Authors: we shall speak with them in due time and make it appear, how grosly they erre in their relations of divers things, as particularly about Cresconius; but of this when we come to examine his pretended Witnesses.

Then we have Faustus Regiensis named, who said, that personal and actual desire was requisit in every one that was to be baptized, which that it was meant of Adult Pagans, needs no other proof than this, that he was a Pelagian, and they were for the Baptism of Children by the confession of Mr. Tombes, and I presume Mr. D. will not persist in denying it.

Concerning Alban that suffered for opposing Infants Baptism in the 6th Century, I cannot give credit to the Dutch Martyrology which it seems affirms it, because there is nothing to be found in the Century-Writers, p. 42nor any Martyr of that name noted, but only St. Alban the first (as Mr. Fox tells us) that ever suffered Martyrdom in this Island; but that was under Dioclesian, and not for opposing Infants-Baptism, but refusing to offer Sacrifice unto Devils.

I cannot find the Swermers under the 6th Century in the Magdiburgensian History, as suffering under Justinus, or Justinianus for being Anabaptists: Nor in Sympsons History of the Church, nor in any other Authors as I have met with. And certainly, if indeed they had convinced the Imperial Council to leave off Childrens Baptism, as Mr. D. mentions it twice in the compass of twelve lines, all Historians would have taken notice of so remarkable a story, which yet I can find mentioned by none.

As for Peter Bishop of Apamen, and Zoaras the Monk, we told him formerly that the Magd. told us, they were for Rebaptization; but that did not prove them against Infants-Baptism: Their words are these. Cent. 6. c. 5. De Anabaptis. Anabaptismum defendisse Petrum Apameae Syriae Episcopum, et Zoaram Monachum Cyrum, scribit Nicephorus. But saith Mr. D. in his Reply, p. 106. The late Century-Writers calling them Anabaptists in a modern sense [that is, for those that deny Infants-baptism] we have no reason to doubt it. But how doth M. D. prove this? because they say Nicephorus writes they defended Anabaptism [that is Re-baptizing] Risum teneatis amici! But let Mr. D. take them and make the best of them he can; I shall not envy him such Patrons. For the Magdeburgs tells us in the same place, out of Niecphorus, that they owned but one Nature in Christ: and were guilty of most wicked Obscenities.

p. 43Another which Mr. Danvers quotes is Adrianus Bishop of Corinth. I granted in my Answer that this Man was against Infants-Baptism, where-as since I have understood from a Learned Divine, well-read in Church-History, that Adrianus was falsly accused to have turned away Children from Baptism (for that was the Charge) when-as in truth his fault was only his remisness, not taking care in his Diocess for the timely Baptizing of them, whence it happened that many died unbaptized, which was judged dangerous.

Nor should I have granted Hincmarus to be of Mr. Danvers party, who is brought in next to Adrianus, for refusing Infants-Baptism. I was told of the Mistake (though led into it by what I found in the Magdiburgs, who represent him as accused by his enemies for denying Childrens Baptism) by the afore-mentioned learned person: And having since met with Sympsons History of the Church, I find this following Account of Hincmarus under Century 9. and in pag. 566. Edit. 3 That in the Council of Acciniacum in France, Hincmarus, Bishop of Rhemes, accused his own nephew Hincmarus Bishop of Laudum, a man disobedient to his Metropolitan, and a man who for private injuries had excommunicated all the Presbyters of his Church, debarring them from saying Mass, baptizing Infants, absolving the Penitents, and burying the Dead, and was condemned of Petulancy and deprived of his Office. Judg Reader by this, whether this man be to be lookt upon under the notion of an Anabaptist by the character yet given. But (to go on with what Sympson saith afterwards) he was restored to his Office by Pope John the ninth, and p. 44that because he made his Appeal from his Metropolitan, and the Synod of his own Country to be judged by the Chair of Rome. A pure Anabaptist indeed!

There are three other of Mr. Danvers's Witnesses yet behind, (and had there been but one more it would have made a compleat Jury) but those three speak nothing at all of Infants; so I let them pass. The Dutch-Martyrology (Mr. Danvers's Commonplace Book) name also Smaragdus: But he hath the Wit now to leave him out, though he is in his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. under Cent. 10. But I minded him in my answer with those words of Smaragdus, That little Children are to be baptized, grounding it upon Mat. 19. 15. Suffer little Children to come unto me &c.

Thus Reader thou hast heard what Mr. Danvers's Witnesses can say, and what exceptions I have made against them; they all stand at thy Bar, and I hope thou wilt give righteous judgment, and dost by this time see, that my Antagonist hath no need to complain, that I allow him but two Witnesses, viz. Hincmarus, and Adrianus, having been too liberal in that.

2. In the next place he produceth another Parcel, that he saith denyed Infants-Baptism; but as the Donatists, Waldenses: But how false this is we shall hereafter shew. And as for those of Germany we are contented he shall have them, some of which he may be ashamed to own. As for what he saith of the Churches of Helvetia, Flanders, Bohemia, Hungaria, Poland, France, and Silvania; as I take it, those of them who were really Anabaptists, are of no higher Antiquity than Luthers days: and p. 45for his pretending to the Ancient Britains, I shall reckon with him for that in its proper place; so for the Lollards, they are of the same stamp with the Waldenses, whose Confessions will confute Mr. Danvers. For the Wickliffians; the Council of Constance that accused Wicklif for other things and condemned him, never charged him with denying Infants-Baptism; and Walden that writ against him shews from his own works, that he was for it. Lastly, since Henry the Eight's time, there hath been of this sect here in England.

But what dangerous Errors some of them held in that Kings Reign, and in Queen Elizabeths, we have shewn in our Infants-Baptism Asserted, part 2. p. 90, 91. To which Mr. Danvers saith nothing in his Reply. And really I wonder he should not publiquely disown Munzer, John of Leiden, Phifer, Knipperdoling with their Comragues; I hope he reckons not those Synagogues of Sathan into the number of the Churches of Christ, though 'tis to be feared, since he is so much their Advocate.

But concerning the Anabaptists of this Age here in England I have sufficiently published to the world, that I believe many amongst them are persons truly fearing God.

3. Mr. Danvers brings Testimony for Adult-Baptism from Paedobaptists; and it seems a strange design to all that I have spoken with about the same, that he should offer to bring Chrysostom, Austin &c. against Infants-Baptism, so making the Fathers to contradict themselves, and for which I rebuke him in my Answer.

But he takes much pains to vindicate himself, in which undertaking I find him so full of Meanders p. 46and tedious Circumlocutions, that I judg it not worth while to follow him, foreign, step by step; And there is no great reason I should take notice of it. Since he confesseth, 1. The sayings of those Men [Pedobaptists] are expresly for his Opinion, though it may be [O sad is it but a may be?] not intended so, and therefore saith he, I have done them no injury. 2. He saith, he quotes them not to prove Believers-Baptism was the only Baptism of those Centuries: Why then did he quote them? why, to shew how they contradicted themselves, and likewise his dexterity, how well he can beat them with their own weapons. O Prodigious self-conceitedness! What doth he think he can see (having washt his Eyes so profoundly) the folly of contradiction in the sayings of such a numerous company of Fathers, and Learned Godly Divines? And yet he is so blind as not to see in how many things he contradicts himself. I shall give you a Catalogue of some of them before we part. Mr. Danvers might have forborn his wrangling, and attended to the distinction which we gave in our Answer of Ecclesia colligenda and collecta, which serves very well for the reconciling the Fathers, and modern Divines to themselves: For when they speak of Teaching, Confession and Examination, requisite before Baptism, they intend it of the way that is to be taken in the first planting of a Church, when Pagans are brought into the Faith of Christ; and when they speak of the Right of Infants, it is in a Church already gathered, of which Infants being a part they must not be denied Baptism. But this Mr. D. likes not, and therefore, hath invented a way to reconcile the seeming difficulty (as he calls it) and what is that? why p. 47all the sayings of the later Doctors and learned men (why not of the ancient ones too?) wherein confession and profession is required, are to be understood, not, saith he, as Mr. Wills would have it, to intend onelyonly Adult Persons and Pagans, but Infants also, because they hold Infants to repent and believe by their Sureties. Which he conceives he hath sufficiently proved by the Instance which he gives from the Catechism of the Church of England, just before mentioned, which (after his usual manner) he doth pervert. For it being said in the Catechism, that Faith and Repentance, is required in persons to be baptized; the Question is, Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform them? To which Mr. Danvers makes the Catechism give this answer, They do perform them by their Sureties; as if that was all the answer they gave: whereas indeed the answer in the Catechism runs thus; They perform them by their Sureties who promise and vow them both in their names; which when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. And as if the Bishops foresaw that such as Mr. Danvers would cavil at the word perform; in the last Edition of the Common-Prayer Book, theyCommon-Prayer Book last Edit. have left it out, and only say, Because they promise them by their Sureties, which promise when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. So that it appears, the sense of the answer in the Catechism is to be understood, according to what we find mentioned by the Magdiburgs, Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 422. Neque enim hoc ille ait, ego pro puero abrenunciationes facio, aut fidei p. 48Sacramenta profiteor; sed ita puer renunciat et profitetur, id est, spondeo puerum inducturum cum ad Sacram intelligentia venerit, sedulis adhortationibus meis, ut abrenunciet contrariis omnino, profiteaturque &c. which in English is to this effect; the Sponsor doth not say, I do renounce the Devils works &c. and profess Faith for the Child, but promises, when the Child comes to understanding, he will exhort him to renounce the Devil, and World &c.

But Mr. Danvers conceives that the sayings of the Doctors and learned men, when they speak of profession before Baptism, is not by them intended of Adult persons, and Pagans, but of Infants also: Otherwise it would be, saith he, to make two Baptisms and necessitate two Commissions; one for the Adult, and the other for Infants.

To this I answer, there is no such need of two Baptisms, for the Baptism of Adult persons and Infants is one and the same, as to the matter, both being baptized with Water, and so also, as to form, In the name of the Father &c. Nor doth it necessitate two commissions, one will serve the turn very well, and comprehend both Parent and Child; and to make this clear, I will give the Judgment of some of our modern Doctors and learned men as to the sense of the Commission for Baptizing, differing toto caelo from Mr. Danvers's fancy. Perkins upon Mat. 28. 29. Go teach all nations baptizing them: In these words, saith he, the Baptism of Infants is prescribed, and the Apostles by vertue of this Commission, baptized whole families, as knowing in Gods former Administration to his people, the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers. As the nation of the Jews, were first p. 49taught, and then they and their Infants being Confederates were circumcised; so saith our Saviour, Go disciple the nations, and baptize them.

Paraeus upon Matth. 3. 7. hath those words: Ad eos [Infantes] etiam pertinet universale Christi mandatum, foreign; nec obstat, quod infantes doceri nondum possunt: foreign enim Christo proprie non est docere (ut vulgo redditur) sed discipulos facere, sicut exponitur, Joh. 4. 1. In Christi enim mandato, doctrina etiam sequitur Baptismum, foreign, Facite discipulos baptizando et docendo, &c. non quod doctrina non debeat praecedere baptismum in adultis, sed quod debeat etiam sequi in infantibus baptizatis. 1. The general command of Christ; Go, disciple all Nations, appertains to Infants; neither doth it hinder because Infants can not be taught, for the Greek word doth not properly signifie to teach as it is commonly rendred, but make disciples as it is expounded Joh. 4. 1. According to Christ's Command Teaching doth follow Baptism: For it is Baptizing them, and then teaching them to Observe. Make disciples by Baptizing and Teaching &c. not that Teaching ought not to go before Baptizing in the Adult, but that it ought also to follow in baptized Infants.

Spanhemius in his Dubia Evangelica, tells us that foreign, which we render [teach] signifies to make disciples, which is done, saith he, by Baptizing and Teaching; and he gives this reason for this his Analysis; because, if foreign should signifie only to teach, there would be found a tautologie in Christ's words. Thus, Go, Teach p. 50all nations, Baptizing them, Teaching them: The sense therefore (saith he) of Christs words, is this, Goe ye, make Disciples to me out of all nations by Baptizing and Teaching, and the former way of making disciples, Infantibus etiam aptari poterat, may be applyed to Infants.

4 I think I could bring some scores that understand the Commission in this sense, and therefore argue against the Anabaptists thus—The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature: All nations must be discipled; but Infants are a part of this Creation, are included in all Nations; therefore they must be made disciples also: for [Them] in the Commission, must refer to Nations, or else it relates to nothing, for it hath no relative besides to answer to, and therefore Infants being a part of the Nation, where the Gospel is preached, must be baptized.

Thus we see hitherto Mr. Danvers cannot discharge himself of the charge of Prevarication, and perverting the Authorities produced by him, but like a discontented man, is angry with every Body he meets with, that crosseth his humour, and therefore falls a Skirmishing with the Lutherans, Calvin, Baxter, and concludes bitterly against me with an Appeal to the Reader, whether it can be supposed, I did read his Book, and answer it with consideration, and so whether I ought not to be esteemed a person extreamly void of Reason and Conscience. And let the Reader likewise judge whether this be suitable to the Title of his Book, A Sober Reply to Mr. Wills, against whom I may rightly object that of Ambrose on the 119 Psal. Quem veritate non potest, lacerat convitiis

p. 51Secondly, concerning the Falsehood chargedu pon Mr. Danvers which is fully proved in what follows.

Page 30. After some scornful jeers which he is pleased to cast upon me, as that I profess my self a solid grave person, a Minister of the Gospel, a Master of Arts and a Learned Man, and one that hath spent much time in the University (which is more than ever I profest or pretended to) he thinks it not enough to render me ridiculous, but wicked also, and therefore insinuates, that I have a peculiar malignity against his person (whom I never saw) as well as against the Truth.

To which I shall only say, That Mr. Danvers hath cause to repent of his great Uncharitableness, especially because I have exprest my Charity towards him, declaring in my Infant-Baptism Asserted, part 2. page 224. That I hope he is a Godly-Man, and I appeal to the searcher of Hearts in this matter (who knows that he wrongs me) that I look upon him rather as an Object of pity than hatred. And for that other which is much worse, that I have a malignity against the Truth, I can speak it in sincerity, (my Conscience bearing me witness) that I can do nothing willingly and knowingly against the Truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8. Wherefore I desire him to search his own Heart, whether the malignity be not there, and so I shall leave him to our great Master, whose Prerogative it is to judg, and who I hope, may in time convince him foreign, Jude 15. of all his virulent Speeches.

Mr. Danvers having thus discharg'd his Stomach, p. 52offers to joyn issue with me, in order to the speedy trial, at whose door the Falshood lies. He hath made a good beginning, hath he not? and 'tis very like we shall have as good an end.

1. First I charge him with Falshood, for saying the Magdeburgs tell us, that in the first Century the Apostles Baptized only the Aged; I told him the Falsehood lay in this, because he addeth the word Only, which is not spoken by them. And how doth he clear himself of this? Why, by inveighing against me Suo more, and telling the World, that I am an injurious Man, and charge on him a Falsehood of my own making; how so? Since, saith he, my words are thus; As to the subjects of Baptism the Magdeburgs tell us, that in this Age they find, they Baptized only the Adult or Aged, I do not say, saith he, that they tell us, that in this Age they Baptized only the Adult: risum teneatis amici! Reader, I think thou art hard put to it, to find how I have injured him; for it seems by his own confession, they tell us they baptized only the Adult, but I wrong him, for not putting in his other words [that they did find it]; But it is to be supposed that whatever they did tell us, they did find it. But I must tell Mr. Danvers that they do not say that they find, they [only] Baptized the Adult. This is all they say, Baptizatos esse adultos exempla probant, de infantibus baptizatis exempla quidem annotata non leguntur. Examples prove that the Adult were Baptized, and as for the Baptizing of Infants, we read not any Examples upon Record. Now for to say that the Magdeburgs tell us, they find, they Baptized Only the Adult, is (as he brings it in) a subtle insinuation to deceive the Reader) for the words being placed in that order by themselves, p. 53do import, as if the Magdeburgs did not look upon Infants-Baptism as Apostolical, or that any such were baptized in the Apostles days; whereas their very next words are: Nevertheless Origen and Cyprian tell us, that even in the Apostles days Infants were Baptized; and that it is evident from the Apostles Writings, that Infants were not excluded from Baptism: which words being concealed by Mr. Danvers, shew him▪ to be as guilty of Substraction in this latter as of Addition in the former. Had Mr. D. said, they only find they Baptized the Adult, I should have let it pass; because there are no particular Examples thereof upon Record; but there is a vast difference between that, and they find they Baptized only such: The first leaves room for Infants-Baptism, for a non dicto ad non factum, nonꝰvalet consequentia, but the latter is totally exclusive thereof; could Mr. D. find it; but he is as unable to do that, as to prove the Magdeburgs said so. And yet he would have his Reader believe, it is most manifest that I am an injurious man in charging this falshood of my own making upon him, there being no such Words in his Book, though but three lines after he fully acknowledges what I charged him withal; as may be seen p. 31 of his Reply, where he saith, my words are expresly thus, that in this age they find they Baptized only the Adult. And now let any sober man in his senses (to use Mr. D's own words) judg whether indeed I have done him injury in charging this upon him, or those Ministers he informs us of, who said upon the reading thereof, he wanted morality in so dealing with Authors.

A second Falshood for which I censure him is for saying the Magdeburgs tell us, that the Custom of p. 54Dipping the whole body in Water, was changed into sprinkling a little water in the face, in the first Century; whereas they say no such thing in this Century, nor any of those that follow. So that I charge him with a double Falshood.

1. For representing them, as if they asserted the ceremony of Baptism was only by Dipping, which they do not, but the contrary.

2. In affirming that the Rite was changed in that Century from Dipping into Sprinkling.

Let us now observe, how Mr. Danvers vindicates himself as to this.

1. He saith, the Magdeburg's own words will clear him for Dipping, and refers us to Cent. 1. c. 6 p. 148. where they speak nothing at all of this matter: Indeed I find in Cent 1. lib. 2. c. 6. p. 497. we have these words; As to the place of Baptism, it was as occasion was offered, in Rivers and Fountains, and the manner was thus; Minstrum Baptismi in aquam baptizandos immersisse seu lavasse in nomine patris &c. probat verbum foreign; which Mr. Danvers thus translates, the word foreign, signifying immersion or dipping in Watter [thus far he is right] proves that the Minister of Dipt by washing is nonsense.Baptism did dip the Baptized, washing them in the name of the Father; which is a very corrupt translation of the words, as all Scholars know: for it ought to have been translated, The Minister of Baptism doth dip or wash them, according to the genuine signification of the Word, as they give it us, Cent. 1. lib. 1. c. 4. p. 152. Vocabulum Baptismus significat tinctionem seu lavationem a graeco verbo foreign, so Mar. 7. 4. say they; for it is taken a Judaica l…tione, the Jews washing which [was otherwise besides p. 55dipping]: The words of Mark are; The yeat not except they wash. How now can Mr. Danvers justifie himself to represent them, as restraining the word Only to Dipping, when they give us to understand, it signifies any kind of Washing, rinsing, or cleansing, as a man will wash his hands, as well by pouring water on them, as by dipping, 2 King. 3. 11. here is Elisha which hath poured water on the hands of Elijah, being his Servant, as 'tis noted in the Margent.

1. The other Falshood is for saying that the Magdeburgs tell us, that the Custom of dipping the whole body was changed into sprinkling in this Century: Let the Reader judge, how lamely he comes off here; for he saith, those words of changing the custom were his own, not the Magdeburgs: But what had he to do, to interpose his own words, when he undertakes to tell us what the Magdeburgs say as to the manner of Baptizing, when he repeats their words all along, and then concludes, which said custom of Dipping the whole body was changed into Sprinkling a little Watter in the face. There is no man living but would have taken those words, to have been the Magdeburgs as well as the rest, being all joyned in the same sentence, and one and the same character. See his Treatise of Baptism Edit. 1. pars 1. p. 58. Surely in this any ordinary Reader may see, we have found Mr. Danvers faulty, nor will any evasion serve his turn for an excuse; yet hath he still something to say for himself, and that is, that in the 2d. Impression of his Book, he did for the better distinction (that all men might know those words of Altering the Custom of dipping the whole Body into sprinkling a little water in the face, were his own, not the Magdeburgs) put them into a different p. 56character; and then saith, that prejudice blinded my Eye, my business being to make a hole if I could not find one. What unparalelled confidence is this! But be it known unto him; (and his Eye might have seen it in my Preface to Infants-Baptism asserted, that my business was to answer his 1st Edition, and he knows very well, (by a good token which I shall forbear to mention) that my Book was printing, when his 2d Edition came forth; which is sufficient, (I doubt not) with an Impartial Reader to clear me from blame in not taking notice of his different Character, had he really made it. But when upon examination the Reader will find no such thing, to convince him of Mr. D. care in this particular; (there being only a Semi-colon between, and not the least distinction to make it possible for the most intelligent Reader so much as to suppose it;) I presume he will wonder at it, that a good man should talk at such a rate. But if he did indeed on purpose put those words in this fifth head into a different character, left they should be supposed not to be his own; why did he not do so in the 2d. head, the four last lines being his own? nor in the 3d. head where the three last are his own? nor in the 4th head where the last is his own? As the Reader may see Ed. 2d. p. 46. certainly if he had so honest a design, as he pretends, he would have done so throughout, and, I appeal to his conscience whether he ever thought of such a thing as a different Character before he saw my Answer to his Book.

A third Falshood, which I lay at his door, is for saying, the custom of dipping was changed into sprinkling in the third Century.

p. 57To this Mr. Danvers answers p. 36. of his Reply, I do him manifest injury: How so? Why, because he tells us, he saith only this, viz. many were the corruptions about Baptism, that were creeping in, some whereof he confesseth, he mentions, and amongst the rest, Altering the form from dipping to sprinkling. Where then is the manifest injury? I know not, unless it be because I say he changed and altered: and being it seems pincht with this charge, he calls me unfaithful man: and though as above, he confesseth, that he said among other corruptions that was one, the altering the Form from dipping to sprinkling; yet he denies it again presently with a severe increpation, and wonders that I am not ashamed to assert, that he saith the custom of dipping the whole body was changed into sprinkling in the third Century. I suppose Reader, thou hast seldom met with the like ridiculous contradiction in any Author; I assure thee some have set their wits on work to find out the injury I have done him, and cannot hit upon it, unless it be because I have asserted that he saith the custom of dipping the whole body when he only names dipping: I thought indeed when ever people are dipt it had been the whole body, and I borrowed the form of expression from himself, p. 57, 58. of his first Edition; So that he is the Man that hath cause to be ashamed, and is found very unfaithful, in speaking thus forward and backward at his pleasure, yea that which is manifestly false, and then denying it in the same breath, so adding one Falshood to another; which is a sorry way of Vindication. But he would say something if he knew what, to clear himself; but 'tis very confused, and impertinent, as that he did not quote p. 125, 126. for that, but for the superstitious p. 58Rites, and did thereby only intend, &c. with more such stuff which I let pass, and think it necessary to give the Reader an account of the whole that he hath upon this matter in his Treatise of Baptism 1 Edit. p. 113. 2 Edit. p. 101, 102. and so he will be the better able to judg, whether I have wronged him, or he me. Thus he speaks there verbatim. [Many were the corruptions about Baptism, that in this Age were creeping in, as the confining Baptism ordinarily to be performed by a Bishop] quoting Magd. Cent. 3. p. 123. limiting the time to Easter and Whitsontide, p. 129. altering the Form from dipping to sprinkling; (there's that for which I accuse him) and the place from Rivers and Fountains to Baptisterions; with divers superstitious Rites, as p. 125, 126.

The 4th. Falshood I charge him with is for Fathering several things upon the Magdeburgs respecting the 4th. Century, when not a word of it is to be found in them; as

1. That they tell us it was the universal practice to baptize the Adult upon profession of faith; and how he clears himself of this, let the Reader observe: all the Reply, that he makes to it, is, That he doth not say, that the Magdeburgs do say in so many words, that it was the universal practice of this age, to baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith, as he saith, I would insinuate. But for this, let Mr. Danvers's own Book decide the business. I confess I wonder he should deny it when there are a thousand witnesses to prove it (for so many Books were the first impression as they say). For my part I have exprest the very syllabical words p. 59without altering one tittle, as the Reader may see if he please to look on Mr. Danvers's Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. p. 64. under Century the 4th these are his words,—In this age they tell us, that it was the universal practice to baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith, and for which they give us several Authorities, out of the Learned Fathers, and Councils at that time, some whereof you have as followeth. If Mr. Danvers can excuse himself no better than he hath done in this, it had been more for his credit to have been silent.

And whereas he excepts against the two instances I bring from the Magdeburgs that Baptizing of Children was owned in the Eastern-Churches. The 1st was Nazianzen: Mr. Danvers puts this off easily, telling us: he hath answered that already, and refers the Reader thereto, and so do I, to the reply I make him, where is manifested the Vanity of his distinction That Nazianzen was not for baptizing Children quà Children, but as dying persons.

The other Instance given by me from the Magdeburgs is, that of Athanasius Question to Antiochus, which they bring for Infant-Baptism, used in the African Churches: the words are, Quod et in Africanis ecclesiis receptum fuisse Athanasius testatur, Quest. 124. (1) Athanasius doth witness in his 124. Question, that it was received in the African Churches. And for quoting this Mr. Danvers is in a pet, and saith, I produce a spurious piece [is the Magdeburgensian History such?] why then doth he call it an excellent History? And further addeth, that I was not ignorant of this, but went p. 60on purpose to abuse the world.

This is very harsh, but I will not be moved, but only tell him, he does very ill thus to load me with undeserved Calumnies; for,

1. I took up the Quotation from the Magdeburgs: Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 419. where they produce it for a Testimony for Infants-Baptism in the African-Churches.

2. They give not the least hint in that place, of its being spurious, but introduce it, with other Testimonies that are Authentick, without the least Censure.

3. I never understood that it was reputed spurious (as Mr. Danvers presumptuously saith I did) for, I never read the life of Athanasius, till after I received this severe correction; who also saith, I did, out of meer design, fall in with the wicked cheat. This is more of Mr. Danvers's Charity and Sobriety, and another of his great charges in the preface, saying, That I abused the Reader with a supposititious Testimony of Athanasius, &c. But is this so great a Crime in me as to deserve such severe Reprehensions? Certainly not from Mr. D. who is equally guilty with me in this particular: for in his 1. Ed. p. 66. p. 2. Ed. p 56. he quotes Arnobius upon the Psalms for his opinion, which Perkins tells us is spurious. Now if I should have told Mr. D. that he was not ignorant of this, but went on purpose to abuse the World; and that he did of meer design fall in with the wicked Cheat, and abused his Reader with the supposititious Testimony of Arnobius; how would he have liked it? I believe he would have called me the most disingenuous Person in the World; when yet I took mine p. 61out of the Magdeburgs (his excellent History) where I think his is not to be found; though his expressions would induce us to believe he had it from them.

A fifth thing charged upon him is the curtailing and leaving out part of a Sentence quoted by Bazil, vix. Must the Faithful be sealed with Baptism? Faith must needs preceed. And I do in my Answer censure him for stopping there, when he should have proceeded with what follows, which is this: What then say you of Infants, which neither know good nor evil? may we Baptize them? yea for so we are taught by the Circumcision of Children.

Now how doth Mr. Danvers clear himself of this? Why by telling us there are no such words to be found in Bazil: and I do freely confess my mistake of a name, and fathering upon Bazil the words of Nazianzen: but withal I must tell Mr. Danvers that he in his Treatise of Baptism 1 edit. Cent. 4. pag. 66. 2 edit. p. 56. fathers upon Nazianzen that which he never spake, viz. That the Baptized used in the first place to confess their sins, and to renounce the Devil and all his works before many witnesses; and that none were Baptized of old but they that did so confess their sins: and for which he quotes no place, where we may find it in that Father, which put me and another to some trouble in perusing all that Nazianzen hath writ upon the subject of Baptism; so that I can confidently affirm those words; that none were Baptized of old, but they that did confess their sins, are coin'd by Mr. Danvers and none of Nazianzen's. And I am apt to think he cannot find in Nazianzen, that the Baptized renounced the Devil and all his works before many witnesses; because p. 62the Magd. have no such quotation out of him as I can find; but they tell us indeed Ephrim said so. By which it appears to me that Mr. D. is as guilty in making an Authority of his own as I am. For he saith pag 47. of his Reply, it is true the words I find to be exactly the words of Gregory Nazianzen: And then withal let me mind him that Nazianzen's Authority for Infants-Baptism in the 4th Century is altogether as good as Bazil's being of as great repute in in the Church as he; and what pregnant grounds we have to believe that Bazil was for Infant-Baptism likewise you have heard before. To conclude this, although it be not possible for any unprejudiced man to conceive otherwise of my naming Bazil instead of Nazianzen, than that it was an innocent mistake; yet doth Mr. Danvers (according to his accustomed charity) declare his fear that I did knowingly impose upon the Reader, and that it was not lapsus calami, but mentis, not a sin of ignorance or a meer mistake, but a wilful mistake. But in these his uncharitable surmises he is very injurious to me, but most of all unto himself who is more guilty in this very particular.

A sixth Falshood he is censured for is for bringing in the Waldenses as witnesses against Infants-Baptism, &c. But as for this, he tells us he will examine it in his 3d Chapter whereto he refers the Reader, and so do I to my Reply to him under that head, where is sufficiently discovered his falshood and weakness.

The seventh Charge is for dealing craftily with Mr. Baxter and traducing his sayings, quoting divers of his Arguments to Mr. Blake, as though he had been only for Believers Baptism, when in the p. 63same place he so fully explains himself, that as for Infants Right to Baptism he takes that for granted, upon the account of their Parents, and that the dispute is wholly managed with respect to Adult, not Infants-Baptism.

Now as to this Mr. Danvers hath nothing to say, but that Mr. Baxter contradicts himself, as before he hath said of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all our Learned and Godly Divines, according to the Verdict of his modest intellect.

The eight and last I charge him with is that of delusion, which he endeavours to fasten upon the Reader in reference to Dr. Taylor, by improving that Argument which he hath in his Liberty of Prophesie as though he were against Infants-Baptism; when the Dr. himself saith, his design in that piece was only to draw up a Schem of the Anabaptists Arguments, and to represent their fallacious reasonings, and declares, that he conceives them to be in an Error, and that he was for Infants-Baptism.

To this Mr. Danvers replyes, in way of vindication, that what-ever the Drs. judgment or end was in writing, yet God's Wisdom and Power in it the more appears, if an Enemy, to bring forth such convincing Arguments from his own mouth, to witness to his despised truth.

To all which this may suffice for Answer.

1. God is Infinite and unsearchable in his Wisdom and Power, and hath made even Satan himself to bear witness to the Divinity of Christ; but whether Mr. Danvers's Opinion be a truth Sub judice lis est, is the thing in controversie.

2. As touching his Argments, how convincing they are, we do not deem Mr. Danvers a Competent judg.

p. 643. The Dr. himself who hath so much discust the point, and examined what can be said pro and con is more likely to give a right Judgment, and to penetrate into the strength of the Arguments on both sides, and he hath declared himself fully for Infants-Baptism, and given us his Arguments for the same, in a Book entituled The Consideration of the Church in Baptizing the Infants of Believers; the which he published since his liberty of Prophesy.

But notwithstanding all this Mr. Danvers takes much pains to make the World believe, that the Dr. in his liberty of Prophesy, spake his own judgment as well as theirs. And in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. says, Surely Dr. Taylor had the reputation of a person of more Integrity, Conscience and Honesty, than so egregiously to prevaricate in the things of God. But what prevarication is it in him when he gives us to understand he doth but personate an Anabaptist, and tells us he will draw a scheme of what they can say for their Opinion, which he looks upon as erroneous, and in the same place positively declares himself for Infants-Baptism?

And whereas Dr. Hammond hath answered that Collection of Antipaedobaptistical Arguments put forth by Dr. Taylor, Mr. Danvers tells us Dr. Hammond hath rather confirmed than answered them: But I hope not all of them; for that had been a strange way of answering indeed: There is one of his mediums to prove Infants-Baptism by, which Mr. Danvers saith I much glory in, and which he is pleased to except against; the rest, it seems are not worthy of his notice, and that is the Drs. Argument taken from the use of Baptism amongst the Jews, as p. 65a kind of Initiation (of which Mr. Ainsworth gives divers Testimonies upon the 17. Gen.) and saith he, the Institutions of Christ (who came first Messias to that People, was born of that Nation, lived regularly under their Law, and observed their customs) were by him drawn from their former practices in the Old- Testament, and so were lightly changed, and accommodated to his own purposes. And after that he had instanced in divers things, he pitcheth upon the Lords-Supper instituted and taken from their post-caenium, and cup of Blessing, solemnly used by them at the close of a Festival, and from thence passeth on to that of Baptism, or Washing, a known Rite solemnly used among the Jews as a form of Initiation into the Covenant of God, and so into the Congregation: And shews out of the Talmud, that the way of entering into Covenant was by Circumcision and Baptism, and then comes to improve the Argument thus: That as the natural Jews were thus entered, so were the Proselytes; and as the Proselytes of age, so also were their Infant-Children. From which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptizing, was accommodated by Christ to the right of our Initiation of the profession of Christ, whereof, saith the Dr. we have as little reason to doubt, as that a Picture was taken from that Face which it resembles to the life, and from whence we have, as he conceives, no obscure ground for our practice of Baptizing, not only those who make profession of Faith, but also their Children with them.

In answer to which Mr. Danvers refers us to the Animadversions of Sir Norton Knatchbul where we have such censured, that fetch the foundation of Truth from the Rabbies, and no doubt deservedly. p. 50But as for Infant-Baptism, the foundation thereof is laid in the Covenant of God's Grace that takes in the Child as confederate with the Parent, and consequently the Child must not be denied that Seal, which under the Gospel-administration, is Baptism. But that Baptism was a way of Initiating the proselytes of age with their little ones, we have it several ways attested. See Godwin of the Jewish Antiquities, c. 3. p. 10. quoting Moses Kotsen, Moses Aegyptius, Drusius de trib. sec. p. 102. who saith, That to the making of Males Proselytes were required Circumcision, and Purification by Water; and for the Females, only Purification by Water. From whence Mr. Godwin concludes thus; hence we may observe that a kind of Initiation by water was long in use among the Jews (having before found it to be as high as Davids time) though, as he saith, it was not Sacramental till Christ his Institution: yea therefore it may seem to have been used by them, because they expected it at the coming of the Messias, as appeareth by their coming to John, questioning not so much his Baptism as his Authority: by what Authority he Baptized, Joh. 1. 15. But what need more be said to this? when Mr. Tombs himself (to whom I hope Mr. Danvers will subscribe) acknowledgeth, Examen p. 89. That it is well known, Baptism was in use among the Jews, in the initiating Proselytes, for many years together with Circumcision.