Vindiciae Vindiciarum; OR, A VINDICATION of a late TREATISE, entitled, Infant-Baptism Asserted and Vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity. In Answer to Mr. HEN. D'ANVERS his REPLY. To which is annexed, The Right Reverend Dr. Barlow (now Bishop-Elect of Lincoln) his Apologetical-Letter. ALSO An Appeal to the Baptists (so called) against Mr. Danvers, for his strange Forgeries, and Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
By Obed Wills, M. A.  
He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.  Prov. 18. 17. 
London, Printed for Jonathan Robinson, at the Golden-Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1675.   

The Preface.  
THe Wise Man tells us Pro. 17. 14. that the beginning of strife is as when one setteth out Water, therefore leave off, saith he, contention before it be meddled with. The Original is big with an Emphasis, and is rendered by Arius Montanus, [Aquas aperiens, or qui aperit aquam] that is to say, Opening the Bay, or making a gap in the Banks for the water to run out; so that at first, though the matter may seem inconsiderable, yet the Waters widening their passage, become impetuous, grow stronger and stronger, carry all before it, drown the Country, and cause great Devastations: In like manner from small beginnings of Controversy, Breaches are enlarged, Animosities fomented, the World filled with Variance, Noise, and Clamour: so that he that first starteth the same, without being compelled thereunto, especially if it be about Theological points, and those Circumstantials and Punctilios, shows himself to be a man of little judgement, and less affection to the Church's Peace. For though disputes about Religion are sometimes Necessary, yet are they always Dangerous, too often emptying the heart of Christian Charity, and filling it with Carnal Zeal, and Passion: upon which account few there are to be found, who are fitly qualified to manage such undertake, which are usually carried on with more heat than any other Subject. For that besides Reason, Learning, Reputation, Confidence of Verity, and Interest, which warm men in other Polemical encounters, they are in this inflamed with a Zeal for God, and the Impulse of Conscience to appear in his Cause, and for his Truth impugned. The Concurrence of all which, or some of them, have perhaps induced Mr. Danvers to appear once more upon the Stage, and thereby given the Ansa, or occasion of another Duel, between him and me, who both being of no great Strength, might well have given place to others, as fitter Champions for the Truth, on which side so ever it be. I must therefore acquaint thee, Reader, that my Antagonist having formerly published a Treatise for the Baptism of Believers only, I presumed to declare my Dissent from him, and in my Preface to the Answer have expressed the Reasons that obliged me thereunto. And besides my endeavours to refute all his Arguments against Infant-baptism, I did more especially detect his failings in the Historical part of his Discourse, and how extremely culpable he was in his Collections, and in perverting the sense of Authors, contrary to their intentions: And though some thought it was impossible for him, not to be convinced of the offence he had done Antiquity, yet instead thereof, and an ingenuous acknowledgement of his Aberrations, he hath attempted to vindicate himself, and by all Artifices imaginable to cover or gild over his Defects; and for a pretext to hide them, hath as much as in him lies, insinuated a disesteem of my labours, making use of the politic Engine of Repercussion, retorting and bandying back the charges which I bring against him, with a sufficient Talio, and large requital. Herein much resembling Verres, who when Tully framed an Oration against him for Thievery, he knew no better way to discountenance the same, than by accusing Tully, a true man, that he was a Thief. But this will prove but a poor Salvo; for when the Vanity and Injustice of such a procedure appears, will not his face be covered with redoubled Shame? I am sorry he hath obliged me to consume more precious time with him, and am not willing to say any thing that may disturb the tranquillity of his Soul, and that because he is deeply touched at what is past; for however he pretends to Patience, and Suffering, 'tis easy to observe in him the marks of a great Animosity and Discomposure: And can any man blame him? since he (as he tells us) had form his Treatise in a new Method 
Preface to the Reply.  for the Benefit of this Age, and consequently might expect it should have been a Standing-book for the whole Nation, to be universally received without contradiction. But instead thereof, to have the Mummery discovered, the Mask and Vizard plucked off, to have his darling Child, his first born in this kind, Anatomised, it's unsoundness and rotten parts laid open, and exposed to Shame, Censure, and Loathing, this must needs exasperate a great Spirit. This was such a Provocation, that his fancy hath been more busily employed in inventing Charges against me, then in clearing himself. He hath mainly improved his Study (in conjunction with what help he could get from the Wits of his Party) to disparage my Book, vilify my Person, and to render both odious, and to be suspected. And what a noise doth he make in the Preface, with the remarkable exaggerations of my Curtilations, Misquotations, Mistranslations, Misapplications, when all this while he looks upon what I have written through the Multiplying-glass of prejudice, taking Molehills for Mountains, and Peccadillo's and little escapes for unpardonable Crimes; and what is wanting in Weight, he makes up in Number. Never did any Momus more industriously set himself to carp; and some of his Accusations are so trivial, that they may be brought against the exactest Writer living. And yet after all these Exclamations, having compared notes with him, and examined Quotations, I find myself little more concerned, then in the mistake of a Name, a Century, and a passage of Cassander. And since my Antagonist hath the confidence to refer matters in debate between us to the Tribunal of the Reader, I willingly join issue with him, not doubting (if he hath Honesty and Ability to judge) but that he will find me Innocent, and this Accuser a Delinquent. There is no way to try our metal, but to bring it to the Touchstone of the Original Authors, from whom we pretend our Authorities. There are some things in debate▪ that they who understand only their Mother tongue, cannot possibly be competent Judges of which side the Truth lieth: some other things are obvious to the unlearned, and they that have read only P. Perin in English, and Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs have wondered at Mr. Danvers errors. In respect of these I have the less need to vindicate myself from some of his charges. And truly if the satisfying some men's importunity, that I would endeavour to disabuse credulous Souls, had not been more important than any fear of suffering my reputation by this Satirist, I should have been altogether silent: For though it be certain, there is nothing so far from Truth, which a craftily composed discourse cannot make to appear probable, yet my private thoughts were, that I might have saved this labour: Since the Learned are well satisfied of the Truth of what I have written, and the more illiterate that are Paedobaptists are not overforward to believe what Mr. Danvers saith, and for his own Party, many of them will boast still. Partiality and Prejudice will not suffer them to believe what is said in opposition to him, and from them I must expect no milder penalty, than what I suffered for the first Piece, viz. to be looked upon with a Squint-Eye, and wounded in reputation. But methinks there should have been so much nobleness in Mr. Danvers, being a Gentleman, and a Christian, as to have forborn his Invectives, and instead thereof, have attacked some of our Arguments for Pedobaptism, against which he hath brought no other Weapons than what every Xanthippe can afford, viz. the Sword of the Tongue, and the Arrows of bitter words. But I must expect an after-clap of Thunder, for he saith he hath much to reckon with me for mistakes in the Doctrinal part. I would advise him rather, first to take off the exceptions I have made against his Historical part of Baptism, which he cannot but be convinced of, unless he wink hard. Let him clear his Accounts with me in respect of that, before he enters upon new work; or rather, which is most ingenuous, let him publish a Retractation of his Errors, and so desist: for experience at tests the Truth of that Maxim, Veritas non quaerenda in cristicis. Moreover he cannot be ignorant that the Nation hath taken a Surfeit of these Baptismal-Controversies; there is more said already pro and con, than we are able to speak, and few have patience to read any more, and if we fall to it again, doubtless our Books will prove waste paper. And I must further acquaint Mr. Danvers that he having treated me with so much rudeness in what is past, I have little heart to have any more to do with him, (unless I see better cause) and do hereby promise him Security, as from me, from all contradiction, whenever he lets fly. There is no Gaping I find before an Hot-Oven; and silence is accounted the best Answer to such as superadd Contumacy to their mistakes: For when men are grown so tenacious of an opinion which once they have espoused, as never to admit of a Divorce, though by conviction they find it Adulterate, all disputing is to no purpose: such were anciently condemned, quos non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris. If Mr. Danvers be not to be numbered amongst them, I should be glad; For what ever he hath said of my malignity against his person (altogether unknown to me) I here declare before all men the contrary, and that I love him as a Brother, though erring, and had mu●h rather convince, than shame him, heartily advising him to cease tossing the Ball of Contention; to be humble and loving to all Christians; to mortify his passions, and follow peace with all in every place that call on the name of the Lord Jesus.   

Mr. Danvers' Defence from the Charge of Prevarication, Falsehood, and perverting the Testimonies of the Ancients, found insufficient; and the same further made good against him.  
IN the 20th page of his Reply, entitled 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.  
The 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 itself (of which they so much boast) is altogether for Believers, and not for Infants-Baptism: Now whether these sayings of his, compared with that abovementioned, 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 judgement 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 falter in making good what he pretends to as to the 3 first Centuries; namely, That he hath not prevaricated or perverted 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 Baptised 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 baptised, 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 baptised, & 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 etc. that is, when any one was converted to the Christian Faith, he was sufficiently instructed before Baptism.  
In 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 Baptising observed in the Asiatick-Churches, because we want for the most part the Writings of the Asiatic [Doctors.]  
2. He silently passeth by what they do expressly say was in use in this Age, namely, that Adult persons of both sexes, and also Infants, were baptised; Baptizabantur in utroque sexu, Adulti simul et Infants, Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124.  
3. Further: under this head he perverts the Sense of Mr. Baxter's words, and carries 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 baptised; the words immediately following are these, Adultorum autem aliquandiu antequam baptizabantur, fides explorabatur, i. e. But as touching the Adult, they enquired after Faith and Repentance before they were baptised. 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 compliments 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 judge of things not by a parcel of confident words, but secundum allegata & probata, according as things are alleged 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 Baptise the Adult upon Profession of Faith: if he quotes it not to show that it was the practice to Baptise 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 Century, denotes in what sense we are to understand him. Now for Mr. Danvers thus to father on the Magdiburgs what they never spoke, and also to pervert what they did speak, renders him chargeable with Falsehood and Prevarication; for,  
1. They say no such thing, that it was the Universal Practice to baptise only the Adult upon profession of Faith. But of this in its proper place, when we shall make good the Charge of Falsehood against him in divers other things as well as this.  
2. They do indeed tell us, That in the Churches of Asia the Baptised were for some time first instructed, and were called Catechumen; 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 baptised.  
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 baptised publicly 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 Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes baptizandos esse ait etc. Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith, That Children were to be baptised. 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 Infant's Baptism was owned in that Century, as to matter of fact, and not to discourse the ground of it, or to inquire in what cases it was done, and therefore he might have spared his frivolous charge about that matter.  
It is truly 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 receded 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 Baptised till aged, though 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 Christ's Commission, preceded 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 baptise; for first of all he said, Teach, and then Baptise, 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 shown in our answer, the Commission itself for Baptism doth not exclude Infants that privilege, as appears by the consideration of the condition 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 beforementioned from him, viz the Jews at Berythrum, who being proselyted to the Faith of Christ craved Baptism of the Bishop, and they were made Catechumen, and instructed & fasted 3 days, & baptised by the Bishop. But Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindication, examining a book called a Well-grounded Treatise etc. 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' 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 grossly 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 Parents, 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 judge, 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 flies into desert places. The house is made empty in the breast of a Believer, 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 traveled 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 baptise 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 preceded and go 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.  
2. 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 preceded 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 baptised but the Catechumen, 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 Catechumen were to be baptised? But when I tell Mr. Danvers that Cyprian held Infant's Baptism an Apostolical Tradition, as the Magdiburgs inform us, he replies, That is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm except some Authentic authority be produced for the same, pag. 91. of his Innocency etc. And may not I be bold to assume the same freedom, and retort, that if we cannot find the aforementioned 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 Catechumen 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 baptised till first they were made Catechumen or instructed; so that it is left to the Reader to judge 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.  
The next is Nazianzen, who was very positive and express for children's 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 flies 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 Pope's 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 Authentic 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 baptised did profess their Faith before many witnesses, & renounce the Devil and all his works, etc. 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. Confessos baptizandos scribit etc. Ambrose writes there, That those who confessed were to be baptised, where he recites, how that the Baptised 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 Commonwealth 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 profession 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 Falsehood, in saying as he doth, That it was the Universal practice of the Western Churches to baptise 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 expressly, Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. That all the Western-Churches did only baptise the Adult, quoting Hilary lib: 2. de Trinitate; whereas Hilary hath no such saying there, but is for Infant's 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 frivolous 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 Infant's 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 baptised? Attic. That their sins may be done away in Baptism. Critob. But what sin have they committed? is 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 Adam's 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 preceded 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 baptised, 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, Ambrose, and Nazianzen, who, as I told him in my answer, were for Infant's Baptism.  
To which he Replies;  
1. That if but four of the Ten be excepted against, than 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 preceded Baptism. To this I have already replied, that notwithstanding this he might be as much for Infants-Baptism, as Ambrose, who spoke 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 deemed it an error, for as much as it was practised not only in the Age wherein he lived, but in the Churches of Asia, where he was Bishop. Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia, saith, Infants were to be baptised. 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 Intercourses, any thing that may argue them to be of different judgements 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 foregoing page tells us, the Churches of Asia owned Infants-Baptism in case of danger, and declares his own judgement 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 anywhere said, Faith should preceded, or go before Baptism.  
5. 'tis no wonder we read not of Bazils insisting upon Infants-Baptism, for such was the Error, 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 die, that so they might depart with pure Souls; so that, as far as I can find, Bazil had much ado to persuade his Hearers to be baptised, 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 Baptised 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 mere shuffling. Since the practice of the Age, as to profession, had respect to Pagans as we have often told him, and in this sense 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 replies, that this is no proof that he was for Infant's Baptism. First, because Circumcision is hereby meant. Secondly, if Baptism, than 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. Danvers 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 judgement 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, than 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 Newborn Infant is excepted, show, that he speaks of those who are within the Church.  
The 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 than I was mistaken, for I thought what we bring from Chrysostom and Ambrose, had altogether as much in it, as what is re-urged from Nazianzen. The words quoted from this Father are out of his 40 oration, viz. Hast thou a Child? let it be early consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its Infancy. To which he replies, that I impose a fallacy upon the Reader, for translating the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 judgement was, they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less, and so be baptised; 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 judge by what follows.  
1. Nazianzen was for baptising Children in case of danger, though as young as the Children of the 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 baptised) without knowledge, 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 etc. Nazianzen was not against Infants-Baptism, and his judgement will be taken as soon as most men's.  
2. Though [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] 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 profane Authors, and that is a state of Infancy; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Infants 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 Wisemen found him in swadling-clouts, Luke 2. 12. And we have it again for a newborn Babe, 1. Pet. 2. 2. As newborn Babes desire the sincere Milk of the word etc.  
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 that in case of death, he would have an Infant baptised? 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 Critic, but that he hath some Logic 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 Logic. But that the weakness of this distinction may appear, consider,  
1. That it is true Nazianzen would not have an Infant baptised quà Infant.  
2. It is untrue, that Nazianzen would have an Infant baptised quà a dying person; for if they were to be baptised under either of these Considerations, than had he been for the baptising all Infants, and dying persons promiscuously.  
3. But Nazianzens' judgement was to have them baptised because they were the Children of Christians in imminent 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 knowledge, 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 baptised, it is not material; since he owned their Baptism in some case, which is sufficient, if we had no more to overthrow Mr. Danvers' 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 baptised  
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 Baptising Children absolutely without respect to dying state, and that is in his 4th Oration, p. 648. Edit. Lutetiae Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. It belongeth to all degrees of Ages, to all Kind's and Manner's of Life. Wherefore it should be carried through all: Art thou a youngman? 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Hast thou an Infant? let him be sanctified [baptised] from his Infancy, let him be dedicated to the Spirit, lest wickedness should take occasion, etc. And then he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Art thou afraid of the Seal (Mr. D'anvers will not have Baptism to be a Seal) because of the tenderness of his nature? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 Baptise Children in this Age to cure Diseases, 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 discovered, 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 dipped) 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 successful, even in desperate cases, it will undoubtedly impair, if not render altogether useless, the Practice of Physic. 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 Baptise 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 Infants-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 vainglorious 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 itself, 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 & aught to be baptised, 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 etc. 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 why 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, aught to preceded 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 days 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 shown. 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 examine what they are that he stands so much upon; for certainly if we must give them the pre-eminence, 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, which 
Synodus 4tae Carthaginensis Cent. 4. cap. 9 pag. 873.  is that Mr. Danvers intends, and it is the 85th Article, Those who are to be baptised, must give in their Names, and 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 men's 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, The 
Laodicens. 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 Oil 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 Baptised should rehearse the Articles of the Creed (2 Ed. p. 59) but do they say that none must be Baptised but such? and why may not this intent 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 Stress, determines in the 6th Canon, that a Woman with Child might be baptised; Because the Baptism reached not her Womb, for in the Confession made in Baptism each ones free choice is showed; hence Mr. Danvers from Mr. Tombs concludes against Infants-Baptism. To this I answered in my Infants-Baptism Asserted etc. 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 Baptising the Children of Christians, saith, Is it far enough from it, for as for the words of the latter part of the Canon: Each one's 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 baptised, doth only belong to herself, not to the Child, and consequently that her Baptism belongs only to herself; [so as the Child cannot be said to be baptised because the Parent is]. And all, saith he, that can be concluded from hence, is, that the Child of such a Parent that was baptised when that was in her Womb, must when it is born have a Baptism for itself, 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 Rabbis, who say, si gravida fiat proselyta, adeoque lavacro suscipiatur, proli ejus Baptismo opus non est; that is, if a Woman great with Child become a proselyte, and be baptised, her Child needs not Baptism. But if this will not satisfy 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, etc. 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 Judgements 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 be 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, aught to be admitted to Baptism; And yet Austin was for the Baptising of Infants. And why may not this Council be supposed to be as inconsiderate? Certainly they were corrupt eonugh in Mr. D's. Judgement, to take up such an Antichristian error (as he is pleased to call it.) For the 1st. Canon is against Minister's Marriage. The 2d. is for Penance. The 3d. against often Marriages, and Penance for the same, etc.  
Thus far we have tried Mr. Danvers his strength, and let the Reader Judge 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 denied, 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 beforementioned, as not baptised till Aged, though born of Christian Parents (as Mr. Danvers will have it) and they are, Constantine, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Austin, he therefore triumphs, and saith▪ he hath six other unperverted Authorities unexcepted against, who were not baptised 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 men's not being baptised till aged, is a nonsequitur; 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 unbaptised, till they were able to make a profession of their Faith, will it not follow, that the Baptising 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 Austin not being baptised till Aged, which was their Father's being Infidels at their Birth, and so continuing (for aught we can learn to the contrary even to their 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 daily for it: But if this were so, what hath he to say for Constantius his Father? Why, the magdeburg's 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 whom 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, merely 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 that 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 baptised 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 Emperor 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 make 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 Knowledge 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 something to that purpose, when in the meanwhile he makes no reply to what I allege to the contrary, in my Infants-Baptism Asserted etc. 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 baptised in his Infancy was, because his Father was not then a Christian.  
By this time I suppose the Reader may guests how well 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 baptised in the Apostles days. In the 2d Century, he perverts the words of Justin Martyr by applying that which was spoken of baptising Pagans against the baptising 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 baptised. And for the 4th Century, Mr. Danvers is so bold as to say, that the Magdiburgs tell us it was the Universal Practice to Baptise the Adult upon profession of Faith; Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. p. 64. when they say otherwise, namely, That persons of all ages were baptised in the Temples, and cite Nazianzen for baptising 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 Infant's Baptism, lastly he brings the Canons of the 3 Councils of Carthage, Laodicea, and Neocaesaria, which have not a word in them against Infant's 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.)  
But 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 firsttimes go no higher than Augustine's Days; for he instanceth in his being baptised at Age, when-as we have Testimony that children's 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 Godfathers', and Godmothers', 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 done 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 not 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 baptised, which his quotation affirms not: and what then doth it signify, but to help to swell his Book? But I shall make it appear that Mr. D. hath shamefully mistaken Rhenanus' 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) shows 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 baptised, strangers daily flocking from Paganism to our Religion: because at that time Heathens were everywhere 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 [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 Baptise none (except those at the point of death) but at Easter and Whitsuntide. By this it is apparent (1st.) that by the Adult he means only Heathens newly converted, and (2.) By the ancient custom▪ Baptising at the two stated times of Easter and Whisontide; and not the baptising 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, etc. & 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 Whitsuntide, and those that were born after Whitsuntide to the Easter following, except in case of necessity, etc. And now I persuade myself Mr. D. for very shame, will take no more notice of this Quotation, unless it be to acknowledge 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 saith, that in former times the custom was that they administered not the Sacrament of Regeneration but only at the Feast of Easter and Pentecost. And here in his Reply, p. 15. he altars the words and makes him say, that they administered but only to the Catechumen, etc. 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 baptising 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 baptised at Easter and Pentecost; at which very time Rhenanus tells us Infants were baptised. And it is most certain that baptising 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 acknowledge, viz. That all men were instructed in the fundamentals of Faith anciently, before they were baptised. But how doth this prove that only the Adult. were then the subjects of Baptism? I wonder Mr. 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 baptised 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 acknowledge; And it is plain Mr. Baxter so intended it, because he hath written largely to prove that none are to be baptised 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 implicit Faith.  
His next Testimonies for it (beginning with particular persons) are from Dutch Authors: we shall speak with them in due time and make it appear, how grossly they err 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 requisite in every one that was to be baptised, 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. Tombs, 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, nor 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 sympson's 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 children's 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 Rebaptisation; 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 Rebaptising] 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 magdeburg's tells us in the same place, out of Niecphorus, that they owned but one Nature in Christ: and were guilty of most wicked Obscenities.  
Another which Mr. Danvers quotes is Adrianus Bishop of Corinth. I granted in my Answer that this Man was against Infants-Baptism, whereas since I have understood from a Learned Divine, well-read in Church-History, that Adrianus was falsely accused to have turned away Children from Baptism (for that was the Charge) when-as in truth his fault was only his remissness, not taking care in his Diocese for the timely Baptising of them, whence it happened that many died unbaptised, 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 children's Baptism) by the aforementioned learned person: And having since met with sympson's 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 Rheims, 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, baptising Infants, absolving the Penitents, and burying the Dead, and was condemned of Petulancy and deprived of his Office. Judge Reader by this, whether this man be to be looked 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 that 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' Witnesses yet behind, (and had there been but one more it would have made a complete Jury) but those three speak nothing at all of Infants; so I let them pass. The Dutch-Martyrology (Mr. Danvers' Common-place 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 baptised, grounding it upon Mat. 19 15. Suffer little Children to come unto me etc.  
Thus Reader thou hast heard what Mr. Danvers' Witnesses can say, and what exceptions I have made against them; they all stand at thy Bar, and I hope thou wilt give righteous judgement, 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 denied Infants-Baptism; but as the Donatists, Waldenses: But how false this is we shall hereafter show. 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 Luther's days: and for his pretending to the Ancient Britain's, 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 shows 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 King's Reign, and in Queen Elizabeth's, we have shown 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 publicly disown Munzer, John of Leiden, Phifer, Knipperdoling with their Comragues; I hope he reckons not those Synagogues of Satan 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 etc. 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 and tedious Circumlocutions, that I judge it not worth while to follow him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 expressly 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 show 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 washed 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 intent 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 all 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 only 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 baptised; the Question is, Why then are Infants baptised, 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, they 
Common-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 Sacramenta 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 etc. which in English is to this effect; the Sponsor doth not say, I do renounce the Devils works etc. and profess Faith for the Child, but promises, when the Child comes to understanding, he will exhort him to renounce the Devil, and World etc.  
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 baptised with Water, and so also, as to form, In the name of the Father etc. 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 Judgement of some of our modern Doctors and learned men as to the sense of the Commission for Baptising, differing toto caelo from Mr. Danvers' fancy. Perkins upon Mat. 28. 29. Go teach all nations baptising them: In these words, saith he, the Baptism of Infants is prescribed, and the Apostles by virtue of this Commission, baptised whole families, as knowing in God's former Administration to his people, the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers. As the nation of the Jews, were first taught, and then they and their Infants being Confederates were circumcised; so saith our Saviour, Go disciple the nations, and baptise them.  
Paraeus upon Matth. 3. 7. hath those words: Ad eos [Infant's] etiam pertinet universale Christi mandatum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; nec obstat, quod infantes doceri nondum possunt: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Facite discipulos baptizando et docendo, etc. 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 signify to teach as it is commonly rendered, but make disciples as it is expounded Joh. 4. 1. According to Christ's Command Teaching doth follow Baptism: For it is Baptising them, and then teaching them to Observe. Make disciples by Baptising and Teaching &c. not that Teaching ought not to go before Baptising in the Adult, but that it ought also to follow in baptised Infants.  
Spanhemius in his Dubia Evangelica, tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render [teach] signifies to make disciples, which is done, saith he, by Baptising and Teaching; and he gives this reason for this his Analysis; because, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify only to teach, there would be found a tautology in Christ's words. Thus, Go, Teach all nations, Baptising them, Teaching them: The sense therefore (saith he) of Christ's words, is this, Go ye, make Disciples to me out of all nations by Baptising and Teaching, and the former way of making disciples, Infantibus etiam aptari poterat, may be applied 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 baptised.  
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 extremely 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, lacerate convitiis  
Secondly, 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 myself 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 professed 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 expressed my Charity towards him, declaring in my Infant-Baptism Asserted, part 2. page 224. That I hope he is a Godlyman, 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 judge, and who I hope, may in time convince him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judas 15. of all his virulent Speeches.  
Mr. Danvers having thus discharged his Stomach, offers to join issue with me, in order to the speedy trial, at whose door the Falsehood 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 Falsehood, for saying the magdeburg's tell us, that in the first Century the Apostles Baptised 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 magdeburg's tell us, that in this Age they find, they Baptised only the Adult or Aged, I do not say, saith he, that they tell us, that in this Age they Baptised 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 baptised 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] Baptised 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 Baptised, and as for the Baptising of Infants, we read not any Examples upon Record. Now for to say that the magdeburg's tell us, they find, they Baptised 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, do import, as if the magdeburg's did not look upon Infants-Baptism as Apostolical, or that any such were baptised in the Apostles days; whereas their very next words are: Nevertheless Origen and Cyprian tell us, that even in the Apostles days Infants were Baptised; and that it is evident from the Apostles Writings, that Infants were not excluded from Baptism: which words being concealed by Mr. Danvers, show him▪ to be as guilty of Substraction in this latter as of Addition in the former. Had Mr. D. said, they only find they Baptised 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 Baptised 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 magdeburg's said so. And yet he would have his Reader believe, it is most manifest that I am an injurious man in charging this falsehood 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 expressly thus, that in this age they find they Baptised only the Adult. And now let any sober man in his senses (to use Mr. D's own words) judge 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 Falsehood for which I censure him is for saying the magdeburg's tell us, that the Custom of Dipping 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 Falsehood.  
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 etc. probat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which Mr. Danvers thus translates, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying immersion or dipping in Water [thus far he is right] proves that the Minister of 
Dipped by washing is nonsense.  Baptism did dip the Baptised, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Mar. 7. 4. say they; for it is taken a Judaica l●tione, the Jews washing which [was otherwise besides dipping]: The words of Mark are; The yet not except they wash. How now can Mr. Danvers justify 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 Margin.  
1. The other Falsehood is for saying that the magdeburg's 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 magdeburg's: But what had he to do, to interpose his own words, when he undertakes to tell us what the magdeburg's say as to the manner of Baptising, when he repeats their words all along, and then concludes, which said custom of Dipping the whole body was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face. There is no man living but would have taken those words, to have been the magdeburg's as well as the rest, being all joined 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 magdeburg's) put them into a different character; 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 Falsehood, which I lay at his door, is for saying, the custom of dipping was changed into sprinkling in the third Century.  
To 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 pinched 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 dipped 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 Falsehood 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 Rites, and did thereby only intend, etc. 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 judge, 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 Whitsuntide, 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 magdeburg's 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 baptise 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 magdeburg's do say in so many words, that it was the universal practice of this age, to baptise the Adult upon profession of Faith, as he saith, I would insinuate. But for this, let Mr. Danvers' 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 expressed the very syllabical words without altering one tittle, as the Reader may see if he please to look on Mr. Danvers' 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 baptise 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 magdeburg's that Baptising 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 baptising Children quà Children, but as dying persons.  
The other Instance given by me from the magdeburg's 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 on 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 magdeburg's: 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 Authentic, 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 mere design, fall in with the wicked cheat. This is more of Mr. Danvers' Charity and Sobriety, and another of his great charges in the preface, saying, That I abused the Reader with a supposititious Testimony of Athanasius, etc. 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 mere 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 out of the magdeburg's (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 preceded. 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 Baptise 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 spoke, viz. That the Baptised 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 Baptised 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 Baptised of old, but they that did confess their sins, are coined by Mr. Danvers and none of Nazianzen's. And I am apt to think he cannot find in Nazianzen, that the Baptised renounced the Devil and all his works before many witnesses; because the 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 mere 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 Falsehood he is censured for is for bringing in the Waldenses as witnesses against Infants-Baptism, etc. 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 falsehood 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 same 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 Prophecy 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 replies, in way of vindication, that whatever the Drs. judgement 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' Opinion be a truth Sub judice lis est, is the thing in controversy.  
2. As touching his Arguments, how convincing they are, we do not deem Mr. Danvers a Competent judge.  
3. The Dr. himself who hath so much discussed the point, and examined what can be said pro and con is more likely to give a right Judgement, 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 entitled The Consideration of the Church in Baptising the Infants of Believers; the which he published since his liberty of Prophecy.  
But notwithstanding all this Mr. Danvers takes much pains to make the World believe, that the Dr. in his liberty of Prophecy, spoke his own judgement 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 a 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 postcaenium, 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 shows 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-childrens. From which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptising, 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 Baptising, 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 Rabbis, and no doubt deservedly. But 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 David's 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 Baptised, 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.   

CHAP. II.  
Wherein Mr. Danvers pretends to show that Infants-Baptism hath neither Foundation in Scripture, nor Antiquity, with an answer thereto.  
§ 1. THe Arguments used in his Treatise of Baptism, we have again in this his Reply thus. That if Infants-Baptism had been any Appointment, or Ordinance of Jesus Christ, there would have been some Precept or Example; but the Scripture is wholly silent as to either, etc.  
To which I gave this answer, in my Infants-Baptism asserted etc.  
First, A thing may be said to be commanded in scripture two ways:  
1. Expressly, or literally and syllabically, that is, totidem verbis, in so many words: Thus we acknowledge Infants-Baptism is not commanded; it is nowhere said, Go Baptise Infants, if it had there would have been no controversy.  
2. A thing may be Commanded in Scripture implicitly, and by good Consequence; and what is thus commanded is as valid and obliging, as if it were in so many letters and syllables, and thus we affirm Infants-Baptism is commanded. There are in Scripture clear grounds and principles, from whence by just and warrantable consequences it may be deduced, that Beleivers children ought to be baptised; for if they belong to the Covenant and are holy, if they are members of the visible Church etc. then they have right to Baptism with more to this purpose, Infants-Baptism Asserted, pars 1. p. 36.  
To which Mr. Danvers says nothing in his reply, but plays the sophister, mangles my discourse, picks up words scattered in my Book about a hundred pages each from other, and spoken upon different accounts, and withal foisteth in some of his own with them, and then falls a-skirmishing with the man of Clouts which he hath made.  
To give you some instances of his disingenuity herein.  
1. He represents this to be my argument for Infants-Baptism, viz. That as there is no scripture expressly commanding, so neither is there any scripture excluding Infants from Baptism, nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptised, and then refers the Reader to p. 36. 38, 101, 131, 132, where note, what a Compass he fetcheth to glean up words and then patcheth them togetther for an Argument: and after all this, the words are not to be found in those pages, but are more his than mine: I have told you before, what is asserted by us, namely, That Infants-Baptism is implicitly, though not expressly commanded in Scripture: pag. 36, and pag. 38, I speak thus— To say, Infants-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no Examples in Scripture, of any that were Baptised, is a pitiful Argument: for we have no Examples of most of the Apostles that they were Baptised, and shall we say therefore they were not Baptised?  
Pag 101. Which is another of my places that Mr. Danvers turns the Reader to; I show, that the want of an express Command makes not against the lawfulness of it, and that the Anabaptists want an express Command or Example (there being neither to be found in the Book of God) to plunge Men head and ears under Water, as they use to do; Nor have they any Precept or Example, to Baptise people with their clothes on. And in p. 131. and 132, the last of my pages he refers to, I thus express myself, that there is nothing in Christ's Commission that is against children's Baptism; for the Teaching that is therein required, excludes not the Children of Believers (if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be restrained to Teaching) as appears by the consideration of the conditions of the Persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles to Baptise who were Aliens, and though Believing goes before Baptism in Mark it doth not exclude Infants; because the same condition, that is required there to preceded Baptism, is required to precede Salvation: so that if the Sense be that Infants must not be Baptised, because they cannot believe, it will as directly follow they must not be saved, because they cannot believe. The way of answering one answers both, by the same distinction the Salvation of Infants may be maintained, their Baptism may. Thus Reader, I have given thee the whole which Mr. Danvers improves into an Argument against me, as before; but how justly I shall leave to thy consideration. And I must crave leave to say that this Argument: Infant-Baptism is lawful because nowhere forbidden in Scripture, nor nowhere told where it was not done, is a Brat of his own begetting, which he would fain lay at my door.  
Next follow some passages quoted from Divines that are Pedobaptists; as, first from Dr. Owen in his Book called Innocency and Truth Vindicated (by which name Mr. Danvers hath baptised his Book, though little of either is found in it); who lays down this position, That no part of God's worship, either in the old or new-Testament, was lawful, but what had some express warrant from his word for the same; in opposition to what Dr. Parker asserts, that what is not forbidden may be Lawful: To this I answer that I humbly conceive, that his position of express warrant is to be understood with some limitation: for I have learned from Mr. Ger●●, and some other Divines, that there is a great difference between an Ordinance itself, and some particular circumstances or the subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied: For the Ordinance itself, as the setting up Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant, renewed by Christ, it requires express warrant in the word of God: But when we have such Warrant for the Ordinance itself, to whomsoever we find by grounds or principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it though we want express testimony for it, if we have none against i●. And that this is the Doctor's meaning is clear from what he tells us in his Exposition of Heb. c. 1. p. 86. viz. That it is lawful to draw consequences from Scripture-Assertions, and such consequences rightly deduced are infallibly true, and de fide: nothing will rightly follow from truth, but what is so also, and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived; so that whatsoever by just consequence is drawn from the word of God, is itself also the word of God, and of truth Infallible. And if Mr. D. will please to ask the Doctor what he intended by express Warrant, I am confident he will find him exactly of Bucers' mind who thus expresses himself on Rom. 6. Lex dei perfecta est, docet que quibus totam Vitam ad voluntatem Dei instituere licet, quare contineri in Scriptures necesse est certa, & non expressa nominatim, oracula, de omnibus quaecunque afillis Dei, sive publice, sive privatim suscipi convenit.  
Mr. Danvers hath picked up another saying of Mr. Collins before his Vind. Minist. Evang. viz. That in things relating to the worship of God nothing aught to be done without express Warrant in the gospel. This Assertion of Mr. Collins' in that latitude as it is laid down is liable to exception; for there are many Circumstances relating to God's worship, as time, place, and order, that are not so expressly set down in the Word, which nevertheless may lawfully be prescribed by the Church, provided that it agrees with the general Rules set down in the Word: and I find this was written in opposition to Soldiers that took up the practice of Preaching without Ordination: and his endeavouring to make the bow strait might make him bend it a little too much the other way. But I am confident if he was to explain what he meant by those words, Mr. D. would find them very little for his purpose. But to come more closely to the matter, what express Command have we for the observation of the Christian Sabbath? for want of which, many Anabaptists (notwithstanding the Apostles met on the first day of the week) own not the Morality of it. Again, what express Command, or Example have we, for women's receiving the Lords-Supper; good consequence there is for it, but no express mention of it. But this satisfies not Mr. Danvers, for he is for express Scripture, to prove Women received the Lord's Supper; as you have it in his reply to Mr. Blinman: who very rationally and truly argues against Mr. Danvers that the words upon which he lays the stress of women's receiving the Lord's Supper are in express terms against him, it being these [all that believed were together] and as he argues rightly, the Greek phrase is expressly of Men and not of Women, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being masculine expressly limits it to Men and not to Women, etc. Mr. Danvers Replies very confidently, that the exception of Mr. Blinman seems to be as defective in Grammar as in Divinity [and why in Divinity, since Mr. Blinman holds that Women received the Lords-Supper, and this is not the thing disputed] and then he paedagogue-like, sends the Reverend Learned Man to his Grammar to learn what Syllepsis means: which is nothing to the purpose but to make a noise.  
To gather up then the Discourse, we grant all this is good by consequence, That the firstday ought to observed as a Christian Sabbath, that Women ought to receive the Lord's-Supper, but we cannot prove either by express terms. To conclude then, how injurious and no less ignorant a Spirit appears in those words of Mr. Danvers; That Mr. Blinman trifles in the things of God, and plays with Words to pervert the Truth, when he only tells him (being challenged thereunto) that as much might be said for Infant-Baptism as women's receiving the Lords-Supper, there being no express Command for either, but only implicit, and both warranted by consequence.  
There is a third Author quoted by Mr. Danvers, viz. Dr. Hammond, who saith, that an Institution of Christ, such as each Sacrament is, should not be judged by any other rule, than either the Word wherein the Institution is set down, or the Records of the practice of Christ or his Apostles. A sound position, but such as toucheth not the case before us, for we judge of the Sacrament of Baptism as belonging to the Infant-seed of Believers by the Word wherein the Institution is set down, as before is shown.  
Thus we have manifested the Sophistry and weakness of Mr. Danvers' arguings together with the impertinency of his Quotations. Nevertheless he concludes, as if he had done some great thing. By all this evidence it appears that Mr. Wills is so Heterodox in his Positions, that he hath neither Scripture Reason, Antiquity, or the learned Protestant-Writers to stand by him, and wherein if he persists, he gives up not only the Independent, but whole Protestant Cause (as if all the Protestant Cause depended upon the sayings of those three men before mentioned, or on my opposing him for wresting and misapplying the same against Infant-Baptism). But what should make him fancy the Protestant Cause depended upon the sayings of this Triumvirs, I cannot imagine, unless it be because one is an Independent, the other a Presbyterian, and the third Man an Episcoparian, and Protestantism is only found among the men of these Professions, the Anabaptist being not concerned in it. And truly if we consider what Mr. Danvers hath said of the Protestants in some parts of his Discourses, we had need of much charity to believe, it would be at all grievous to him, if the Protestant cause miscarried; for we are all in his esteem a company of erroneous persons, not of the Church of Christ, having no true Ministry or Baptism, Antichristian enemies to the Truth, as well as to them, and ever and anon linked by him with the Papist, as conspiring togethher in upholding the Tradition of Infants-Baptism, and therein grounding all our Christianity, and against which he bids defiance; and declares against all possibility of Communion with us, whilst we adhere thereto, as may be seen in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 2.  
But will Mr. Danvers allow of no consequences, or are not implicit Commands obligatory? you have his judgement in what follows.  
1. He tells, us he will allow of Consequences when there is express Scripture for the thing elsewhere, as in the case of the Resurrection, else not: And I pray, who now is Heterodox? No thanks to him for his grant, for we have no need of consequences to be drawn, where the thing is set down in express terms: It seems if the Doctrine of the Resurrection had not been delivered in Scripture plainly in so many words, all consequential arguings from the Infinite Power and Justice of God requiring it, would little have availed with him. But he might have learned from Mr. Sydenham (with whom he is acquainted) that to deny Consequences to have the strength of Commands is to leave very few Duties to be practised, or Sins to be avoided: expound the Ten-commandmentss without Consequences, and very few will be found literal transgressors, but most deplorable debauched Persons. And since the Bible is but a short System of Religion, every place is fitted to expound each other, and this must be done by Rational, Spiritual, Comparisons and Inferences: and how doth Mr. Danvers prove that those of his way, must be covered when Baptised, have they any express Word, or Example for it? doth he not fly to rational Inference? how doth he know Baptising is by Plunging? hath he any other way for it than consequential Reasonings? it must be so, he conceives, for the word signifies it; see his Reply, p. 34.  
2. He saith, he will admit of plain Consequences, which mends the matter very little. For now we shall want some Supreme Judge to determine, which are plain, which not; must we go to him and his party for resolution? certainly it must be so according to his mode of arguing, for though he will admit of plain consequences he presently adds, Therefore we deny the Inferences usually drawn from Circumcision under the Law for Baptism under the Gospel to be either plain, proper, or true: How blind was Nazianzen, Jerom, Austin, and the rest of the Fathers, to infer Infants-Baptism from Circumcision? and how irrational are the deductions of such an innumerable company of Doctors and learned Divines? Had they lighted their Candles at Mr. Danvers' Torch, they might have seen what had been plain, proper and true Inferences; but the Vanity of his discourse in this kind, we have showed in our Infants-Baptism Asserted, part 1. 116, 117. and answered their objections against our Arguments for Infants-Baptism drawn from Circumcision.  
In the next place he saith, That as to the Antiquity of Infants-Baptism, with its impious Concomitants of Salt, Oil, spital, Chrism, Exorcism, it was not about 400 years after Christ, in the Milevitan and Carthaginian Council, and that according to my own grant.  
To this I answer, that here Mr. D. doth impose: For in the 106 page of my Infant-Baptism (the place which he intends) I do not calculate the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, from those Councils 400 years after Christ; nor is there any thing there spoken of Salt, Oil, spital, etc. This trumpery is an addition of his own, to render Infant-Baptism odious, although he knows it was used also in the Baptising of grown Persons in those days. 2. What is there spoken of Infants-Baptism is from Dr. Taylor, and no grant of mine, about the necessity of Infant-Baptism not determined till the Canon of the Milevitan Council. 3. He makes me to say positively, that the reason why it was not enjoined sooner was, because the lawfulness of it was rarely, if at all questioned before, and then glories that I have confirmed his witness against Infants-Baptism; whereas all that I say amounts but to a conjecture, and that upon a supposition of the truth of Dr. Tailor's speech concerning the time when Infant-Baptism was established by Canon; for these are my words: Belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Council, under an Anathema, was, because it was rarely, if at all, questioned or opposed till then. It was indeed determined in Cyprian's Council about a hundred and fifty years before, that Infants might be Baptised before the eight day, but no Anathema was made about this point of Baptism so early. 4. Observe Reader what an idle Inference my Antagonist draws from the pretended Grant of mine; then saith he, if it be so, that the Canons in the Milevitan Council, and enforcing Infants-Baptism [with thirty more Councils doing the same] were only made upon the occasion of those that denied, or opposed it.  
We have then, saith he, our witnesses throughout all ages confirmed by himself, the Reader must needs see how precarious he is in his reasoning, and if he hath no more to say for his Witnesses in all ages than this, I am sure he will never carry it at the Bar of an Impartial Judge: He must seek elsewhere for his Witnesses than in my Writings, or he is never like to find them, and if I had argued at the rate as Mr. Danvers doth in this thing, I might justly have deserved his censure for folly, and falsehood.  
Lastly, he concludes that till any instance be produced of any Child that was Baptised, as an Ordinance of Christ, within the first 300 years, he is yet unreprovable in his Assertion, and very safe in what he hath said.  
I answer, 1. That this is very weakly spoken, in as much as he confesseth just before from the magdeburg's, that the Records of Antiquity say nothing of the particular persons, either Infants or Adult, that were Baptised in the third Century, but only; there is mention made of one Family Baptised, in which there was a young Man named Symphorianus, Magd. Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 1. 25. 2. What though we have not the particular names of Children (having not the Church-Registers) it is sufficient that we are informed in general that it was then the practice of the Church to Baptise Children, as we have it in the same place beforementioned, p. 125. significat Cyprianus in Epistola ad Fidum, etiam Osculum Infanti a ministro baptizante dari solitum, that is, Cyprian in his Epistle to Fidus doth likewise intimate, that the Minister used to kiss the Child when he Baptised it: Let Mr. Danvers' Friends judge, whether this be not enough, if no more could be said, to confute all his Discourse about Antiquity. Add hereunto this consideration, That in this Century Tertullian persuading to defer both the Baptism of Children, and others who are of age, doth thereby intimate that it was the custom of the Church at that time to Baptise the one as well as the other; otherwise there was no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other.  

Concerning Tradition, which Mr. Danvers saith, is the principal ground that hath been urged for Infants-Baptism, with an answer thereto.  
Sect. 2. To make out this he quotes Austin, who calls it an Apostolical Tradition; to which I said in my Answer, that anciently the greatest points of Faith were by the Fathers named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so they are called by the Apostle, 2 Thes. 2. 15. which is all one with Divine Doctrines or Ordinances, for so the word is rendered, 1 Cor. 11. 2. And to make this more fully appear, the Magdiburgs tell us, that Bazil calls the manner of Baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a Tradition, by which he means the Doctrine of the Lord Christ. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 4. p. 235. Egregie & Basilius hâc de re scribit, lib. 3. contra Eunomium, Baptismus noster est secundum Traditionem Domini in nomine Patris, etc. that is, our Baptism is according to the Tradition of the Lord, in the name of the Father, etc. Again Bazil in his Book de Spiritu sancto, by Tradition means the Scripture, as Hermannus Hamelmannus observes de Tradit. Apost. & tacitis. p. 355. Certum est quod Basilius per vocabulum Traditionis, aliquando Scripturam intelligit; it is certain that Bazil doth sometimes understand by the word Tradition, the Scripture; for so he speaks to Amphilochius in his 10th Chapter of the abovementioned Book of the Holy-Spirit. Hanc Traditionem quae me perduxit ad lucem ac Dei cognitionem largita est, etc. If Austin then means the same that Bazil doth by Tradition, viz. the Scripture, he says true, when he tells us that Infants-Baptism were not to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition, and although he intends the word otherwise in that famous speech of his in his 4th Book against the Donatists, Chap. 24. (which Mr. Danvers doth ill in curtailing) namely, That if any do inquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptising Children, let them know, What the Universal Church holds, nor was instituted in Councils, but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by Apostolical Authority; to which this is added in the next words▪ Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis Baptismi Sacramentum, ex circumcisione Carnis quam prior populus accepit, that is, Nevertheless, we may conjecture how much the Sacrament of Baptism is available to Children, by the Circumcision of the Flesh which the former people received.  
His next instance is from Bellarmin, that it is an Apostolical Tradition, etc. But Mr. Danvers is not ignorant that Bellarmin saith, Satis aperte Coll●gitur ex scriptures, to which purpose we have him, Tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 8. the Sacrament. It is clearly gathered from Scripture.  
A third passage Mr. Danvers brings from Dr. Field in his Book of the Church, Chap 20. Where speaking of the several senses in which the word Tradition is taken he saith, That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did Baptise Infants, or that they should do so: And is it fair dealing for Mr. Danvers to stop here, when the following words would have cleared the point, which are these; yet is not this received by bare and naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it, lib. 4. p. 375. and the more inexcusable is our Antagonist being formerly minded of this unfaithfulness in our Infant-Baptism Asserted, etc. And when I showed to a Friend that hath a great respect for the Anabaptists, how he had served Dr. Field, the said person presently said, certainly Mr. Danvers is either weak or wicked.  
The last instance is from the Convocation at Oxford, and he deals unfairly with them likewise, by altering, and disordering their words; For he quotes them thus. That without the Consentaneous judgement and practice of the universal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infant-Baptism: whereas they are expressed in another strain, and less advantageous to Mr. Danvers' purpose, being thus. That the Consentient judgement and practice of the universal Church is the best interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly expressed; and then they say, that without it they should be at a loss in sundry points of Faith and manners, believed and practised when by Socinians and Anabaptists, they are called upon for proofs, instancing in the Trinity, and Coequality of persons in the Godhead: baptising Infants, ●●e observation of the Lords day, and even the Canon of the Scripture itself, etc.  
Mr. Danvers having as he thinks cleared his Position, proceeds to draw a parallel between Papists and Protestants, to show that there is no great difference between them, after the manner as I have represented the Protestant sentiments in the point.  
To which I reply, 1. That the Papists hold many things that are Orthodox and sound, especially in Doctrinals, but are very corrupt in Discipline, and abominably unsound in the point of Tradition, for they equal it with Scripture: and the Council of Trent determined that Tradition was to be entertained pari pietatis affectu, with the like affection as the Scripture, etc.  
The Protestants abhor this, as may be seen at large in the aforementioned Author Hamelmannus in his Book of Traditions, where disputing against Staphilus, and Cassander, and speaking particularly of Infants-Baptism, p. 818. he saith non nobis satisfaeceret, nisi peteretur probatio paedobaptismi ex Scriptures; Tradition would not satisfy us unless we had Scripture-proof for it.  
Now for his Parallel.  
1. Do the Papists, saith he, maintain that the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Infants-Baptism, as it is gathered from the Scripture, and appointed by the Church, is of equal Authority with Scripture itself? so, saith he, doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant Doctrine, That the Tradition of Infants-Baptism, proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture, aught to be esteemed as firm and good, as the Scripture itself; and to prove that I say so, Mr. Danvers refers the Reader to p. 117. of my Book, where there is nothing spoken of Tradition; but only a position quoted from Mr. Baxter's Scripture-proof, viz. That evident consequences, or Arguments drawn by Reason from Scripture, are as true proof as the very words of a Text. And is there any hurt in this? can any man that is rational deny it? doth not Dr. Owen positively assert it? Nay, doth not Mr. Danvers himself tell us We admit of plain consequences? Reply p. 69. though he will not grant Infants-Baptism to be of the number of them. But what saith Mr. Baxter in the forementioned place? If I prove, saith he, that all Church-members must be admitted by Baptism, and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-members, is not this as much as to prove they must be baptised? What thinks Mr. Danvers of that passage of Nazianzen in his 5th Book of Theology? Quae colliguntur ex Scripturis Sacris, perindè habenda sunt, ac si in illis scripta essent: those things that are gathered out of Scripture are to be of like esteem with us, as that which is written in Scripture. Without doubt Mr. Danvers looks upon this as a Popish saying in Nazianzen. The rest of his Parallel is so frivolous, that I will not trouble myself, nor the Reader with it. And truly if one were minded, how easy is it to retort upon him, and show the vanity of his discourse in such a manner? as for instance.  
Doth Mr. Danvers say that the promise Gen. 17. 7, pertains not to the Carnal seed of Abraham, but to the Spiritual? so doth Estius the Jesuit against Calvin, about which Mr. Danvers committed so great a Mistake, that if I had done the same he would have said I had belied Calvin, and abused the World. Doth Mr. Danvers say, Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham, not to Believers and their seed? so saith Cardinal Bellarmin, in his first book of the Sacraments, and after him other Papists, affirming that Circumcision is not said to be a seal universally to any faith, but only a seal of the individual faith of Abraham.  
Doth Mr. Danvers say, it could not be a seal to an Infant that had no faith? Bellarmin speaks the same; If it be a seal, saith he, (in that Baptism comes in the place of Circumcision) it is in vain to baptise Infants, because they have no Faith: so that it seems, his sentiments about these points are the same with the Papists also.   

Mr. Danvers Exceptions against our Testimonies for Infants-Baptism from the Ancients, examined and confuted.  
His first Exception is against that passage we bring from Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Triphon, part. 2. propos. 3. where he saith, It was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision, which was done by Baptism: From whence we argue, That if it was lawful for all to receive it; then Infants who were the subjects of the legal Circumcision, for they must be part of the all, and not excluded.  
To this Mr. Danvers saith two things. 1. That it is a mere Impertinency, and nothing to the purpose, why so?  
1. Because there is not one wo●d of Infants, nor of Infants-Baptism, nor its Apostolicalness: And what of that? doth he not know that omne universale continet in se particular, every universal contains within itself the particular? And doth not Justin say it was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision, which is Baptism? Nor do we stand in need of a word for its Apostolicalness here, since the only end for which the Quotation is urged is to prove that Justin was for Infants-Baptism.  
2. He tells us it is not only Impertinent, but Absurd, to interpret the word [All] to be all men, for than it must comprehend wicked as well as good, Unbelievers as well as Believers. But this is a shift; for I say, [Alderman] is here to be limited to those who are within the Church, for to them Only appertained the Legal Circumcision under the Law, of which Justin speaks, and by proportion to such only, the Spiritual Circumcision [Baptism] now under the Gospel.  
As to what he further objects, that Justin in this very Dialogue tells us, that by the Word and Baptism Regeneration was perfected in all mankind: As it is more than the Magdiburgs say, for their words are, per aquam et fidem regenerationem fieri humani generis; so it makes nothing at all against us, because this is added by the Magdiburgs in the same place (speaking how they baptised in Justin's time) De adultis paenitentiam requirunt etc. They required Repentance of the Adult before Baptism. If Mr. Danvers had set this down, he could not have framed his objection. Just thus he deals with Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Baptism, Ch. 7. p. 49. 2d Edit. where he quotes Mr. Baxter as rendering some part of Justin Martyr's Apology in these words in his Saints Rest, Ch. 8. Sect. 5. viz. [I will declare unto you how we offer up ourselves to God after that we are renewed by Christ etc. Where if you will compare, you shall see both how considerably he varies it in the words from Mr. Baxters' words, and likewise how he leaves out that which would have shown the Quotation nothing to his purpose, viz [Justin Martyr speaking of the way of Baptising the Aged.]  
In the next place he excepts against what we urge for Infants-Baptism, from Irenaeus, who lived in the same Century with Justin, in the Age of those that saw the Apostles, and so must needs know their Practice: It is a passage of his in lib. 2. Advers. Haeres. c. 39 where discoursing of Christ that came to save all ages, he specifieth particulars, as Infants et Parvuli, Infants and little ones, as well as pueros et juvenes, et seniores; Boys, young men, and old men: and then concludes, Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum; All, I say, who by him are born again unto God. Where, by Infants being born again unto God, must needs be understood, after the Scripture-notion and sense, and as the Ancient Fathers usually took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Baptism. For as Mr. Mede observes, that by the Washing of regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. none will deny is meant Baptism: And Vossius, upon that Scripture saith, that to call Baptism Renascentia, [Regeneration] is usitata veteribus loquendi forma, an usual form of speaking among the Ancients. And to put this out of all doubt, Justin Martyr, in his Apology beforementioned, speaking of the manner how they were baptised, saith, The party was brought to the place where the water is, and regenerated in the same manner, wherein we were regenerated. To this Mr. Danvers hath little to say, and if I mistake not, very little to purpose, as, that it is Impertinent as before and farfetched, and that there is not a word of Infants-Baptism in it, or Apostolicalness: which is just the 2d part of the same tune which was sung but now: And further he adds, that as the interpretation upon which it is founded is fallacious; so neither Scripture nor Justin, doth call Baptism, Regeneration absolutely [who saith they do?] but only the Symbol of Regeneration. And this is very true, and which no body denies but I must tell Mr. Danvers that this is altogether impertinent, and far off from the matter we are upon.  
But his Confidence doth not abate, for he tells us, 'tis manifest these Authorities are to little purpose, yea wholly insignificant, and nothing to the purpose [do not only tell us this Story, but give us Reason for it, or say nothing] and that they failing, as he concludes they do, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pedobaptismi, a fearful tumbling down of the whole Fabric of Infants-Baptism, Repl. p. 79.  
And to help after, he presents us with a pretended saying of Dr. Barlow, but he doth not point to any Book or page where we shall find it. The words which Mr. Danvers saith the Doctor speaks are, these; viz. I Believe and know that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Pedobaptism, nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after Christ. Reader, thou must understand that Mr. Danvers hath made mention of this Reverend and Learned Man's name, above twenty times in his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1, 2. and in his Reply, as if he had spoken much in derogation of the Antiquity of Infants-Baptism. For in the 1st Edition of his Treatise of Baptism p. 74. we have him thus, Dr. B. late Doctor of the Chair, a person of great Learning and Eminency, hath these words in a Letter I have seen in print; I do believe, and know, there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture etc. as before: And for as much as I questioned the Truth of this, [that is, that the Doctor was of this Opinion] and being desirous to know his Judgement, and whether he owned any such printed Letter, I did therefore write to him, and received this following Letter from him, viz.  
Dr. Barlow's Letter.  
SIR,  
I Understand by your Letter (and the Books you mention, which I have since read) that some late Writers have made use of my name, (giving me the Title of Dr. of the Chair in Oxon) and cite (as they say) a printed Letter of mine, wherein I declare my Judgement against Infant-Baptism.  
You desire to know of me, (who should best know my own Opinion) whether or (how far) those things are true which they say, and cite in my name? And therefore out of that respect, which is due, and I owe to Truth and you; and that I may undeceive others, and give you that satisfaction which you so civilly desire, I shall crave leave to tell you (and all whom it may concern) these few things.  
1st. That 'tis a great mistake, to call me Doctor of the Chair in Oxon, when it cannot be unknown to any who know that University, that a very Reverend and far more worthy 
* Dr. Richard Allestree, the worthy Provost of Eaton-Colledg.  Person possesseth, and (with great Learning and general Approbation of all) performs the Duties of that great place.  
2dly. That never any thing of mine was printed (by any knowledge or Permission of mine) against the received Doctrine or Practice of Paedo-Baptism, as it is warranted and approved by the Church of England.  
3dly. That (about twenty years ago) Mr. Tombs writ to a then Reverend (since a Right-Reverend) person of the University, desiring himꝰ to examine, and give him the true meaning of certain places in Tertullian, and some of the Ancient Fathers, which were usually produced for Infant-Baptism. That Reverend Person, whom I was bound (for many Reasons) to obey, commanded me (who had more time, though less ability) to examine those Quotations, and return an Answer to Mr. Tombs: which I did, in a Letter then sent him: and (as Mr. Baxter 
† In his Book entit. More proofs of Infants Church-membership, pag. 343.  truly says) this is that secret Letter which they are pleased to cite.  
4. I acknowledge that such words as are cited by Mr. 
* In his Treatise of Baptism. London, 1674. pag. 65, 66.  Danvers (and such others, spoke and Writ then, with more Confidence than Judgement or Discretion) are in that Letter, which had been secret still, if some had not betrayed that trust which was reposed in them.  
5. Lastly, It is to be considered, that that Letter was 
† Anno. 1656.  writ about twenty years ago, (when I talked more, and understood less) and yet whatever Doubts or Objections I had then against Infant-Baptism; I never thought them so considerable, as to warrant any Division, or Schismatical disturbance of the Peace of my Mother the Church of England: And therefore I did then, and since, and (when I have a just call, God willing) ever shall Baptise Infants, according to that Form and those Rites, which our Church has prescribed in her Sacred Office for Infant-Baptism. In short, Mr. Baxter's candid and charitable 
* Pag. 343. of his Book before cited.  Answer for me, [That 'tis not likely that I, who have subscribed the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England, will be against Infant-Baptism] I shall endeavour to make good. I have (with Assent and Consent) Subscribed our Liturgy and Articles: and (God willing) never shall practise, or print, or say any thing in contempt of, or contradiction to the Doctrine, or those innocent Ceremonies contained in them.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. T. B. Oxon Apr. 13. 1675.  
Our 3d testimony is Origen, who in divers places of his Works, as in his Homilies upon Rom. 6. saith, The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little Children: the same we have again in his Homilies and Luke 14.  
To this Mr. Danvers Objects.  

1. That of Dr. Taylor, That Origen is but one single Testimony.  
2. That his Writings are notoriously corrupt, and particularly in the point of Baptism.  
3. Many of his works, and particularly those that treat of Baptism, fell into ill hands.   
In answer to the first; Let Dr. Taylor in his later Discourse of the consideration of the Church in Baptising the Children of Believers, answer Dr. Taylor in his former Book of the Liberty of Prophecy, where he saith, that Origen is but one single Testimony. In his later Discourse (put out since) he citys Justin and Irenaeus, saying positively, That the Tradition of Baptising Infants passed through Irenaeus his hands. So then he, by this acknowledgeth that we have more than the single Testimony of Origen: and if he hath put forth any thing else since in contradiction to it, I may say his words are not much to be credited, for we know not where to find him.  
2. Origen's Writings (saith he) are corrupt: who denies it in some things? So are Tertullian's, so are all the Fathers. To which Mr. Danvers vauntingly replies, Let both Origen and Tertullian go together, only I shall thereby have the better bargain; for Mr. Wills in parting with Origen parts with all, but I have many more to witness for me besides.  
To which I only say, I wish I could see them, or if it were possible to speak with them face to face, as I lately did with Dr. Barlow, 'tis very like I should have the same account of their Judgements, as I had of his; And let Mr. Danvers know, that one word of solid Reason, hath more weight in it, and is more taking with the judicious, than all his Thrasonical Boasts and calumniating reflections?  
3. His Works fell into ill hands; which is true of some, yet not all of those that treat of Baptism: for I tell him in Infant-Baptism Asserted p. 135. that Origen's Homilies on the Romans and Luke, are translated by Jerom, and to be esteemed Authentic, quoting Erasmus for it: and for this Mr. Danvers falls foul on me, this being another of his great charges in his Preface, that I abuse Erasmus, who saith quite contrary to what he saith I father on him. As 1. That the Translation of the Homilies on the Romans appeared to him to be Ruffinus' and not Jeroms. 2. That the Preface to the Translation which represents it as Jerom's was a cheat of the Bookseller, as Erasmus notes.  
To this I answer, 1st. That Erasmus doth not say that the Homilies upon the Romans, set forth as translated by Jerom, were Ruffinus' Homilies, and not Origen's. 2. The magdeburg's reckoning up the legitimate Works of Jerom in the story of his Life, do mention that of translating Origen on the Romans to be one, and that according to the Judgement of Erasmus, Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1218. Extant inter Origenis Opera Latinè facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus, Erasmi judicio: that is, among the works of Origen, some are translated into Latin by Jerom, in the Judgement of Erasmus; and then they name which they are, as follows. As the Homilies upon Jeremy, which have Jerom's Preface to them, the Homilies upon Ezekiel, the 39 Homilies upon Luke cum Praefatione Hieronymi, with Jeroms Preface, and ten Books of Origen's Comments upon the Romans. [there's that which will clear me against all Mr. Danver's reproaches] cum ejusdem praefatione, with Jerom's Preface. I appeal now to the Reader, whether I had not good Authority for what I said, That according to Erasmus' judgement Jerom translated Origen on the Romans. You see from whence I had mine information, The magdeburg's affirm that both Translation and Preface too were Jerom's, and Mr. Danvers knew it to be so, for in my Answer I directed him to the Century and page in the Magdeburgensian History, from whence I had it. And therefore 'tis a sorry trick, of him to slur me as he hath done in this thing, and make such an Exclamation against me. What credit is to be given unto Mr. Wills let all men judge! he might rather have said what credit is to be given to the magdeburg's (and their excellent History as Mr. D. calls it) let all men judge! for if I was deceived, they deceived me. 3. I have yet further to say, and that is that I have another to speak on my behalf, Dr. Hammond (of no small note for his knowledge in Antiquity, and perhaps not inferior to Erasmus) who tells us in his Letters of Resolution, p. 215. that though we have not Origen upon the Romans in Greek, yet being translated by Jerom, and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius, prefixed before the Commentary, we have his Authority to secure us that the words [about Infant-Baptism] were origen's. And let it be supposed that Jerom did not translate those on the Romans, and that the Homilies themselves are spurious, and none of origen's; Yet those on Luke pass for current without control, and there the point of Infant-Baptism is as fully asserted, as in the other place on the Romans.  
Against this also Mr. Danvers hath borrowed a scrap from Mr. Tombs (who finding nothing in Erasmus Censures) hath yet by good hap hit upon a word in Erasmus Comment on Luke 1. 3. The words of Erasmus are [For so he seems to think, whosoever he was, whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke under the title of Admantius] which shows (saith Mr. Tombs) that Erasmus took them not to be origen's, or at least doubted thereof.  
It is very remarkable that Mr Tombs should spy out this passage, much more that he should comment thus upon it. For what Erasmus speaks of Origen upon Luke, might as well be said of every Book; nor can any man say posatively these are the Books written by Justin Martyr, or Tertullian; so that to interpret that passage of Erasmus for a doubt is but a mere Cavil.  
But that he doubted not that Jerom translated Origen on Luke, take his own clear word for it in his Censure, Homil. In Lucam, Dubium non est quin 39 Homilias in Lucam verterit Hieronimus, quod ipse palam in praefatione profitetur. There is no doubt to be made of it, saith he, that Jerom translated the 39 Homilies on Luke: And if Jerom translated them (as there is no doubt according to Erasmus) than we need not doubt but he did it from the Original Copy of Origen.  
Judge now Reader what Mr. D. hath got in this Business, notwithstanding all the Clutter he hath kept with his boastings and defame: we see by what is said, That we have Infants-Baptism owned as from the Apostles by Origen on Luke [whatever becomes of that on the Romans,] and translated by Jerom, of which Erasmus doth not in the least doubt; so that the Fabric stands yet upright never like to be demolished by Mr. Danvers, whatever great exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his Colonelship.  
Our last Testimony is from Cyprian against whom also he hath something to say, though methinks that of Vossius is enough to silence all 
☞  Cavils, viz. That the Testimony of Cyprian, for Infants-Baptism both in his time and before, is beyond all exception. And Grotius speaks to the same purpose, viz. That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infants-Baptism.  
Against this he gives in three Exceptions, 
☞  in his Treatise of Baptism, presented again in his Reply; as First, Infants-Baptism is not urged by Cyprian for an Apostolical Tradition, nor upon any Authority of Scripture, but upon his Own, and Bishops Arguments; though if he should have said it was an Apostolical Tradition, his word, he saith, would have no more been taken than when he tells us Chrysm was so. To which I replied, in my Answer, That though Cyprian did not say it was Apostolical; yet it follows not he did not own it as such: yea, to put it out of doubt, the magdeburg's tell us he did own it as Apostolical, Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. But what though the Magdiburgs tell us so (saith he) that's no more than if Mr. Wills had said it: Strange! that such venerable persons as those famous Divines were, that have written such an excellent History, as Mr. Danvers elsewhere terms it, should be of no more credit with him than myself, whom he so much vilifieth? But hath he not forgotten what he speaks just before, That Cpyrian held Chrysin to be an Apostolical Tradition? and is it not strange! that he should not hold the same of Pedobaptism? But whether he did or not, is not material to the point which is now before us; for we are enquiring the facto, what was done in Cyprian's time, as to the Baptising Children; not the jure, upon what ground they did it, or whether 'twas esteemed Apostolical: if the practice was owned 'tis as much as we need to put by Mr. Danvers' Cavil; and that it was so, Mr. Tombs his great Tutor, had never the face to deny, but confesseth plainly, That it was a truth, that Cyprian assured Fidus, that by the unanimous consent of sixty-six Bishops gathered together in a Council, Baptism was to be administered to Infants, as well as grown men. Tombs Examen, page 11. And since Cyprian flourished in 250 according to Perkins, and Usher placeth him in 240, what is become of Mr. Danvers proposition, That Believers Baptism was the only true Baptism for near 300 years after Christ, page. 3. of his Reply? Mr. Tombs himself doth lend us his helping hand to pluck down this rotten fabric. I am not willing to let any thing pass, that may blind the weaker sort of Readers, and therefore shall go on with him: If Cyprian (saith he) should have said Infants-Baptism had been an Apostolical Tradition, his word would have been no sooner taken, than when he tells us, Chrysm was so. This cram we had in effect long since by Mr. Tombs in his Exercitation: There were many other things (saith he) went under the name of a Tradition, which were but mere humane Inventions: What then? Ergo Infant-Baptism, which went under the name of a Tradition, is also human Invention. Shall I show (saith Mr. Marshal) the natural face of this Argument in a glass? such and such men, who went under the name of honest men, were knaves, Ergo all that go under the name of honest men, are knaves: 'Tis true (saith he) many things in those days went under the name of Apostolical Tradition which were but humane Inventions; and 'tis as true, [as before is fully shown] that many points of faith went in the same ages, under the name of Tradition. But to proceed,  
His second Exception is, because it is questionable, whether there were ever such a Council. This is to lay the Axe to the root of the tree. But to this I answer:  
1. The Magdiburgs do not question it, but own it as authentic, as any of the rest of the Councils, Cent. 3. C. 9 p. 203.  
2. Mr. Tombs was so wise as never to question it, in all the contest he had with Mr. Martial, and others that ever I observed. But why should we question it? Why? because (saith he,) there is no place mentioned where that Council was kept. What if I say 'twas at Carthage? no doubt Mr. Danvers would then give me the lie: and yet Dr. Featly calls it the Council of Carthage; and well he might, because Cyprian was Bishop of that place. And for his further satisfaction, that he might not cavil against the being of this Council, I reckon up in my Infants-Baptism divers of the Ancients that make mention of it with high Esteem; as Nazianzen, Crysostom, [Greek Fathers] Ambrose, Austin, Jerom, of the Latins. So that I conceive Mr. Danvers is very perverse to question it. And as much weakness follows, in that he saith; It was no Argument, it was a Decree of such a Council, because so many had a good esteem of it, for the same Fathers esteemed very well of Chrysm, etc. But when I speak of an esteem of it, my meaning is, That they did not judge it a fictitious Council, but a real one, which is obvious. I wonder Mr. Danvers should not apprehend it. But since he is not a man of that Sagacity as I thought him, but runs on upon a fall scent, I shall leave him. A second Reason of his doubt, is because the grounds brought by Cyprian for Infant-Baptism are weak: and because I gave no answer thereto in my Infant-Baptism, Mr. D. taxeth me, and it is one of the Charges in his Preface to the Reply, That I am notoriously partial in my Answers all the Book through, replying to what I judge weak, and leaving other unanswered. Whenas I profess, I let many things pass because of their weakness, and have even wearied myself out with making answers to his Impertinencies. I could have given him the same answer, which Mr. Martial did to Mr. Tombs near 30 years since, when he objected the weakness of Cyprian's grounds, viz. If what Cyprian spoke was weighed in the Balance of his judgement, it would not be found light: and even Mr. Tombs himself confesseth, that Jerom and Austin, relied upon that Epistle for the proving of Baptising Infants: which acknowledgement (saith Mr. Martial) strengthens my opinion of the worth of Cyprians grounds; for two such eminent men would not have relied on that which had no weight in it. But what are the weak grounds which Mr. Danvers mentions?  
1. Because he and his Council held, that Baptism was simply necessary to Salvation. But is not this more than Mr. Danvers can prove? I do not find the Magdiburgs mention it; although Mr. Tombs saith, Tossanus notes it for Cyprian's Error, That Infants should be baptised ne pereant, lest they perish.  
2. That it washeth away original sin, so as it is never to be imputed. This is the judgement of many learned Protestant Divines, especially the famous Dr. Davenant in his Epistle speaks positively, Omnes Infantes baptizati, ab originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur. Others are not so general, but conceive it to be a truth with respect to Elect Infants: and they judge they have good reason to conclude, that since they must be discharged from the guilt of Original sin, or cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, God doth apply the Blood of his Son to them, in the use of that Ordinance of Baptism.  
3. Because the Grace of God is to be tendered to all, therefore all Children should be Baptised. I see no such weakness in this; for though it be laid down in such general terms, that Grace is to be tendered to all, and none hindered from coming to Christ; yet, as Mr. Marshal observes, what he saith, aught to be understood of the Church, because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed, or purified; and 'twas concerning such, that Fidus stood in need to be informed, as to the time of Baptising; and the magdeburg's conjecture, that Fidus Episcopus ad Cyprianum scripserat, he had written to Cyprian about it.  
4. Because Children have lesser sins than others. This is harsh: but you must know, this is Mr. Danvers' dress. The magdeburg's express it otherwise, thus; Si quid hominem impedire a baptismo, potius adultos, peccata sua arcere deberent, quam Infants, qui nihil peccaverunt, nisi quod ex peccato Originis vitia trahant; which is to this effect: Grown Persons should rather keep off from Baptism by reason of their Sins, than Infants, which have contracted no guilt but that which is Original. I hope there is no great hurt in this.  
5. Because in their first birth they do nothing but pray, crying, and weeping. Well said Mr. Danvers! the words are these; Because in their first beginning (or birth) crying and weeping, they can do nothing but call for Mercy: which (what ever ignorant people may think of it) is a high strain of Rhetoric in Cyprian, importing only, that Children are objects of Mercy.  
6. Because the Soul that is not baptised is lost. This is to the same purpose with the first: but the magdeburg's have it not, nor Dr. Taylor, who translates the Epistle to Fidus out of the Greek, at the end of his Consideration of the practice of the Church of Baptising Infants. Therefore Mr. Danvers must find it elsewhere, or else he split the first Reason into two; cujus est dar●, ejus est disponere.  
There are two other things which he brings as reasons why he questions this Council, which are very frivolous; as That Tertullian, Cyprian's Master, was against Infants-Baptism; which is not so absolutely, for he was for it in danger of Death: and the other is, That many things were fathered on Cyprian which were none of his. If I should let but this one pass, Mr. Danvers would cry out against me for partiality. But, why should he fancy that this of Infants-Baptism, was one of those things fathered upon Cyprian? when the Council is owned by the magdeburg's, the Father's Greek and Latin, and even by Mr. Tombs himself, as before.  
His third Reason I have spoken to already, being co-incident with the latter part of his first.  
One thing I had almost forgotten, and that is; whereas in my Infant-Baptism Asserted, I tell Mr. Danvers, that his pretended Witness Tertullian was as corrupt as Cyprian, and that the magdeburg's inform us that he was the first inventor of Chrysm, and that Cyprian belike took it up from him; he retorts in his Reply thus, That if Tertullian was the first inventor of Chrysm, which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition, what credit then (saith he) is to be given to his Testimony that dare to avouch so fearful a Lie? A rude speech! altogether unfit to be uttered against so glorious a Martyr as Cyprian was; but any thing is good enough to be spoken in contempt of those who are for Infant-Baptism. But I assure the Reader, that as there is no good Manners, so neither is there truth in that passage of Mr. D's: for I cannot find that Cyprian held Chrysm an Apostolical Tradition; it being not reckoned amongst his Naevi, which after the Magdeburg's account are six, and the last is, Sumpsit Ceremonias, ex Traditionibus Montani a Tertulliano, consecrationem & unctionem post Baptismum; That is, he took up the Ceremonies, viz. Consecration and Unction, (that is, Chrism) from Tertullian out of the Traditions of Montanus. Here's nothing of Apostolical Tradition. And Hamelmannus shows what Traditions Cyprian held, that he took up the Ceremonies of Consecration and Unction from Tertullian, but not a word of calling it an Apostolical Tradition.  
There is nothing in this Section more, but only that Mr. Danvers doth endeavour to vindicate himself from a mistake about Austin's words, which I charged upon him; but it is so intricate and dark, that I do not very well understand him. Also there is some disparagement cast by him upon that blessed Martyr of Jesus Christ, Mr. Philpot, and a fling against the New-England way of baptising the Children only of Inchurched Parents, with some other Reflections which I let pass as futilous, having no mind to spend time in such small matters.    

CHAP. III.  
Wherein Mr. Danvers endeavours to vindicate his Witnesses against my Exceptions, and the same examined and found insufficient.  
1. HE begins with particular persons; but first minds me, with my penuriousness in my Preface to Infants-Baptism, where I allow him from the first Century to the end of the twelfth only two Persons against Infant-Baptism, viz. Adrianus, and Hincmarus. But what will he think of me now? for I have denied him those two also, as before; and have showed the ground of the mistake why they have been looked upon under the notion of Antipedobaptists.  
The first witness mentioned is Tertullian, who (saith Mr. Danvers) opposeth it in six Arguments. We shall inquire into them by and by. Mr. Danvers saith true, that I acknowledge Tertullian hath divers passages seemingly against Infants-Baptism: but, according to his humour, he is catching me up before I am down: for he calls upon the Reader to take notice, that his witness is owned by me. And is it not a very great owning indeed, to say, he hath divers passages that seem to be against it? But in the 38 page of my Infant Baptism, I give a Reason why it's more than probable that Tertullian was for Infant-Baptism; in the 41 page, That he was no more against their baptising, than of grown persons baptising; and in the 43 page, we showed that the Reason why he would have Infants-Baptism delayed, was, not because he judged it unlawful, but inexpedient; for he was for it, rather than the Child should die unbaptised. And now I tell Mr. Danvers further, that as for those seeming passages against Infant-Baptism, they are spoken in reference to the Children of Pagans, not Believers, according to the judgement of Estius and other Learned Men: for (as Mr. Marshal observes) Tertullian in that Book of his de Baptismo c. 18. speaks of the Baptism of such as were not born of Christian Parents, and therefore desires the Baptism of such Infants should be deferred till they come to years, and be able to make confession of their sins, and profession of Faith, their Parents being Infidels, and their Sponsors mortal. And that this is the meaning of the place, seemed evident to him, because in the 39 chap. of his Book de Anima, Tertullian acknowledgeth that the Children of Believers had a privilege tam ex Seminis praerogativa, quam ex institutionis disciplina; a prerogative by their birth, besides that of their Education. And by this time me thinks Mr. Danvers should be sick of his Witness Tertullian, as Mr. Marshal said to Mr. Tombs in the same case.  
As touching the Reasons which Tertullian urgeth for the delay of the Baptism of Infants, and which Mr. Danvers undertakes to Vindicate as proper and good, against those who would make those words, Suffer little children to come unto me, to be a coming to Baptism, I shall only remind him with two or three things.  
1. With what we have from the Magdiburgs Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 83. Sentit Tertullianus in libro de Baptismo, mira opinion, pueros non tam cito baptizandos osse, atque ad illud Matthaei 19 Nolite parvulos prohibere etc. Tertullian (say they) is of a strange opinion to dissuade the Baptising of Children by such Reasons as he gives in his paraphrase upon the 19 of Matthew.  
2. None that ever I heard of, have brought this Text of coming to Christ, as a full and direct proof for baptising of Children, or have urged that the coming there was a coming to Christ for Baptism, who never Baptised any; nevertheless it proves two points, which lay a good foundation for Infants-Baptism. 1. That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as grown persons. 2. That Infancy is no Bar or exclusion of any from coming to Christ and receiving a Blessing. Infants are capable of receiving benefit by Christ, though they do not actually believe; though they cannot lay hold on Christ, yet Christ can lay hold on them, and bless them.  
Object. But Baptism is not concerned in the Text, except it can be made out that Blessing was Baptising.  
To this I replied in my former Answer, That it's true, Blessing is not Baptising, but 'tis something more; and Christ in Blessing them, vouchsafed that to them, which usually was as an Ordinance administered after Baptism, and which is of an higher nature, and so we may argue from this to Baptism inclusively, or à majori, from the greater to the less. 2. And further, though Blessing be not Baptism, yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he blessed [let it be meant if you will of the Kingdom of Glory, it supposeth that they must be first of the Kingdom of Grace, and were of the visible Church, and so it comes all to one] it follows, they were qualified Subjects for Baptism. For, grant to Children a Church relation (as I have proved it is their Right), and their right to Baptism will unavoidably follow upon it. Mr. Danvers might have done well to have shown us the weakness of our arguings from this Text, as containing in it a good foundation for Infants-Baptism, instead of undertaking to vindicate Tertullian's Paraphrase thereon, grounded on a mistake, as if Pedobaptists made the word Come in the Text, to be a coming to Baptism. And for Tertullian's reasons against children's coming to Baptism, I shall not scruple upon second thoughts, to say they are childish ones, and the magdeburg's wonder at their silliness.  
For, 1. (saith he) Children cannot come till they are elder, till they know & are taught why they come; and may not the same be as well urged against the circumcising Children of old? Let them stay till they are older, till they can know what the Ordinance meaneth.  
2. And then for the weightiness of the Ordinance, in which regard he would have them forbear; were there not also many deep Mysteries wrapped up in Circumcision? As that it was a seal of the Covenant. Did it not shadow forth the mortification of Sin, Regeneration, and Redemption by the blood of Christ? And was it not a ridiculous reason which he gave why young men, and those who were newly married, and young widows should delay Baptism? namely, That the lust of concupiscence should be first extinguished. One would rather have supposed, that the Ordinance might have proved a Remedy against such violent passions as they were supposed to be subject to: for the more temptation any state is obnoxious to, the more need it hath of Helps, specially such as do not only lay engagements, but contribute strength, as Mr. Geree speaks. Most of the rest of his reasons, as our Divines observe, do argue that his words for the putting off Infants-Baptism, are to be expounded of Aliens; as that about not giving holy things to dogs; and that of the Inconveniency by reason of the mortality of Sponsors, or Sureties, for in that Chapter he is speaking of Infidels as we have showed before.  
But Mr. Danvers being willing to make the most of a little, will not by any means part with this witness (such as it is) and therefore brings in Dr. Barlow to confirm it, that Tertullian disliked Infants-Baptism, as unwarrantable and irrational: but the Doctor having now declared his Judgement, I hope Mr. Danvers will for the future forbear quoting him as he hath done. Then we have Daille, Scultetus, and the Magdiburgs etc. But we have told you before, from learned men, that it is to be understood of the children of Pagans; to which we may add, the Judgement of Junius (that famous Expositor) concurring with them.  
As for the Testimony he brings from B. Rhenanus of the ancient Custom of baptising those of full growth, we have spoken to it already, and showed how grossly Mr. Danvers did mistake him. And for the rest of his Regiment, Vincentius, Victor, Heribertus, Cresconius, Fulgentius, Regienses, Albanus, the Swermers, Arnoldus, Henricus, etc. We shall confer with him about these, or the most of them, very shortly; and when this is over, he will have no need to complain of my silence (which he saith gives consent to the whole) or of my unfair and disingenuous dealing.  
Lastly, he endeavours to clear himself from some exceptions, which I have made against some of his witnesses, saying they are frivolous; which whether it be so, I leave to the Reader to judge.  
1. I tell him Berinus is nothing to his purpose: because it is evident that his Sayings have respect to Pagans: But that he conceives will not do, because Berinus saith, Baptism ought not to be administered to any without Instruction. But I must tell Mr. Danvers, that Bede saith no such thing, lib. 4. c. 16. nor anywhere else that I can find. Indeed l. 3. c. 7. Bede tells us of Berinus, that Britanniam perveniens, ac primum Genissorum gentem ingredients, cum omnes ibidem Paganos inveniret, utilius esse ratus ibi potius Verbum Dei praedicare, quam ultra progrediens eos quibus praedicare deberet requirere: itaque evangelizante illo in prefata provincia, cum Rex ipse catechizatus fonte Baptismi cum sua gente ablueretur etc. But what is this to Mr. D's. purpose? Berinus herein did as all Pedobaptists would have done: and if Mr. D. can gather from hence that Berinus affirmed that Baptism ought not to be administered to any (be they within the Church or without) without Instruction, I think he will go far beyond either T. Aquinas or Mr. Baxter in the profoundness of his speculation, and subtlety of his distinction; there being none, I am confident besides himself, able to perform such an undertaking.  
2. Next I blame him for bringing in Durandus for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants, when he expresseth himself positively for Infants-Baptism, and most severely against the Anabaptists. For this he hath nothing to excuse himself, but that Durandus is in his Index, but he doth not know how, put in among the witnesses.  
3. I charge him with another falsehood, in b●inging in the Bishop of Apamen among his witnesses: because, though he were for Rebaptisation of such as he conceived were not rightly baptised, yet was he not an Anabaptist, as the word is now taken, for being against Infants-Baptism. Of this he would excuse himself if he could, by telling us the late Century-Writers do call him so in a modern sense; which is notoriously untrue.  
4. I charge him for abusing Peter Bruis, having nothing to evidence that he denied Infants-Baptism but the lying Stories of Abbots: but he saith he produced three or four evidences more to prove it. But I can find only two, Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. in the 290 page. The first is that of the magdeburg's, Cent. 12. p. 843. where they tell us nothing but what they take from Cluniacensis, and so name his Hypotheses, or Opinions, quoting that Abbot for every thing: But withal manifest their suspicion that he wronged him with an utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent, ex quibus multo rectius facere Judicium liceret, quam ex illis, qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt: Would to God the writings of Peter Bruis were extant, for out of them we might give a truer Judgement, than from them who have conspired to defend the Popish Abominations. And then again (say they) non est certum etc. It is not certain, that they were for the rebaptisation of Children baptised in their Infancy, when they come to be of Age, nam malevoli quaedam commentiti sunt, p. 836. they feign some things, & then fasten them per vitiosas consequentias, by vicious consequences. The other is Osiander, & he takes it up at second hand from the Magdiburgs; & saith withal, that what Peter Bru●● and others are charged with, 'tis from their Enemies; and 'tis uncertain whether they held those things: for the Papists did charge them with gross things, because they inveighed against their Idolatry; Osiander Cent. 12. L. 3. C. 3. And when I read these passages in the Century-writers, I could not but wonder Mr. Danvers should have no more Conscience of what he writes; and thus go about to delude the Reader, by telling him he quotes others besides those lying Abbots in this matter.  
5. I accuse him for traducing Wickliff, he having no ground at all to say he denied Infants-Baptism; and when I discoursed with Dr. Barlow, I told him this story that Mr. Danvers confidently reports that Wickliff was of their way: to which he presently said, I have Wickliff by me, and could never observe any such thing in him.  
But how doth Mr. Danvers make good what he affirms of Wickliff? why, he tells us he hath produced much evidence to prove it pag. 283: even to 289 of his Treatise of Baptism Edit. 2. demonstrating not only that Believers were the only subjects of Baptism, but withal, that Children were not Sacramentally to be baptised.  
To this I replied in the Recapitulation at the end of my Answer, that the name of Wickliff being famous, Mr. Danvers would fain get something out of him for his turn. But I must tell Mr. D. that all that he hath produced to prove Wickliff against Infant-Baptism, is very insufficient to prove him so. His asserting, that there are only two Sacraments; and that Believers are to be baptised in pure water, though they have received the Baptism of the Spirit, is very insignificant to his purpose. His 3d Assertion indeed is considerable, if Mr. Danvers can prove he ever said so, viz: That Believers are the only subjects of Baptism; as appears (says he) in his 11 Chap-Trial: where he saith, that persons are first to be baptised with that he calls the first or insensible Baptism, viz. in the blood of Christ, before they are baptised in water; without which their Baptism in water profits not. One would think this was certainly so, because Mr. Danvers is so free as to give us Wickliffs' own words, which he subjoins to his translation. But it thereby appears he hath so grossly perverted the sense, that I cannot conjecture the reason of his so doing, unless he presumed his quoting the Original would satisfy the Reader he had rightly translated it, and so supersede any further examination. If that was his design 'twas boldly done; but the discovery doth not advance his Reputation. For Wickliff doth not say that persons are first to be baptised with the insensible Baptism, as Mr. D. would make us believe, but only this, that one without the other avails not to Salvation. And how doth this prove Believers the only subjects of Baptism? The rest of his proofs are just like these, that is, very insignificant; because indeed Wickliff was for Infant-Baptism, as I could plainly demonstrate from his own words. But Mr. Baxter hath saved me that labour, having done it so substantially already in his Answer to Mr. D. (see his More proofs for Infant-Baptism, lately printed) p. 354, etc. as must needs satisfy all impartial Readers, and convince Mr. D. himself of his mistake, if he is not resolved to stand out against the clearest evidences: To him therefore I refer them both. But suppose Wickliff had not been so very express in his words as to this point; yet his making an apparent difference between the children of Believers and others, in his saying, Quod definientes, not, desinentes (as Mr. D.) parvulos fidelium sine baptismo sacramentali, decedentes non fore salvandos in hoc presumptuosi et stolidi. And that ample Testimonial which the University of Oxford gave him, is enough (if we had no more) to confront Mr. D. although he had the confidence to print them both in his Treatise of Baptism, from whence the Reader hath ground enough to infer (unless he first supposes Wickliff considered not what he wrote, and the whole University were Anabaptists) that he was not against Infants-Baptism. And give Mr. D. as good ground to expunge Wickliff out of his Index of witnesses as Durandus.  
In the last place, he complains of another piece of injurious dealing in me, and that is for fathering so notorious a Fallacy upon the Reader, and Abuse upon him; because I charge him for bringing in a great Beadroll of Witnesses against Infants-Baptism, when those men were so firmly for it, as Austin, Chrisostom, etc. And that Mr. Danvers is blame-worthy for so doing (nowithstanding his equivocation) appears by this: for though he would excuse himself, by saying they were not in his Catalogue, yet they are found in his 7th Chapter of his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. which serves to prove that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism; and that I do not wrong him, let the Reader Judge, when he hath looked upon the Contents of the same just▪ after the Preface, as also the 56 Page of the first Edition Chap. 7.  

His pretended Witnesses the Waldenses, found not to be against Infants-Baptism, but for it, and what is said to the Contrary, answered.  
That the Waldenses were against Infants-Baptism he labours to prove by a fourfold Demonstration. (1) from their Confessions of Faith: (2) the Witness thereto by their most eminent men: (3) from the decrees of Councils, Popes, and Emperors, against the body of the people for the same: (4) from the footsteps thereof they have left in the several Regions, and Countries where they have been dispersed.  
To which I replied in the first place: (1) That there are no such Confessions to be found; Infants-Baptism Asserted p. 46. (2) That the quite contrary appears by their Confessions of Faith, witnessing how firmly they did assert Infants-Baptism, p. 40. and 64. of the same Book.  
To both which Mr. Danvers makes reply, (viz) that it may be manifest to the Reader that their Confessions do exclude Infants from Baptism, and witha gives in a parallel betwixt what their Confessions say, and what (as he words it) I make them to say, and so leaves it to the Reader to judge, how fairly I have dealt therein; and truly 'tis my desire also that the Reader compare us with the Confessions, and see which of us hath dealt most fairly or foully with them.  
There are five Confessions of the Waldenses, besides some passages out of a Treatise, to which Mr. Danvers hath recourse for information touching their Faith and Practice about Baptism.  
There are two things, to be observed in US, in reference to these Confessions.  
1. What Mr. Danvers picks out of them for his purpose as he conceives.  
2. Whether I have offered any Violation, by mangling the Confessions, or leaving out any thing that is material against Infants-baptism, which I desire the Reader the more diligently to note, because this is another of his great charges against me in his Preface.  
1. The first Confession that is quoted by Mr. Danvers in his Treatise of Baptism bears date 1220, of which this is the 13 Article (viz.) They say we acknowledge no other Sacraments but Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. I have not left out a word of this; and I told him in my answer, that to bring this Article, was rather a witness of his own weakness than against Infants-Baptism, and therefore upon second thoughts this is cashiered, for we have it not in the Reply.  
The next is the 28 Article of another Confession, That God doth not only instruct us by his Word, but has also ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with it, as a means to unite unto, and to make us partakers of his benefits, and that there be only two. In my Answer, I left out the beginning of this Article, that is, [that God instructs us by his Word] which I am sure containeth nothing in it against Infants-Baptism; and also the latter part of the Article, which runs thus [belonging in Common to all the Members of the Church, under the New-Testament (viz) Baptism and the Lords Supper.]  
Another ancient Confession of Faith hath this, Artic. 7. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external sign, which represents unto us that (which by the invisible virtue of God operating) is within us, the Renovation of the Spirit, and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ, by which also we are received into the holy Congregation of the people of God, there professing and declaring openly our Faith, and Amendment of Life. Here was left out a Parenthesis (viz) (by the invisible virtue of God operating) and the last Clause, by which also we are received into the Congregation etc. And with respect to this Article, I have this saying in my Answer, namely, that there is a Harmony between all the Protestant Churches in the World, and the Waldenses (in this Article.)  
The next is out of Vigniers History, where the words are thus: They expressly declare, to receive the Canon of the Old and New Testament, and to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundations in it, or are in any thing contrary to it: therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome they condemn and abominate, saying she is a den of thiefs, and the Apocalyptical Harlot. This Confession Mr. Danvers hath left out in his Reply, and I know not the reason, unless it be because I have every word of it exactly, and it would have hurt his Parallel if it had been set down.  
In their Ancient Confession, Artic. 11. We esteem for an Abomination and Antichristian, all Humane inventions, as a trouble & prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit. And in their Ancient Catechism thus; When humane Traditions are observed for God's Ordinances, then is he worshipped in vain, and which is done when Grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies, and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments, without faith and Truth. I have also set down every word of this, and made this Paraphrase on it in my Answer. This is a good Testimony against humane Traditions, but doth not in the least touch Infants-baptism, as also against the Popish error, that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato, from the work done: for that's the meaning of attributing Grace to the external Ceremony here mentioned.  
In their Ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist they say, that he attributes the regeneration of the Holy-Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptising Children into that Faith, [that Faith was omitted] and teaching that thereby Regeneration must be had: the words are, [Baptism and Regeneration, must be had] I left out [Baptism] because it seems to make it nonsense, as it is there placed.  
Also the conclusion of the Sentence was pretermitted, which is [grounding therein all his Christianity, which is against the Holy-Spirit.] Upon this Article I have thus Paraphrased in my Answer. Here at last, by good hap, we have the word Children named, but not a jot serving Mr. Danvers his design, for they do not hereby except against Childrens-Baptism, but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it; for whether it be in Children or grown Persons, it is an Antichristian, or Popish Tenent, to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism; and this is that before mentioned, that Baptism confers Grace, ex opere operato. And because the Waldenses did deny that it did thus conser Grace, the Papists, did accuse them that they denied Gratiam Baptismi: And for refusing to have their Children Baptised with the superstitious Rites of Salt, Oil spital, etc. they charged them with denying Insant-Baptism. This is the Judgement of Bishop Usher in his Succession of the Church, where he treats of the Waldenses, and their Faith at large. If I had been mistaken in my Paraphrases upon the abovementioned Confessions, Mr. Danvers should have rectified me, and forborn the outcry which he makes in his Preface, for abusing the Concessions of the Waldenses; and some that look no further into a Book than the Preface will suppose me to be guilty of a notorious Crime. But as to this also I freely submit myself to the Judgement of the Reader, and refer it to his consideration, whether Innocency and Truth be not by him rather abused, than vindicated. He chargeth me deeply of unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions in many material and considerable parts; but I persuade myself an impartial eye cannot discern it; but 'tis easily observed how unfaithful he is at the same time in misrepresenting my words, and fathering that on me, which is not mine, but his own Invention, on purpose, forsooth, that he might have a substratum for his following Queries; for he makes me to say, that there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestant Churches in the World, (in those Articles) and the Waldenses, because all that are for Infants-Baptism believe the same. Had I said those words in reference to every Article, it had been truth; whereas I do only speak it with Respect to one of them, and that is to the third; and what is spoken by me, with respect to one of them, he represents as spoken of all, the better to Accommodate his Quibbling Queries. It is sad to see how much he doth Abuse those Confessions, how he doth wiredraw them; as if they were Homogeneal with Anaxagoras his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Aristotle's Record; how he draws quidlibet ex quolibet, every thing out of any thing. Never was any Confessions in the world so prostituted to a corrupt fancy; for thus he begins:  
1. Do all the Pedobaptists believe that Baptism and preaching the Word are joined together to instruct the baptised parties, and that thereby they have union with Christ, and partake of his benefits? Observe how Mr. Danvers stumbles at the Threshold, how he preverts the Article. For look back upon the Article, and you will find it doth not say that Baptism and Preaching are joined together to instruct the Baptised party; Baptism is not mentioned in the Article, though it be included in the word [Sacraments]; afterward the Article speaks thus, That we are instructed by the Word, and then that God hath ordained the Sacraments to be joined with it, as a means to unite us to him.  
2. Do they indeed, saith he, believe the Lord's Supper to belong in common with Baptism to all the Members of the Church? why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other, since it belongs to them in Common, if Members of the Church? Why, if Mr. Danvers would know the reason, it is this, Because though the Child has a right as a Member to all the Ordinances, yet he is not in a capacity to enjoy his right, thus; That persons may have a right to Ordinances, and yet in no capacity to enjoy them, appears in such as are sick, or those that lose their Reason, that are Church-Members.  
3. Do Paedobaptists indeed with the Waldenses believe, that Water in Baptism is the usual sign, representing to the subjects thereof the invisible virtues of God operating in them, (viz.) The Renovation of the Spirit, and Mortification of their Members? and can it be truly said it is so to an Infant that is not capable to put forth any act of Faith, Repentance, or Mortification, or discern the least sign in the Water? Yes, it may be said, it is so to an Infant, very well, and that upon as good a ground, as Circumcision shadowed forth Mortification of Sin, Regeneration, though the Israelitish Babes understood none of this. But Mr. Danvers doth ill again in altering the Article, as you may perceive by looking back, for it is not as he represents it: the Article runs thus; We believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external sign (which represents to us) [not representing to the Subjects] for unless I mistake, as it is so worded, it serveth more to his purpose.  
4. We agree with the Waldenses in the 4th Article; for we have told Mr. Danvers formerly that Baptism itself is a real, though implicit, profession of Faith, and the express verbal Confession of the Parent is reputed by God to be the child's, and so it was under the Law, when the Parents humbled themselves, and confessed their sins, and brought their little ones with them, even they also are said to be humbled before the Lord.  
5. The 5th Query is precarious, taking that for granted, which we utterly deny, and that is, that the baptising Children, is an Antichristian humane Invention.  
6. Do they believe, saith Mr. Danvers, that Antichrist grounds all Christianity, and Religion in the baptising of Children, attributing Regeneration to the outward Work done contrary to the Holy-Spirit, why then, saith he, do they baptise Children, which as acknowledged is the Basis and Foundation of the false Church, and contrary to the Spirit, and for which there is nothing but the Doctrine of Popes, and Antichristian Councils, to warrant it? Not to say any thing of these unworthy reflections, let the Reader once more take notice how he hath also perverted this Article, look back, and you will see what a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes of it, and Metamorphoseth the Article into another thing; for do but observe, (1.) They do not say Antichrist grounds all Christianity in Baptising Children; but if they had spoken it, it had not been against Infants-Baptism, but against placing too much in it. (2.) They say Antichrist attributes Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptising Children, and that Regeneration must be had thereby, and herein they say, he grounds all Christianity. (3.) It is extremely scandalous and false for Mr. Danvers to say, that there is nothing for Infants-Baptism, but the decrees of Popes and Antichristian Councils, when we have so fully proved the use of it some hundreds of years before the coming of the Pope, in the sense that the word is commonly taken, (viz.) for Ecumenical Bishop, challenging to himself, and usurping Authority over the whole Church: have we not before told him, of Cyprian, and Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, etc. and was there not a Canon for it in the Milevitan Council, and that before the Pope came in, or any of his Decrees?  
So that now, upon consideration of the premises, I suppose the unprejudiced Reader may be confirmed that the Waldenses were for Infant-Baptism, by those very Confessions which Mr. Danvers citys against it▪ We shall now give you some account of some of their Confessions, which speak them expressly for it.  
There is an ancient Confession that we meet with in Dr. Ushers Succession of the Church. c. 8. p. 242. made by the Waldenses about the year 1176. as he takes it from Jacobus Gretserus his proleg. in Script. Edit. contra Waldenses. c. 1. and Hovenden's Annal. fol. 329. the words are, Nos Credimus unum Deum trinum & unum patrem, & filium, & spiritum sanctum, etc. and in the body of the Confession there is this Article, Credimus parvulos salvari per Baptismum, we believe Children are saved by Baptism: which though it speak Error according to the darkness of those times, being about five hundred years since; yet it proves they were for Infant-Baptism, for Gretserus saith they were Waldenses that made this Confession, and not as is falsely suggested, that it was the Inquisitors Confession; for it was made before the Inquisitors, to purge themselves from the Arrian and Manichean Heresies, of which they were accused.  
Another Confession, is that published by Balthasar Lydias, which was presented to Uladislaus King of Hungary, where after they have given an account of their Faith in other points, they come to that of Baptism, and having spoken of Adult Baptism, they add, professio ista nostra etiam in pueros extenditur, our Profession concerning Baptism extends also to Children,  
But against this Mr. Danvers objects, That this Confession said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia to King Uladislaus, were not Waldenses, as they themselves acknowledge in the preamble. And further tells us out of Osiander, that they were a mixed People of Calextines that separated from Rome in the business of the Cup: Hussites that went further than they; Thaborites that were more thorough for Reformation, and under these were comprehended the Brethren, or Picards, many of whom did oppose Infants-Baptism, whereas Dr. Burigenus that writ their Apology speaks otherwise, and gives this title to it, Apologia verae Doctrinae eorum, qui vulgò appellantur Waldenses, vel Picardi, qui retinuerunt Johannis Hus Doctrinam; (i. e.) The Apology of the true Doctrine of those, who are commonly called Waldenses or Picards, who have retained the Doctrine of John Hus: so that this differs quite from the Tale which Mr. D. hath told us again and again. And whereas he speaks of the Title of the Confession, whereby it appears they disclaimed the denomination of Waldenses, he might have done well to have quoted some Author where we might find it: but in defect thereof, I shall bring you an Author, that gives the Title without any hint thereof, and that is Orthuinus Gratius in fasciculo rerum expetendarum, etc. Thus. Nos Homines depressi ac vestrae Majestati humiliter subjecti, contemptibili quoque nomine Amicti, etc.  
Burigenus that translated into Latin their Confession from a Bohemian Copy, mentions this Article concerning Baptism, jam Baptismus Christi aeque ad Pueros, qui ex fide illi offeruntur & consecrantur, atquè ad adultos attinet: The Baptism of Christ doth as well belong to Children, who are offered up in Faith, and consecrated to him, as unto grown Persons.  
In the History of the Waldenses lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. so Cent. 6. p. 43. the Waldenses purge themselves from the charge of denying Infants-Baptism, and show the reason why for a long time they forbore it, namely, because they could not endure to have it done in the corrupt Popish way: and in the third part of the aforesaid History, we have their Doctrine set down thus; And whereas Baptism is Administered in a full Congregation, and for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism, which they ought to do to whom the Children are nearest, as Parents. But Mr. Danvers objects against the Confessions of Provence, so full to the point, that they were in a declining condition, that some of them went to Mass: what then? were they against Infant-Baptism before they declined? and did they take up the practice with the Mass? I believe Mr. Danvers doth not think it: and he knows very well they recovered out of this Apostasy, after they had received those godly Admonitions from Oecolampadius and Bucer, and were confirmed in the Truth, and gave proof thereof by their sufferings, in the violent persecution, which happened soon after, and was more raging than ever.  
There is one Confession more which Mr. Danvers' Invention will not serve him to say any thing against, and therefore silently pretermits it, and it is that of Angrogne in the year 1535. where an Assembly of the Waldenses, from all the Valleys met, and there they signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Dauphine, namely, that they sent into Germany their Pastors, to confer with Oecolampadius and Bucer touching the belief they had time out of mind, where saith Perin in his History of the Waldenses lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 57 when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius to those of Provence, concluded on certain Articles as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught from Father to Son for these many hundred years out of the Word of God: and Art. 17 is for Infants-Baptism, thus, Touching thematter of the Sacrament it hath been concluded by the H. Scriptures that we have two Sacramental Signs, the which Christ Jesus hath left unto us, the one is Baptism, the other the Eucharist, which we receive to show what our perservance in the Faith is, as we have promised when we were baptised being little ones.  
This expression, As we have promised when we were baptised being little ones, Mr. Danvers tells us, 2d Ed. pag. 313. is foisted into the Article, though impertinent and nonsensical, because an Infant is not capable to make a promise. But I don't judge Mr. Danvers the fittest in the World to determine what is impertinent and nonsensical. And as wisemen as he, or any of his party, have affirmed the same, and therefore that doth not prove it to be foisted in. For Instance, The Assembly in their larger Catechism tell us, that, Baptism is a Sacrament, etc. whereby the parties baptised are solemnly admitted into the visible Church, and enter into an open and professed engagement, to be wholly and only the Lords. And in their very next Answer, tell us, the Infants of Believers are to be baptised. And Dr. Manton in the Supplement to the Morning Exercise Serm. 10. tells us, that Baptism is an open and real profession of Christ crucified, and that we must personally and solemnly own the Covenant made with God in Infancy. And many more I could produce, if need were, speaking▪ after this manner; that yet understood themselves as well as Mr. Danvers. And why may we not suppose these Waldenses to be guilty of as much Impertinency and Nonsensicalness as the Assembly and Dr. Manton?  
2. His 2d. Demonstration (as he calls it) is from particular eminent persons amongst them, which he would have us believe denied Infants-Baptism. As Berengarius in the 11th. Cent. Peter Bruis, Henricus, and Arnoldus in the 12th.  
1. For Berengarius he goes about to prove that he denied Infant-Baptism from Lanifrank, by Cassander out of Guitmond, by a Council called by H. 1. of France, and by Thuanus, and then saith, that I except against none of these, but have this only for a Reply, that there were several Councils in which Berengarius was persecuted for the Real Presence, but no mention made of his denying Infants-Baptism.  
Seeing this general Reply doth not give Mr. Danvers Satisfaction, I shall now be more particular; and convince him he had better have taken that answer, than thus forced me to a more particular examination; by which I have made a further discovery of his guilt in abusing Authors. He begins with Launifrank to prove Beringarius against Infant-Baptism, and he tells us (2. Ed. p. 241, 242) out of the Magdeb. Cent. 11. cap. 5. p. 240, 243. [that Beringarius did publicly deny Transubstantiation, and Infant-Baptism under five heads; which Launifrank in his book called Scintillaris answered at large. And as for his denying Infant-Baptism, he answers (that is, Launifrank) by saying, he (that is, Beringarius) doth thereby oppose the general doctrine and universal consent of the Church.] And this is all Mr. Danvers hath from Launifrank to prove Beringarius against Infant-Baptism. But this is a shameful mistake, and the magdeburg's say no such thing. They give us his Hypotheses de caenâ Domini: and his 6th Argument against Transubstantiation, and Launifrank's answers to each: and tell us that ad Quintum & Sextum, (that is to Beringarius his 5th and 6th Arguments against Transubstantiation, (not against Infant-Baptism) Launifrank answers, Opposuit doctrinam perpetuam & consentientem Ecclesiae Dei: So that this Authority is quite cashiered; and Mr. Danvers must have an unparallelled Confidence to attempt the retrieving him. The next is Cassander out of Guitmundus, who saith, that with the Real Presence, he denied Baptism to Little-Ones, though the latter not so publicly as the former: but Guitmund and Cassander say, quem tamen Errorem in publicum non produxit; that is, he never publicly denied Infant-Baptism. Mr. D. translates it not [so] publicly, because else it might be presently queried, how then could Guitmund tell? and rather than lay such a stumbling-block in the way, he thinks it expedient to make bold with his Authors, and abuse them, than by telling truth, undeceive his Reader. This might be a sufficient Answer; but to give Mr. D. fuller satisfaction, I shall make a more particular inquiry into this business. And as for Guitmundus the magdeburg's tell us, Ait eum (Beringarium) de Baptismo Infan: & de conjugio non recte docuisse. Which proves him as much against Marriage as against Infant-Baptism. But Bp. Usher tells us in his book the successione, cap. 7. § 37. that Deoduinas Leodiensis, took it upon common fame that Bruno and Beringarius did quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertere. And adds, deinde ex Leodiensis fide refert Guitmundus, so that Guitmundus took it from Leodiensis, who had it from common fame; which indeed arose from their denying it to be necessary to Salvation. As clearly appears, by Walden, charging Wickliff to deny it, who yet was so positive in the point as Mr. Baxter hath proved. And Usher also tells us that, In tot Synodis adversus Beringarium habitis nullam de Anabaptismo litem illi intentatam invenimus. Which further proves it. And whereas Mr. Danvers insinuates (2 Ed. pag. 243, 244.) that Beringarius recants this opinion against Infant-Baptism, and then recanted his Recantation; there is not a word of Infant-Baptism in his Recantation. He produceth also Thuanus to prove Beringarius and his followers were great asserters of Baptism after Faith (2. Edit. pag. 73.) and in his Reply pag. 116. He quotes his preface to his History to prove that the Archbishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians for denying Infant-Baptism; It is true he tells us that the Archbishop did eos diocesi sua expellere, because illius doctrinam populis disseminarent; but that Thuanus should say he did it because they denied Infant-Baptism, is one of Mr. Danvers' mistakes, there being not the least syllable of any such thing in that Preface, or in the whole History that I can find.  
His last evidence to prove it, is a Council called by H. 1. of France, to suppress the heresies of Bruno and Beringarius for denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism: for which he quotes Bibliotheca Patrum pag. 432. But I can't find either in Bibl. Pat. or the Councils, or any where else, (but in Mr. Danvers' book) that that Council ever charged Beringarius with denying Infant-baptism. Let Mr. Danvers prove it if he can. And just after this rate doth he prove his matters.  
But suppose these Authors had affirmed what Mr. D. would make us believe they did, yet it falls short of sufficient proof because the same sort of men charged Luther and Calvin to be against Infants-Baptism, and this we have acknowledged from Mr. Danvers' own pen in his Innocency and Truth vindidicated, p. 127.  
The next of his Witnesses are Peter Bruis, Henricus, Arnoldus; but of this I have spoken already that even the Magdiburgs and Osiander (who relates what Peter Cluniacensis and Bernard say of them) do question the Truth of what their wicked Adversaries lay to their charge, to which I refer the Reader, and shall only add what Mr. Martial says to Mr. Tombs: The truth is, saith he, these two men did for 20 years together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses, and so plague the Bishop's Mitre, and the Monk's Bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them, that might make them odious to the people. He that reads the railing Book of Cluniacensis will find, that he acknowledgeth most of what he layeth to their charge to be upon the report of others: He lays this to their charge, that Children that die before they could actually believe were damned, and that they did not altogether believe the Apostles, Prophets, no nor Christ himself. By their corrupt consequences, say the Magdiburgs, they would make them hold any thing, as before; To deny Chrism, and Oil, and spital in the baptising of Children was all one with them. And if Mr. Danvers believes Cluniacensis did slander them in the other things, he must excuse us if we believe he did also in this about Infant-Baptism: One thing I shall mind the Reader with, and so pass on, and that is, the good Intelligence Mr. Danvers holds, 
☜  since almost all the Testimonies that he brings throughout all his Book, are borrowed either from Monks, Abbots, Jesuits, Inquisitors, or some Cankered Popish Priests that make no Conscience of loading the professors of the Truth with all manner of Calumnies.  
But, saith he, Cassander witnesseth the same in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleave (viz.) that Peter Bruis, and Henricus denied Baptism to little ones, affirming that only the Adult should be baptised. 'Tis true, he saith so: and withal tells us [cum Baptismo & fide etiam salutem et regnum Dei Infantibus ademerunt, quod ad credentes tantum et baptizatos pertinere sensuerunt] with Baptism and Faith they took Salvation also from Infants, as judging it belonged only to Believers that were baptised: but how comes Cassander by this good intelligence? why, the Abbot of Cluni told him so; and if Mr. Danvers will not believe they damned all Infants, though the Abbot affirms it, why should we believe they denied them Baptism for which he can produce no better proof? but if Cassander is a person of such credit with Mr. Danvers, I hope he will no longer reckon Peter Bruis and Henricus among the Waldensian Barbes; because he tells us in this very Epistle, that the Waldenses were for Infants-Baptism.  
Dr. Prideaux is also introduced to confirm it, how that they were condemned in the second Lateran Council, for rejecting Infants-Baptism: it is Common for the Popish Councils to condemn men for that which they never held. But Mr. Baxter tells us there is not the least proof of any such matter meddled with in that Council.  
I let pass also Vicecomes, because he writes palpable lies; how that Luther, Calvin, Beza, denied Infants-Baptism; and why? because (as Mr. Danvers says truly in his Reply, page 127) they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church 
☜  of Rome ordained it, without the Ceremonies of their Church, which was all one to them, as if it was not practised at all. We are much engaged to Mr. Danvers for this, he hath as it were spoken all in a word, given us a key to open the Mystery of the business, and rightly to understand why Beringarius, Peter Bruis, Arnoldus, were charged for denying Infants-Baptism. I must now prepare myself with Patience, for Mr. Danvers is come to his Paroxysm, and would even move a Stoic. I perceive he is strangely transported with Passion, and makes Proclamation against me. Know, saith he, that hence you have a further discovery of his unfaithfulness, and want of Conscience, for daring thus to abuse the World with a Cheat, and that which he knows to be a mere forgery of his own— The Flame is not yet extinguished, but spreads into two pages more, and is rather increased. He hath injuriously belied Osiander, belied Cluniacensis, belied Peter Bruis, belied the Truth, which by this forgery he would cover; abused the World, belied and abused me, and much to be feared his own Conscience, by this piece of Folly and Falshood.  
Now what shall I say to all this? shall I implore an Increpation from above, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Judas 14. Or shall I bespeak Mr. Danvers in the Language of Croesus to Solon in Lucian's Dialogues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good words O man? would any one have expected such polluted feet of Clay, with which he kicks at me, should be attendants to that head of Gold, I mean those Christian words in Mr. Danvers' Preface, I will not render railing for railing, it being ever judged the sign of a bad cause, for persons to betake themselves to such courses, and thereby supply the want of matter with, Rage, Clamour and Noise. Who would not have judged Mr. D. by those lines a person able to command his Passion, yea a second Moses? Parsons the Jesuit, notwithstanding he wanted nothing but a Glass to view the Effigies of a Railer, yet he censureth the practice as unworthy.  
But to speak something for Vindication from these foul, and shamefully-invective accusations: First, I confess my inadvertency in mistaking the Century, and from hence it was that I related things, charged upon the Albigenses of the 12 Cent. and applied them to Peter Bruis, and Henricus of the 11th (though I find all of them joined together by the Magdiburgs under Cent. 12th.)  
The occasion of this mistake was a cursory reading of Dr. Homes his Answer to Mr. Tombs (the Book being lent only for a day or two) where the said Doctor reckons up about 20 errors charged upon the Albigenses, as he hath it from Osiander. I profess, that I speak the truth, I had no design to misrepresent Mr. Danvers' pretended witnesses, and to cast a slur upon it; and I hope this is enough to satisfy the Ingenuous Reader, and may also work some Conviction in Mr. Danvers of his uncharitableness of Spirit, and the intemperancy of his Pen in such frequent Judge of my Heart and Conscience, that I did knowingly and out of design, go about to deceive the Reader: and what should tempt me hereunto? was it to cast Dirt on his Witness? How blind a thing is Prejudice! Mr. Danvers is not Ignorant, that if that▪ had been my Aim, I might have furnished myself with sufficiency of that nature even from Cluniacensis and Bernard: But he saith, I did it knowingly and went on purpose to deceive; why so? because I picked only five particulars out of those twenty Articles that were laid to the Charge of the Albigenses: a Convincing Argument! no doubt, though no body can fathom the Mystery of the Policy in so doing, unless I open it, which plainly is this. The reason why I transcribed no more out of Dr. Homes was, because I do not judge it commendable to write whole Pages and more out of Authors, and to conceal their Names, as Mr. Danvers useth to do (2) It was done out of design, as he saith, because I knew Osiander saith, these things are not reported by Cluniacensis and Bernard, but by others; whereas I never read those things in Osiander, until Mr. Danvers' Reply came forth. (3) It must be so he concludes, because I neither mention Century, Book Chapter, or Page (for the greater blind no doubt) as he saith I use to do in other Quotations out of Osiander; whereas I have not mentioned, so much as one Chapter or Page out of Osiander in all my Answer to him.  
Thus Reader, thou see'st what this mighty Charge amounts to, and which is one of these heinous Crimes I have committed, mentioned in the Preface to work prejudice against me: and if I were now given to Revenge, I could presently balance accounts. He knows I have Advantage enough against him for that shameful mistake of his in saying Calvin interprets that Promise Gen. 17. 7. to be understood of the spiritual Seed of Abraham, when it was Estius the Jesuit, and Calvin doth most expressly say the contrary (viz) that 'tis meant of the fleshly and natural Seed; and Estius declares his judgement against him. And if I were addicted to such Billingsgate language, I could retort upon him; He belies Calvin, he belies the Truth, which by that Forgery he would cover and hide, he abuseth the World with a Cheat, and much more fear his own Conscience by this piece of Folly and Falshood.  
3. As for his 3d Demonstration, that the Waldenses were against Infants-Baptism, fetched from the Catholic Emperors, and Pope's Councils, and the rest of the Tribe that follows, Monks, Abbots, Inquisitors, I shall believe it as much as that of Vicecomes, who saith not only Peter Bruis etc. was against Infants-Baptism, but also Calvin, Luther; nor will that serve Mr. Danvers turn to tell us that they were so reputed, because they did oppose, and neglect to Baptise Children as the Church of Rome ordained and practised, unless he can give us some assurance that the Waldenses were not accused and condemned by these Councils upon the same account.  
Moreover he tells us, Rainerius the Inquisitor in his Book Contra Waldenses, saith, de Baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur infantibus nihil prosit, etc. Concerning Baptism they say that that which is given to little ones profits nothing. And this Evidence Mr. Danvers would have noted, because I do positively deny, that Rainerius in the Catalogue of their Errors gives the least hint of any such thing, that they denied Infants-Baptism. This is another of his great Charges against me in his Preface, where he saith Rainerius tells us totidem verbis (i e) in so many words they denied it.  
For Vindication of myself, let the Reader (1) know, That in my Infants-Baptism Asserted p. 96. I quote Dr. Featly's Roma ruens for what I have said; who gives us a Catalogue of the Errors which Rainerius charged the Waldenses with in his Book Contra Waldenses, Chap. 4. and this of denying Infants-Baptism is not amongst those which he recites. (2) I must tell Mr. Danvers that the words he quotes done't prove, Rainerius charges them with denying Infants Baptism, for by nihil prosit, they intent only ad Salutem. But can Mr. Danvers find anywhere in Rainerius where he positively saith, the Waldenses were against the practice of baptising Infants? this I confess would be something to his purpose; but till then I persuade myself the impartial Reader will acquit me from having abused this Author, though Mr. Danvers will not.  
Next he brings Favin the French-Chronologer testifying that in those times (viz) 12 and 13 Centuries the Albigenses did deny Infants-Baptism esteeming it superstitionus; no doubt as we have often made appear, their refusing those superstitious Additions of Chrism, Oil, spital, annexed to the Sacrament by the Papists, is the ground why they are by all Popish Writers represented to deny Infants-Baptism. Those two Abbots Cluniacensis and Bernard of the 12 Cent. gave Favin this information; but Osiander says well, Hi autem Articuli Petro Bruis ab adversariis adscribuntur; the Articles were charged by Adversaries: And then he adds, whether those Tenants were theirs, or no, non satis Certum est, it is not enough certain.  
We are now come to another of Mr. Danvers' Charges, which will appear to be a strange mistake; so that I may truly say of him, if he cannot find a hole he will make one, to his own shame. In his Calumniating Preface he falsely represents me to have quoted Vicecomes, to prove that the Doctrine of opposing the Baptising Infants of Believers, was no ancienter than the Anabaptists of Germany, and to make this good, he (with great Confidence) turns the Reader to page 60. of my Infants-Baptism Asserted, as if he should be sure to find it there: whereas any body that will but peruse the page shall see, I quote Vicecomes to show what a false account he gives of Luther, Calvin, Beza, as if they denied Infants-Baptism; and besides, his Name is only in one place, in the Margin of my Book, and that borrowed from Mr. Marshal, who also quotes him for the same end, as is signified (viz.) to show what little credit is to be given to Proofs from Popish-Writers against the Waldenses for denying Infants-Baptism, when they are so impudent, as to charge Luther, and Calvin with the same; who, (saith he) did in a special manner oppose this Error, and then he concludes thus: Unless some one dothout of their own Confessions give better evidence, I shall believe that this Doctrine of opposing of the Baptising of the Infants of Believers is an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists of Germany. And now let any man judge whether Mr. Danvers doth not deal very unworthily, in accusing me, that I have abused the Reader by a Quotation from Vicecomes.  
But how can the opposing the Baptising the Infants of Believers be an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists of Germany when we are otherwise informed by Vicecomes in the same place where he accuseth Luther, Calvin, Beza, for being Anabaptists. For Vincentius, Victor (two Witnesses made of one Man's name) Hincmarus of Laudum, the Henerici and Apostolici (in Bernard and Cluniacensis time) John Wickliff in his 4th Book of Trialog. Walfrid, Strabo, (another Dichotomic making two of one Man, an excellent way to increase the number of Mr. Danvers' Witnesses) Ludovicus Vives witnessed against it.  
In answer to these; as for Vincentius Victor I shall presently show when I speak of the Donatists, that he was not against Infants-Baptism. For Hincmarus of Laudum, we have more than once vindicated him from this blot: the same we have done in the behalf of the Henricians, or Waldenses. And for Wickliff we have brought sufficient evidence to satisfy any rational Man, that he is so far from speaking a word in derogation of Infants-Baptism, that he is expressly for it. As for Strabo he was highly for Infant-Baptism, and therefore when he saith none were anciently Baptised, but those who could profess their Faith, he intended only none that were Adult: But however we have given sufficient reason, why his word is not to be taken, being a false Historian and a heedless Writer, condemned by Vossius, and others. Lastly, for Ludovicus Vives, who is yoked to the former, hear what Mr. Marshal speaks of them both. Must we (saith he) take the bare word of Vives, a Man of yesterday, or of Strabo in matters of Fact, in things done so many hundred years before they were born? and that against the express witness of so many worthy men, who lived a hundred years before them? and I conceive he speaks to the purpose. For any indifferent Man will acknowledge, that Austin (who saith the Church always had, and always held Infant-Baptism) was more likely to know what was done in the Primitive times, than Strabo, who lived 400 years remoter from them, or than Ludovicus Vives that was above a thousand years further off from the times of which he witnesseth, than that ancient Father was.  
4. In the last place he attempts to prove the Waldenses denied Infants-Baptism, by the footsteps found thereof, in those respective Regions and places where they had heretofore imprinted it, as Germany, Switzerland, Flanders, Holland, Bohemia, Hungaria, Transylvania, Poland, England, etc.  
But as to this, I said in my Infants-Baptism Asserted, that for Mr. Danvers to tell us that the Opposers of Infants-Baptism, in upper and lower Germany, (and in those other Countries) were the remains of those the Waldenses had before instructed, was his own private Conceit, foreign to all History and hath no foundation in Reason or Truth; and whether I have not ground for that Assertion, let the Reader judge, when he hath perused what I have written in my Book from page 69, to 112. To most of which Mr. Danvers saith nothing at all, and therefore I conceive he is drained dry; only 'tis true he persists in his former endeavours to palliate the horrid actings of the Germane Anabaptists, and asperseth me for my Reflections upon the story of Thomas Munzer, and John of Leyden.  
Lastly he presents us with further Testimony from a novel piece the Dutch Martyrology, that the Waldenses and Albigenses, were against Infants-Baptism; concerning which I only say:  
1. That herein Mr. Danvers produceth more Testimony than the University of Oxford doth afford; For this Book is not to be found in the Public or private Libraries, or the Booksellers Shops.  
2. It being it seems not yet translated into the English-tongue, though he hopes it may be in good time; if I could have met with it, I should not have understood, whether he relates things truly for want of an interpreter.  
3. Therefore we must take Mr. Danvers' word for all; both that there is such a Book, and that the passages he presents us with from thence, are truly translated.  
4. We dare not say of it, as the Papists do of Mr. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, that it is a Book of lies; but this we say with Confidence, that divers of those Testimonies Mr. Danvers takes from thence, are notorious untruths; and that Jacob Merning and Sebastian Frank, are not to be credited having abused the World with such palpable falsehoods: neither is Twisk (another of them) found to be a true Chronologer, all which we shall suddenly make appear, when we come to show their aberrations.  
5. Yea, some are of opinion that this Dutch martyrology wherein we have such a Collection of pretended Martyrs for Anabaptism, is designedly calculated for the Meridian of Anabaptistery, which whether it be probable, I leave to the Reader to judge, when he hath pondered the meaning of one passage, which Mr. Danvers hath quoted in his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 2. p. 232. viz.) Sebastian Frank (one of the Principal Authors frequently named in the martyrology) saith, that about the year 610 Childrens-Baptism was held in many places, of little esteem, by the learned endeavours of Adrianus, and others, and therefore the Popes set themselves to uphold it by the Braceren-Council: That the vanity and falsehood hereof may appear, let it be considered.  
1. That there is nothing of Adrianus extant against Infants-Baptism, in the Century-Writers; but only the magdeburg's say, he was complained against by Gregory, to John Bishop of Larissa, That he turned away young Children from Baptism: But we have shown before, that he was not against their Baptism, but only remiss in looking after the same in his Diocese; so that many Children died unbaptised, which was then judged dangerous, and from hence he was reported to have turned them away from Baptism.  
2. There is none else in this Age, so much as suspected against the Baptism of Children, mentioned by the Century-Writers; and how grossly then is it said, of Sebastian Frank, that the practice thereof was of little esteem in this Century?  
3. How weakly and falsely, is that said that the Popes set themselves to uphold Infant-Baptism in the Braceren Council [in the 7th Century] because it was of so little esteem when the magdeburg's make mention of so many for it in this Century? As Maxentius Gregory, and Bishop of Larissa; else Gregory would not have complained to him about Adrianus: And besides particular persons they mention the Council of Matiscons, 3 Canon for it, Cent. 6. c. 9 p. 613. And by this we see what a false Historian Sebastian Frank is, and Jacob Merning, whom Mr. Danvers brings as avouching the same, quoting the 204 pag. of the Dutch Martryology for it.  
And as for Sebastian Frank, Osiander Cent. 16 p. 121. tells us in plain terms, he was a ringleader of the Anabaptists, from whom his followers were called Frankists; and they taught, Omnia in sacris literis incerta, dubia, & contradictoria esse; that is, all things in the Holy Scriptures are uncertain, doubtful, and contradictory, which is a most horrid blaspheming of the Holy Scriptures; but may be true when applied to his own History.  
Having thus found these Dutch Authors so tardy, we shall leave them for the present, and conclude with what we find related from our own Countryman, the famous Bishop Usher, in his Succession of the Church, Chap. 7. Sect. 23. p. 196. being a saying of Windelstinus, Qui hodie dicuntur Protestants, Novi sunt Waldenses; They who at this day, are called Protestants, are new Waldenses, which is confirmed by another saying of Poplinerus, who tells us, That Albigensium Religionem parum admodum ab ea discrepasse, quam hodie profitentur Protestants, etc. the Religion of the Albigenses doth very little differ from that which the Protestants at this day profess; as appears by the Fragments and Monuments of History written in their ancient Language; and then he further saith, that it appears by very ancient Manuscripts, that their Articles of Faith are Doctrinae Protestantium usquequaque conforms. Tout conformez a ceux des Protestans, altogether agreeing with the Protestants, Usher Succession, chap. 10. Sect. 19 p. 308.   

Mr. Danvers' pretended witness born by the Donatists against Infants-Baptism Confuted.  
Mr. Danvers is full of Complaints of the great injuries he hath received; and amongst others this is one, that I tell him he hath nothing in his Treatise of Baptism, to prove that the Donatists were against Infants-Baptism, but his ipse dixit; whereas he saith he hath given us divers Authorities for it. And the Reason of my saying so, was, because the magdeburg's that do in a particular manner set before us what the Donatists held from point to point, do not charge them with Antipedobaptism; nor do any of the Church-Historians, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, or Evagrius, mention it. Neither do any of our modern Writers give any hint of it. Further I told him in my answer that Danaeus (who gives us the sum of their Tenants, and of all Austin's Disputes with them, in his Opusculum) mentions not one word of their denying Infants-Baptism. Neither doth Zanchy who treats of them, and shows what they held in divers places of his Works, nor Mr Fox in his Act. and Mon. nor Mr. Clark in his Martyrology (where there's a great story of them) speak any thing of their being against Infants-Baptism; no nor any other that ever I could hear of, but only Mr. Danvers, and therefore I said as I did. And if our Antagonist had not been extremely tenacious of his Opinion, this had been (as is conceived) enough to have taken him off from his mistaken conceit. But all the thanks I have for endeavouring to rectify him, is still more and more Reproaches. Mr. Wills, saith he, deals according to his wont manner very disingenuously with me; but wherein I pray?  
1. That I, saith he, having given so many Authorities and of such Antiquity to prove it, he yet tells me [as before.]  
To which I answer; I must needs say the same still, being not in the least convinced by Mr. Danvers' Reply. For whereas he saith he hath given many Authorities and of great Antiquity, to prove it; most of them mentioned not only in the Treatise but Reply, are but of yesterday. viz. Seb. Frank, Jac. Merning, and Twisk, (if I mistake not, three Germane Anabaptists) Vicecomes, Spanhemius, Osiander, Fuller, and Bullinger. As for the three first, it is sufficient to say concerning them, Istis Authoribus non stamus, we own them not; because they speak falsely in many things, and that which none of the ancient Writers do affirm. As for Instance, Mr. Danvers tells us, Seb. Frank, and Twisk, affirm that Donatus taught that no Infant should be baptised, but only those that believed and desired it, which is false; and neither they nor Mr. Danvers can prove it out of Austin or any ancient Writer. But suppose Donatus himself had been against Infant-Baptism; yet Una Hirundo non facit Ver; One Swallow doth not make a Spring; It will not follow that the rest of the Donatists were so likewise; no more than because Mr. Tombs the Head of the Anabaptists doth conform, therefore all the Anabaptists of England do conform. Again, Jac. Merning saith, that Cresconius opposed Austin in that point, viz. of Infants-Baptism. But in the whole dispute between Austin and Cresconius, I can find nothing like it. And Vicecomes is as false as them; for he tells us, Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc. were all of them against Infants-Baptism; and that Fulgentius a learned Donatist did deny, (if Mr. Danvers mistakes him not) Infants-Baptism, and asserts only that which was after Faith. Whereas Fulgentius himself (de fide ad Petrum cap. 30.) expressly tells us, that Baptism is sufficient to take away Original Sin from Infants; and Mr. Danvers hath so branded Spanhemius (in his Reply,) as a very partial and unfaithful Writer, one guilty of lying fictions and Chimaeras, that 'tis strange to me he should produce him. And what do Osiander, Fuller and Bullinger say? why, that the Donatists and our modern Anabaptists were all one. But do they say in all things? I have already told Mr. Danvers that they were one in regard of their concurrence in very many things, and drew the Parallel between them. And we say Denominatio sumitur a majori. And indeed the rigid Anabaptist does Symbolise with the Donutists in nothing more than in confining the Church of Christ to their Party, so no true Church out of Mr. Danvers' Party. And if we will not renounce Infants-Baptism and be dipped after their way, he bids defiance to all overtures of Union and Communion; for he saith in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism, that whilst such a Foundation of Antichrist is held fast, all Exhortations to Union, viz. in Church-fellowship and Communion, will signify little.  
His other Authorities I confess are more significant to wit; Austin, Tho. Walden, Eckbertus and Emerieus; and therefore I shall a little examine his Quotations out of them. (1) He tells us, Reply 134 [that Austin against the Donatists, Tom. 7. l. 3, 4. c. 23. doth with much zeal and fury manage the Argument for Infants-baptism against them, bitterly cursing them that oppose it.] But I cannot find that Austin takes the least notice of Infant-baptism throughout the whole 3d Book; wherein yet (if Mr. D. may be believed) he manages that Argument with much Zeal and Fury: Nor in the 4th Book, till he comes to the 23d Chap. And there (as Mr. Baxter hath already informed him) he is so far from controverting Infants-baptism with the Donatists, that he makes use of it as a medium in his arguing against them. (2.) He tells us, that Austin in his Epistle to Marcellus (it should be Marcellinus) Tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. opposed himself against them (the Donatists) for denying Infants-baptism. A great mistake! for all he saith of Marcellinus there as touthing Infant-baptism, is this, viz. Octavum Errorem fuisse de Infantibus, qui priusquam renascantur in Christo praeveniuntur occiduo, Scriptum esse, raptus est ne malitia illius intellectum mutaret. Sap. 4. That is, His eight Error was concerning Infants that die before they were Baptised, that they were taken away lest malice should change [corrupt] their Understanding, quoting the 4. Wisdom in the Apochrypha for it. And let the Reader judge whether this is to deny Infant-Baptism. (3.) He tells us that Austin and Walden do both affirm, that Vincentius Victor a Donatist, denied Baptism to little ones: Austin in his third Book de Anima c. 14. And Walden in his Book de Sacrament. Tit. 5. c. 33. fol. 118. As for Austin, there is not the least Syllable to be found of any such matter in that 14 Chap. Nay, so far is Austin from charging Vin. Victor with denying Infant-baptism, that in the preceding Chapter he tells you, his Opinion was that only those Infants that died Baptised went immediately to Heaven; and as for others, they continued in Paradise till the last Resurrection, and were not till then admitted to the happiness of Heaven. Haec verba tua sunt (saith Austin to Vincentius) ubi te confiteris consentire dicenti, quibusdam non baptizatis sic temporarie collatum esse Paradisum ut supersit illis in resurrectione praemium regni caelorum, contra sententiam principalem, qua constitutum est non intraturum in illud regnum qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu sancto. Quam sententiam principalem timens violare Pelagius, nec illos sine baptismo in regnum caelorum credidit intraturos quos non credidit reos. Tu autem & originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteris, & tamen eos sine lavacro regenerationis absolvis, & in paradisum mittis, & postea etiam regnum caelorum intrare permittis. And Walden (in the place Mr. D. quotes) saith the same directly. Vincentius dixit eos (scil. Infant's) trahere originale peceatum, sine baptismo tamen duci posse in regnum caelorum in resurrectione finali.  
As for Eckbertus the Monk and Emericus, I can find no such matter in the Magdeb. that they likened the Waldenses in the 12 Cent. to the Donatists. And yet I deny not, but it might be so, because, as Perin saith, the Popish Priests did reproach them with the odious name of Cathari, because they pressed after Purity; by which name the Donatists were heretofore called, because they held a sinless state of Perfection attainable in this Life. And this may serve as a sufficient answer also to Mr. D's. last Argument to prove the Donatists against Infant-baptism, because they and the Novatians were the same in Principle with the Waldenses. It being only a foul Aspersion cast upon them by their malicious Adversaries. Posterior aetas (saith Danaeus) ad praegravandam bonam Evangelii causam, homines vere evangelicos infami Catharorum nomine calumniata est.  
Thus Reader, it is left to thy judgement (as Mr. Danvers speaks) whether he hath sufficiently justified his sixfold Testimony, that the Donatists did deny Infants-Baptism. I hope (whatever Mr. Danvers may say to the contrary) I have sufficiently invalidated all that he hath brougat for that end, and that thou wilt acquit me from the charge of disingenuity in condemning his Witnesses without cause. So we are come to his last Witnesses the Ancient Britain's; which may well be called his, because no Man ever before him affirmed they were against Infants-Baptism.   

Of the Witness pretended to be born against Infants-Baptism by the Ancient Britain's.  
MR. Danvers is singular in his Opinion; for never did any Anabaptist that I have read of hit upon this Topick, to prove the Antiquity of their way; no not Mr. Tombs (whose invention is admirable for Arguments, in that part of his Anti-paedobaptism which I have lying by me, which consists of above 260 pages in Quarto being part of the 1500 which Mr. Danvers says in his Preface was never yet replied to. And 'tis no wonder that no body hath undertaken it; for as the Author of the History of the Pope's Nephews speaks, the Jesuits are Politic in writing large Volumes, on purpose to discourage the Protestants from answering them.  
Mr. Danvers gives four Arguments that the Ancient Britain's that inhabited Wales, when Austin the Monk was sent by Pope Gregory into this Island to preach the Gospel about the year 604. did bear their Testimony against Infants-Baptism.  
1. Because Mr. Fox out of Bede tells us, they refused to Baptise after the manner of Rome, which Fabian particularly explains to be in the point of Infants-Baptism.  
In answer to this I did (in my Infants-Baptism Asserted) 1. except against Fabian's Paraphrase upon the words, which Bede gives us from Austin; and that for these Reasons, 1. Because in the Preface to Fabian, we there read that what he relates of these matters is taken from Bede's Ecclesiastical History, in which there is no mention of the Britain's denying to give Christendom to Children, for all that he saith is in his second Book, and the words are,— In as much as you do contrary to our custom, yea to the custom of the universal Church, nevertheless if you will obey me only in these three things, soil. That you keep your Easter in its proper time; administer Baptism, whereby we are born again to God, after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome; and the Apostolical Church, and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation, we will patiently bear all other things which you do, although contrary to our customs. But they answered they would do none of these. Mr. Fox relates it thus, That they would not agree, refusing to leave the custom which they so long time had continued without the Assent of them all which used the same. Fox. Act. Mon. 1. Book, p. 107.  
2. Because Fabian is not looked upon as a Faithful Historian, and therefore Mr. Fox in the aforesaid Book suspecteth him of divers mistakes, and follows not his relation of giving Christendom to Children in this story, as it is set down by him; for he gives us it in the words of Bede, viz. That they refused to baptise after the manner of Rome.  
3. None of the other Ancient Historians, as Cretensis in Polychron. Huntingdon, etc. mention their refusing to give Christendom to Children; they only speak generally of refusing to baptise after the manner of Rome. Some other reasons were given which I let pass, having already said enough to show on what a sandy foundation Mr. Danvers builds this his peculiar Assertion, that the Ancient Britain's denied Infants-baptism, he having nothing for it but Fabians conjecture, wherein he differs from all other Historians in the World.  
But saith Mr. Danvers, Fabian hath fully hit Bede's meaning: why? 1. Because Austin tells the British Christians, that among many things, wherein they were contrary to the custom of Rome, and to the Universal Church, one was in this particular of Baptism; and this he conceives must needs be in their refusing to Baptise Children: and his Reasons are;  
1. Because as to the Baptising the Adult they were not contrary to the Church of Rome. I answer, though they were not contrary to them, as to the Subject of Baptism, viz. the Adult; yet they might be, and were so (if so pure as Mr. Danvers represents them) in regard of the Adjuncts which the Church of Rome annexed to Baptism, viz. those Superstitious additions of Chrysm, Oil, etc. They both baptised the Adult, but not after the same manner: and this was that which Austin stood upon, he would have had them Baptise after their manner: But Mr. Danvers objects,  
2. It could not respect the Mode of Baptism, that's strange; for doth he not tell us just before, p. 38. of his Reply, from Mr. Fox, who takes it from Bede, That they refused to baptise after the manner of Rome; and can he tell wherein the difference lies between Mode and Manner. But let us weigh his Reasons (which are as light as a Feather) why it could not respect the Mode of Baptism. His first is, Because the custom of the Church of Rome was not Universal, but opposed by the Greeks and Eastern Churches, & not at all to be made out to be Apostolical. He says true indeed, though it be not ad Rhombum, and though the Church of Rome was not so universal, neither could be made out to be Apostolical; yet they are so proud as to term it so, and say what we can to the contrary, they do still arrogate as much to this day.  
3. Therefore, saith he, it must needs respect Infants-baptism; whether this be intended as an Argument, or a Conclusion, who can tell? it is brought in as a third Argument, and then it is idem per idem: It must needs respect Infants-baptism, because it must needs. But he wheels about again after a confused manner, and comes in with five other Arguments. 1. Because the Church of Rome had particularly enjoined, and imposed it to beget Infants to Regeneration, and therefore must intend the substance and not the Ceremony. To which I reply; 1. It is very strange, that Mr. Danvers' mind should thus run altogether upon children's Baptism, when the work which Austin would have had them gone upon, was to Baptise the Adult Pagans, such as the Saxons than were, and to Preach the Gospel to them, and we read not (unless I mistake) of any Children that he baptised at all, nor any of his company, although he sent to Gregory to know how long the baptising of a Child might be deferred, there being no danger of Death. 2. How came the Canon of the Church of Rome into Mr. Danvers' mind, of children's being born of God by Regeneration? for Austin spoke not of this; but only exhorts the Britain's to administer Baptism, whereby, saith he, we are born again, as holding that grown Persons are born again to God as well as Children, according to the Judgement of the Church of Rome, as well as the ancient Fathers. Doth not Just in Martyr say the same, speaking of the manner how the Christians were baptised: they go (saith he) to the Water and are regenerated, as we ourselves were regenerated, etc. So that these are but childish Cavils against Childrens-Baptism. 2. He urge● another, and that is, Because Infants-Baptism was universally received in this seventh Age, in other parts of the World for this end. This is such an Argument that I know not well what to say to it, unless it be that since Infants-Baptism was so universally received in other parts of the World, it's altogether improbable it should be shut out of Wales. The third and fourth Arguments make but one, which is, because Infant-Baptism was received, and enjoined as an Apostolical practice, and it had been childish and ridiculous to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical. Mr. Danvers says true, It had been indeed ridiculous for Austin to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical, and therefore he speaks of the manner of Baptising, which he would have the Britain's observe as they did, that is, to do it in that superstitious way with Chrysm, Oil, etc. which is held by the Church of Rome to be Apostolical.  
And whereas I say the Britain's did no more reject Infants-Baptism, than they did Preaching to the Saxons. He thus replies; True, having as much reason to reject the one, as the other. A strange Assertion! For though Infants-Baptism be in his account unlawful, yet the Preaching of the Gospel, one would think, should be lawful, and more reason there is to Preach the Gospel, than to Baptise either the Adult or Infants. But what makes Mr. Danvers judge otherwise as to these Britain's? It is because he conceives, by Preaching here must be understood Authoritatively, by being ordained by them, and not as a company of Laymen, or Mechanics. It seems than this Gentleman is for Mechanics Preaching; but that which is remarkable is, to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of Disputation: For the Britain's, to whom Austin addressed his Speech, were not Laymen or Mechanics, but seven Bishops and an Archbishop, as Mr. Fox informs us, Act. Mon. 1. Book, p. 107. Although 'tis true they admitted not Rome's Supremacy over them, which was the main quarrel, as Mr. Fox tells us out of Cluniacensi, who gives this Reason why they would not comply with Austin, because they would not admit of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over them, Ex Pet. Cluniacensi ad Bernardum. Reader, thou must know that Mr. Danvers gave five other Reasons in his Treatise of Baptism to confirm his former Position; and because I said in my Answer they were trifles, he tells me in his Reply that that is an excellent way of Answering, & next to Bellarmin, thou liest. But I must tell Mr. Danvers, I did not only say they were trifles, but proved them such. And because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary, I shall now repeat my Answer to his Reasons, adding a little, and submit it to judgement.  
1. His first Argument, that the Britain's were against Infant-Baptism, was, Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine expressly to the Scripture. Before I speak to this, know, that he hath altered his note; for his first Argument in both his Treatises of Baptism was this, Because the Britain's received the Christian Faith, Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches, who had no such thing as Baptising Children. Now this being more than he can tell, and a Negative Argument as to matter of Fact, is not valid, as I told him in my Answer: and besides, I minded him with that of the magdeburg's, who expressly tell us that Infants-Baptism was in use in the Asiatic Churches, Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. He is so ingenious as to wave that Argument. But to the 1st, as it is here in the Reply, which is, because they kept themselves in Discipline and Doctrine expressly to the Word. This he thinks will effectually do the business, that is, cashier Infants-Baptism from them. To this I answer. 1. To say they kept themselves expressly in Discipline and Doctrine to the Word, is more than Mr. Danvers can prove, and it is more than Jeffery Monmouth speaks, from whom he hath his intelligence. This therefore, that they keep to the express Word is his own Dictate. 2. It is not true what he saith, nor can I apprehend how Mr. Danvers should believe himself; for no Anabaptist believes Episcopal Government to be so expressly set down in the Word, and Mr. Fox tells us as before, that no less than seven Bishops and an Archbishop came out of Wales at Austin's Summons; who were also so proud, that wanting some ceremonious Observance at their first coming to Austin they took such offence, that in disdain and great displeasure they went away. And observe, Reader, the sense of Mr. Fox upon this their carriage; I profess, saith he, I cannot see but both Austin and them were to be blamed, who so much neglected their Spiritual Duties in revenging their Temporal injuries, that they denied to join their helping hand to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation, in which respect all private respects ought to give place, and be forgotten, and for which cause he conceived the stroke of God's Punishment did light upon them afterward. The business of Infants-Baptism never entered into this goodman's mind, as if they refused to comply with Austin on that account, nor is it like that ever the Britain's thought of it.  
2. His next Argument is, Because they were zealous Impugners of Tradition. But by the story we find no such Zeal unless it was against Austin for not honouring them: and besides, this Argument of Mr. Danvers is altogether precarious; for we have showed before that though Austin held Infants-Baptism a Tradition, yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on Circumcision, and the Papists (as Bellarmine) affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected from Scripture. But to make short work with it, I deny that they were such Impugners of Tradition, if the Discpline of Arch-Bishops, and the observation of Easter be Traditions (as Mr. Danvers judgeth them to be;) for as the difference between Austin and them was not about the Subject of Baptism, but the Ceremony; so they differed not about keeping Easter, but only as to the circumstance of time, when it was to be kept. That the Britain's and Picts kept Easter, though not at the same time as the Romish Church did, see Mr. Fox Act. Mon. page 111. where mention is made of a Synod in which the controversy about keeping Easter was debated before King Oswie, Alfrid's Father; and 'tis said Coleman then Bishop of Northumberland, followed not the custom of Rome, nor of the Saxons, but the Picts and Britain's in celebrating Easter from the 14th day of the first month, till the 28th of the same, against whom Wilfrid replied,— The Easter we keep, we have seen at Rome,— the same is used in Italy and France, and finally all the World over, save only by these here present, with their accomplices the Picts and Britain's.  
3. Reason is, Because Constantine the son of Christian Parents was not Baptised till aged, so in his Treatise of Baptism; but in his Reply, 'tis, not baptised in this Island. But we have shown Constantius his Father was no Christian at Constantine's Birth, and in all likelihood lived and died a Pagan, though he had much respect for Christians; and even Constantine himself was a Pagan for sometime after he was Emperor.  
4. Another of his Reasons is, Because the custom of the Britain's was to baptise after Confession of Faith, being in Union and Communion therein with the French Christians; And I told him this was a good Argument to prove they were for Infants-Baptism, because the French Christians afterward called Waldenses were for it, and had used it so many hundred years; witness the Confession at Angrogne.  
Nor will Mr. Danvers his Old Salvo serve his turn, which is, That the ancient Waldenses were against Infants-baptism, though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it. For we have met with something of late that must needs convince him, and that is, that Infants-baptism was practised in the Country where the Waldenses do inhabit, near twelve hundred years since.  
For the Famous French Historian, John de Serres, in his History of France translated into English, tells us, p. 12. That Anno Christi 500, Clovis the great King of France, than an Heathen, desired to marry Clotilde Daughter of Chilperic Brother of Gondebault, King of the Burgundians, (whose Seat was then at Arles in Provence) Gondebault denied Clovis, because of the difference of Religion: Clovis to remove this, promised her liberty of Conscience, so the marriage was concluded. And (saith the Author) although Clovis were a Pagan, yet he was no enemy to the Christians, sitting himself to the humour of the Gauloys, who generally followed the Christian Religion: He suffered his Wife likewise to baptise her Children. So it's plain the Burgundians (from whence the Waldenses sprang) were for baptising Infants; and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the Gauls.  
5. The last of Mr. Danvers' Arguments, that the Britain's were against Infants-baptism, is, because Austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the Rite, that when he came into Britain, and the question was here put to him (I know not by whom) how long a Child that was in danger of Death might stay unbaptised? he was fain to send to Rome for Solution. This is so raw an Argument indeed to prove the Britain's were against Infants-Baptism, that instead of an Answer, it deserves to be laughed at. For at this very day wherein Infants-Baptism is so generally practised, some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof. And if this Argument doth import any thing, it is, that Austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when Children should be baptised. What in the last place he speaks of Hilary, that none were baptised in the Western Churches but the Adult, is confronted in the beginning, where we have shown that he hath no such saying in lib. de Trinitate, the Book referred to, and how he himself was for Infants-Baptism from his 2d Epistle to Austin.  
As for his other witnesses, Munzer and John of Leyden, with the rest of that Faction, though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences, in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge, and withal (very disingenuously) reflects dishonour upon those of the Reformation, I shall not be at so much expense of time and Paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein, but quietly permit him to enjoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses.  
FINIS.