I Shall acknowledg his Reply to be brief, he having replied to little of my book; but how friendly it is, shall afterwards appear.

It seems by his Frontispiece to Mr. Wills, he knew my name to be Blinman, though he was pleased to call me Blind­man, in the head of every leaf; whether designedly or no, he best knows.

As for the severe reflections he charges me withal, I shall answer to them when I come to his particulars. Only I shall at present say in general, that divers judi­cious persons, that have read my answer to him, do say, that I have dealt more gently with him than any they have yet seen, who have written against that per­swasion.

I shall desire the reader to observe, how either ignorantly, or knowingly, he obscures my Argument, and the scope of it, concerning womens receiving the [Page 2]Lord's Supper; as may appear in my Book, pag. 2, and other places. The force of my Argument lay against the Expressness both of the command, and example that he brought: shewing that he could not prove it in express terms] from those Scriptures, it being not said there expresly] that those women were believers, and that they did receive the Lord's-Supper; but it must be ga­thered by consequence, and deduction from those, and other Texts. A thing constantly disowned by those of that perswasion, that I have discoursed with upon that point; for, though they will grant consequences from Scriptures in matters of Faith, yet they professedly de­ny them in matters of Worship, and con­sequently in this of the baptizing of In­fants. Mr. Danvers might therefore have been yet more brief in his Brevity, if his Bolt had been shot less at random, and been levelled point-blank at what I as­serted. Let him shew it, if he can, in express] terms: if not, as he cannot, let him and others rid themselves and their hearers of that dangerous principle, which instead of establishing the ordinances of the Gospel, and the priviledges of the [Page 3]Church, and members of it, (which they pretend to) will shake some of them at least, if not shatter them wholly. And if consequences be lawful (and indeed necessary) in matters of worship at all, why not then allowable in this point of Infants Baptism, which concerns the sub­ject of it?

As for my exception, which seems to him to be defective in Grammar, as well as in Divinity.] He to prove it to be so, brings in examples of the figure Syllepsis; whereby the more unworthy Gender is comprehended under the more worthy; the female under the male. He might have taken notice, if he had not been wedded to his pre-apprehensions; that I did not deny women in Church-estate, to have a right to the Lord's Supper, any more than I denied men; but I only de­nied them to be expresly] said, to have received the Lord's Supper, in the proofs that he produced; which I pray the Rea­der to take notice of, as the hinge upon which the controversy here depends. And therefore I said, pag. 10. of my Book; ‘What Arguments do satisfie me con­cerning the right of women to the Lord's Supper; and how I can resolve [Page 4]this Text (the like I say of others) to my own satisfaction, is not my work at present to declare.’ Whence he might easily judge, that I understand the figure Syllepsis (sit verbo venia) as well as he. He might therefore have spared those lines; to wit, ‘Why should you so forget your self, as to think it strange, that the believing women should be comprehended under the be­lieving men?’ — I did not forget my self, but through grace, knew what I did; as the judicious Reader will easily per­ceive.

As to my defect in Divinity,] I bless God I am somewhat sensible of my de­ficiency therein; and I think it would do him no harm, if he were more sensible of his also. But I do not think my self ever the more deficient because this Gentle­man tells me so; nor upon the ground on which he saith it. His instance of male and female, both called Adam, &c. makes not against my Argument, nor do prove me defective in Divinity. And I wish he had shewn, when, or where I said, that the article [...], is limited to the mascu­line gender so, as [always] to understand thereby the man only, so as to exclude [Page 5]the figure Syllepsis; which every judici­ous Reader will see must be his meaning, if he say any thing. But this I say, and shall still affirm, that the article [...], doth expresly] indicate men, or (if you will) males; and not expresly] women, or fe­males. I say expresly,] and therein lies the force of my Argument against him, and others of his perswasion, who admit only of express] Scriptures in matters of worship, and not deductions or consequen­ces. And yet they are forced to make use of them (though they will not open­ly own them) to maintain some things in matters of worship; as in this very in­stance of his doth plainly appear. And the other instances he brings, are so far from an express] mentioning of women or females, that he must flie to the figure Syllepsis, to comprehend them under the article [...], which is of the masculine gen­der. And hence, he may not only hope, out be assured of it, that I will say the article [...], doth not expresly] signify fe­males; and that as to the expresness of it, it is limited to men, and not women; there being another article [...], expresly to denote the feminine gender, or fe­males.

And this will serve for answer to his other exceptions concerning the other Greek words, [...] and [...] whence may be seen, that my exceptions unto his examples are not insignificant, much less utterly insignificant, as he terms them.

As my own conscience seals to this truth, that women have a right to the Lord's Supper as well as men; so I have without being forced (as he pleases to phrase it) willingly declared it. And that it is not pleasing to me ( take it in my own words, as in pag. 10.) to raise obje­ctions against any truth of God; nor yet would I lose any grain of truth that will flow from a Scripture. This last he hath left out; as perhaps not willing to admit grains of truth, in a point against which he hath been so deeply engaged.

The verity confirmed by me is plain and so, I hope, ere this, is the falsity op­posed by me; which this Gentleman would confirm, or at least so darken, that it might not be perceived.

I come next to the parallel; whether the examples I bring from Lydia and he house, Act. 16.15. 1 Cor. 1.16. or houshold, (for the Greek word is used for both) and the houshold of [Page 7] Stephanas, be not as clear a proof at least, for Infants (or under-age children) bap­tized, as the proofs he brought from Acts 1, and Acts 2; for womens receiving the Lord's Supper, which he excepts a­gainst. — Because,

1. Not one Infant is so much as named in either, much less that they were bap­tized in them.

I answer; he should have taken my words, and sense; viz. children; that is, such as are under age, though not Infants, which he knows to be meant as well as Infants. And it is apparent in Scripture, (which is a better expositor of it self, than he, or all the men in the world) that house, or houshold, doth frequently signify chil­dren, yea one child, 1 King. 17.12, 13, 15. And there being no other converted per­sons mentioned there, (as in some other Scriptures there are, which I then purpose­ly omitted) it is to me more than proba­ble, that by the houshold, is meant a child, or children; which is further illustrated and confirmed upon other grounds in my Book. It is as expresly] said, that a child, or children are the house, (or houshold) and that the houshold was baptized; as it is expresly mentioned, that women [Page 8]were of the number of the 120 Disciples, and that all that believed, broke bread.

Secondly. He asks, are children as ex­presly owned to have right to Baptism, and enjoyned thereto, &c. as women are expresly owned to have right to the ordi­nance of the Supper?

As for other things in that Question about their capability to discern the spi­ritual mysteries thereof, &c. they are an­swered to in my Book, to which I refer the Reader. Nor shall I say much to the other here, I having there also spoken more largely to the substance of it. On­ly I shall say in brief, they are so expresly owned by the Lord in his Covenant made with Abraham, and his Church-seed, Gen. 17.7. (which is now come upon us Gentiles, Gal. 3.13.) the seal only changed; and owned to have a right to the initia­tory-seal then, and never cast out, but confirmed, Acts 2.39. and also compre­hended within Christ's commission, Matt. 28.19. (as I have made appear in my Essay) that it should make him trem­ble to disown them, as he hath done. Add to this, that he whose males were not circumcised, was counted un­circumcised himself, and debarr'd from [Page 9]the Passover, Exod. 12.48. A like pro­portion there is now as to Baptism. I do here but darken what I have more clearly spoken to in my Printed Book, because I would not be tedious; and yet forced to say something to it. Dum brevis esse la­boro; — Obscurus fio.

Thirdly, To his third question, I re­turn, the more is their evil; that the Baptism of the children of in-churched Parents is not acknowledged by them; and that it is not unpleasant to them to raise arguments against it. Ingens glo­ria!

At length, supposing he hath gotten the victory, he marches off with his co­lours flying; saying, that there is not the least parity or comparison to be made be­twixt the one and the other; nor the least considerable pretence to imagine, that any Infants were baptized, because 'tis said that housholds were; and he gives two reasons.

1. Because there are many housholds wherein are no children, and no proof of one infant belonging to either of these two housholds.

2. Because in the four housholds men­tioned to be baptized in Scripture, at least [Page 10]in three of them, only such as were taught believers are comprehended.

Answ. One will suffice our turn: what if no infant were expresly mentioned in those two housholds I mentioned? In Lydia's house there's no mention of any besides her self converted, and yet her house or houshold said to be baptized: as if the Lord would point out unto us, her child, or children, which in other Scrip­tures are set forth by the name of house or houshold, as hath been shewn. And such a ground of an interpretation from the holy Scriptures, ought to be of more value to us, than 10000 cavils of men to the contrary: and would be so, if we had that degree of reverence for the wisdom of God in the Scriptures, as there should be.

Suppose Lydia were a single person: is not a Widow so? and hath not many a Widow a young child, or children? I shall therefore return the Replyers words, vvith some variation, upon himself; viz. Surely it is on their part, that say she had no children, and that her children vvere not baptized, to prove it: especially that she had servants, or other grovvn persons in her house, and that they vvere converted, [Page 11]and were the only houshold there bapti­zed, Acts 16.15. A bold assertion with­out ground from Scripture, is not suffici­ent to prove it. Were the brethren that Paul and Sylas saw at Lydia's house, and comforted, of Lydia's family? ver. 40. Let him make it appear, or else never pro­duce it to overthrow an interpretation grounded upon, and warranted by the Scripture. Paul and Sylas saw the bre­thren, and comforted them at Lydia's house; ergo they were of Lydia's hous­hold. Negatur argumentum.

As for the houshold of Stephanas, it seems they were baptized when the Apo­stle first preached the Gospel in those parts; which seems to be some years be­fore, (how many I cannot yet find). And then those that were baptized in their childhood might be grown up, and con­verted, and so with their godly Father addict themselves to the ministry of the Saints. What Dr. Hamond, or other men of note (Salva reverentia) may con­fess or hold concerning this, is no rule to me, nor to any others, who in humility look up to the Lord for his spirit to guide them into the right understanding of his word.

In the next place, Mr. Danvers comes to examine the parity betwixt the com­mand for womens receiving the Lord's Supper, and that which is pretended (as he pleases to say) by me, for Infants Bap­tism. Let a man examine himself, and so eat, &c. 1 Cor. 11.28.

He is pleased to term what I have said to that command urged by him; A meer trifling in the things of God, and a playing with words to pervert the truth. And a little after, he verily believes that I know there is little but deceit in it.

It seems then he believes I know some­thing (notwithstanding his hard censure) that is not deceit in it. But I must here tell him, and others of his mind, that I abhor the things he charges on me, and his very belief of them. Is this the Gen­tleman that taxes Mr. Wills so severely for his uncharitableness towards him, and many other things? I am sure I gave him no such occasion, whatever he conceives of Mr. Wills. But to return; I know not any deceit in what I have said, nor any purpose I had to deceive; but it was to shew his deceit (which I would have rather called his mistake, but that he hath put the word in my mouth) who will [Page 13]allow of nothing but express Scripture, (I say again, express) in matters of wor­ship; particularly of the Sacraments, and the Subjects-recipient of them. I pro­duced the Greek words in the context, 1 Cor. 11. shewing that they were ex­presly] of the masculine gender, and not of the feminine: and so did expresly] I say again, expresly] denote males, not females. And though the word Anthropos in ver. 28. be of both genders in the gene­ral; yet that it was there expresly limited with a relative of the masculine ( [...]). I say again expresly]; for there is not a word, that I find in the Text, or Context, as to this matter, which is expresly] of the feminine. There is no [...] nor [...]. What I have said therefore, I hope is in serious­ness, and Christian sobriety, to discover, and refute his trifling, and mistakes, and leading others aside: and that he cannot hence expresly, I say expresly] prove, that women should receive the Lord's Supper; but must infer it thence by deduction, and by his figure Syllepsis, spoken of before; which I do not deny, nor ever did. But thence I took, and now do take an advan­tage, to urge him, and others of his mind, to admit of consequences and deductions [Page 14]clearly arising from the Scriptures of truth rightly understood, in this point of In­fants right, in the Covenant of Grace Ecclesiastically dispensed, and of Baptism the initiatory seal of it.

Here Mr. Danvers is in his Trophies again, concluding my exceptions to his command, are as insignificant as those to his example. Let him please himself in his gloryings, till the Lord convince him of the reason he hath to repent of them.— He next falls upon the command I pro­duced for the Baptism of the Infant, &c. of an inchurched Parent, or Parents; and that was Christ's commission, Matth. 28.19. Where I also expounded, Mark 16.15, 16.

Instead of replying to the interpreta­tion of those Texts, (in which, I believe, I had the gracious assistance of God, which I thankfully acknowledge) he refers me (as he saith) for my better information, to the account Mr. Baxter gives of it, &c.

Is this a satisfactory answer to the things there delivered. I suppose Mr. Baxter himself is more ingenious, than to bind up all other men to say only that, and no more, or no otherwise than he [Page 15]saith upon that or other Scriptures; yea, than to bind up himself only to his for­mer notions, in all that he hath written. I could refer him to arguments in Mr. Baxter's Books, that undermine his opi­nion; but I suppose they will not take with him. Doth the Gentleman think I have laid aside my Reason and Religion also? I honour and esteem the labours of learned and pious men, but am not wil­ling (nor I believe are they) that any should make them Lords of their faith, and Masters of their apprehensions. That would be too much Pharisee-like, Matth. 23.7, 8.

But I doubt Mr. Danvers continues his distorting of Mr. Baxter's words, in ex­tending that more generally, which he professedly spake and meant of adult per­sons only, as Mr. Wills hath evidenced to him. But I shall leave it to him to vin­dicate his own meaning.

His Reply to what I said of Infants discipleship, from Acts 15. is nothing against my argument thence. Let the ju­dicious Reader consider of both. Those that the false Teachers prest circumcision upon after the manner of Moses, some of which were children of eight days old, the Holy Ghost calls disciples.

Mr. Danvers his Reply to my Book, is never like to put an end to the controver­sy about Infant-baptism; but as he began the fire, so he increases it: the Lord alone can quench it. And I shall here let him know, that I am resolved at present not to trouble the Press, nor others after this, about this point; which I am sufficiently satisfied in, and have my small share in en­deavouring to satisfie others, which I hope the Lord will accept, though he rejects them, and some others of the more rigid of his perswasion respect me the less be­cause of them; which signifies no more with me than some of them would sig­nify (to most that know them) if they and their mony were separated.

I speak not this as if I were unwilling to serve the Lord in pleading for the truth I have asserted for the future; or afraid of what can be replyed against it; but be­cause I see no end of controverting; and no further good to be expected from it. They will have the last word, and let them have it. There hath been enough said to satisfy those that are willing to re­ceive satisfaction.

I must now give him leave to answer to three or four smart and unhandsome re­flections, and rejoyn to them, and then I shall end.

1. The first is, that I gave him just oc­casion of offence, so unduly to mention his not taking notice of Mr. Baxter 's Errata, without any the least regard to what he had so largely spoken for his satisfaction, and his own vindication; and reproving that his omission with such severity, and wholly passing over those horrible things remark'd by him (without controul as yet) out of Mr. Baxter 's Directory. This he counts partiality in me.

What just occasion of offence I gave him, and what severity I used, let the Reader judge by my words, in my Preface to Mr. Danvers. Sir, hearing of some things in your Book relating to a person of note, who not long before had printed some passages, the noise of which (by the coming abroad of your Book, and as represented by you) filled the minds of many with admi­ration and astonishment, I could not rest till I had gotten a sight of them.

And in my margin I say this; viz. one of which, and a gross one, was from your leaving out the word [not,] mentioned in the Printers Errata, with an Asterisk pre­fixed to it. This is all I said to it; and this was occasioned by a Bookseller, a friend of mine, who in his Shop, turned to the place, and shewed it to me. Judge here the severity of my reproof.

If Mr. Danvers hath so largely spoken for Mr. Baxter's satisfaction, and his own vindication], it was wholly unknown to me, till I read it in this his Reply.

And as for passing over those horrible things remark'd by him, &c. I did not judge it belonged to me to enter the lists with Mr. Baxter in my Answer to Mr. Danvers; yea, though I had been fully satisfied that Mr. Danvers had dealt fairly in those Collections, which yet I never examined; though I hear what some others say. Besides, Mr. Danvers there intimates, as if more would be said to them, or to that effect, (whether by him­self, or others, I know not); and it may be he might have counted me unmannerly to have intruded my self, and so to have prevented others. Why should he think me, whom he judges to be so defective in Grammar, and Divinity, to be fit to grap­ple with so eminent a person in contro­versies of that kind?

2. The second smart Reflection he charges me with, as being injurious to him, is about the Waldenses, whom I pro­duced for Infant-Baptism, faithfully quo­ting the places, and words, out of Paul Perrin's History against Mr. Danvers his allegations.

I can truly say, I never heard of this distinction he gives to clear himself, till I read it in this his Reply; viz. That the ancient Waldenses were against Infant-Baptism, but the more modern he grants were for it; whereas my ignorance sup­posed, both ancient and modern, to be for it. And I must still suppose it, and hold fast to what testimonies I have produced, till I can see better proof of what he says; and that those testimonies I brought, did none of them concern the ancient Wal­denses, but the modern only. And he must also prove that the body of the an­cient Waldenses were against Infant-Baptism, and not here and there one of them; or else his testimony will be noto­riously fallacious. These things I may hold without being injurious to him, or to my own conscience.

Where Mr. Danvers answers to every one of them, which, he saith, I have not regarded] he doth not tell me. He may please to know, if he knew it not before, that my Book was in answer to his first piece, and in a few weeks after his came forth, ready for the Press, and was in Lon­don about ten or twelve months before it was printed. As for his second piece, I [Page 20]never read it to this day; nor have I mo­ny to spare to buy such Books. If this answer satisfie him not, he may charge himself with disingenuity, and not me.

3. He hath to blame me for a piece of unfairness, not to say unfaithfulness, about the word Tabal, [...] which he would have to justifie the dipping of the body all under water, as the only outward way of Bap­tizing. I produced that Hebrew word, pag. 190 of my Book, out of Gen. 37.31. Ruth 2.14. Against which he makes no exception; but he is against my dealing with it in Levit. 14.6. and tells me, as I deal with it, I would necessitate another in­terpretation to be put upon it, than to dip (to wit wholy under) contrary to the Sep­tuagint, &c. and the true force of the word.

My words are these; Is it credible that the Bird that was killed did yield so much blood, as that all those things ( viz. the living Bird, and the Cedar-wood, and the Scarlet, and the Hysop) could be dipped under it, and covered with it? Here he taxes me that I left out the next words, [over the running water.] So I did, as conceiving them not at all to the matter in hand. And I heartily desire that I may never be guilty of unfaithfulness, par­tiality [Page 21]and deceit, in dealing with the ho­ly Word of God, more than I am guilty in this particular; and then I doubt not, but through Christ, to look up with com­fort. It is not said in ver. 6. That he shall dip them, and the living Bird, in the run­ning water; but he shall dip them, & the li­ving bird, in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water, as in ver. 5.

But he taxes me that I took no notice of what follows in ver. 51. viz. And he shall dip them in the blood of the slain Bird, and the running water: but that I went on with my inference, as though the running water was not to be concerned in the case; and say, Is it credible, that the Bird that was killed, did yield so much blood, that all those things could be dip'd under it, and covered with it? &c.— And so I say still, and shall clearly shew, how unfairly he deals with the Word of God, that I may not say (to use his own sense) unfaithfully, partially, & deceitfully. I shall desire the im­partial Reader (for I have no hope to pre­vail with others) to observe how this Gen­tleman deals with the holy word of God, & with me also, & his readers, in this point.

In ver. 5, 6. is handled the case of a lea­prous person; and there those things, and [Page 22]the living Bird, were to be dip'd only in the blood of the Bird, that was killed over the running water, but nothing there spoken of dipping them into the water it self. But in ver. 51. the case is concer­ning a leaprous house, how that should be cleansed? and there it is, that the things fore-mentioned, and the living Bird, are to be dip'd in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water.

Let now the judicious Reader judge which of us hath dealt unfairly, unfaith­fully, partially with the Law, and deceit­fully, he or I. How hath he leaped over above forty verses, to bring in dipping in the water, to maintain his assertion, not at all belonging to the thing treated of? in ver. 5, 6. I shall leave it to his conscience in cool blood, and to all impartial Readers to determine, whether he must not run to a Synecdoche here, that a part of those things only, was dip'd, and not the whole. I would have transcribed several things out of the Jewish Rabbins, quoted by Mr. Ainsworth, but that I should be too prolix. The water was, as they say, as much as an egg-shell and an half.

4. His last unhandsome reflection char­ged upon me, respects an absurdity I [Page 23]charge upon him, which he conceives will return upon my self, and my Partner too, with disadvantage. (I suppose he means Mr. Wills, I can as­sure him, his infor­mation failed him who was far enough from be­ing my Partner). And that is, of his missing it in his Logick, in affirming the right subject of Baptism ( viz. a professed believer) to belong to the matter and es­sence of Baptism: for Answer;

Mr. Danvers saith in his Book to which I answered, that the nullity and utter in­significancy of Infants Baptism, is made ap­pear, in that it wants the essentials; to wit, matter and form. And coming to shew that it hath not a right matter, instead thereof, he brings in the subject, and says, the right subject of Baptism is wanting.

Here I said, he mist it in his Logick; for matter is one of the two essential causes that gives being to the effect; but the subject is not so, but in order of na­ture at least, follow the effect. It is Ar­gumentum modo quodam consentaneum, and not Absolute consentaneum, as cause and effect are.

To this he replies, that the subject be­longs to the matter and essence of Bap­tism, will be justified by Burgersdicius, who tells him, that the subject belongs to [Page 24]the matter, [and is of the essence thereof], &c. To which I rejoyn, that I cannot find in Burgersdicius the least foot-step of this last assertion, to wit, that the subject is of the essence of the matter, but in effect, the quite contrary; as appears by his de­finition of the subject. A subject, saith he, is that to which something is adjoyned besides the essence. Subjectum est cui aliquid prae­ter essentiam adjungitur. Cap. 19. Instit. Log. p. 79. Quae de ali­quo praedicantur essentialiter, huc non pertinent, ut ex subje­cti & Adjuncti definitione in­telligitur. Therefore (I infer) the subject cannot be of the essence of the matter; for that gives part of the essence to to the effect. And a­gain, those things that are predicated, (that is, spoken of another thing) essen­tially, do not belong to this, as appears (saith he) by the definition of subject and adjunct.

It's true that Burgersdicius distributes matter into of which, Materia ex qua, in qua, & circa quam in which, and about which (and so do other Logicians). But in the same Theorem ( in Cap. 16. de Mat. & forma Theorem; 3 Sect. 2.) he also tells us, that the matter in which] is the sub­ject; and the matter about which] is the object, which he refers to be spoken of in their proper place; to wit, his 19th. [Page 25]Chapter de Subjecto & Adjuncto. Materia est id, ex quo inex­istente, ali­quid fit. Materia est causa interna ex qua ali­quid fit, vel constat. Sect. 1. Theor. 3. But the matter of which] saith he, is matter pro­perly so called, which in his 16th. Chap­ter, where he treats of matter and form, as essential causes, he defines thus; Mat­ter is that, of which inexisting, any thing is made. And again, matter is an inter­nal cause of which any thing is made, or consists. And this is the only, matter that is essential, and gives being to the thing, together with the essential form; and not the matter in which], and about which], which are subject and object. The matter is indeed part of the essence of the subject, and not the subject of the essence of the matter.

Let the Reader now judge what dis­advantage hath befallen me, or the truth I have asserted, by this of Burgersdicius; and whether it hath not wholly fallen up­on the Replier himself, and the cause he pleads for. I cannot but observe how unhappy this Gentleman is in his dea­ling with Authors, so as to miss the right sense of them. Unto which I shall fur­ther add, that if that sentence, to wit, that the subject is of the essence thereof ( i.e. the matter) be not to be found in Burgersdicius (as I cannot yet believe it is) [Page 26]then he hath clearly forged one falshood to establish another.

And as for that out of Tilenus, it makes not against me at all; for, he saith not, that the subject-recipient is the ma­teria ex qua, the matter of which] of Bap­tism. Besides, if he had said so, his [...] would not have swayed any man, except one resolved to subjugate his Rea­son and Religion also to his dictates. I suppose Mr. Danvers would be loth to stand to his judgment in sundry other things.

As to that out of Alex. de Halys; if the authority of both those mentioned be worth any thing in this case, yet surely Mr. Danvers his Translation is worth lit­tle. Tinctio est formalis causa Baptismi, & si tinctio, non lotio, vel lavatio, vel ablutio: which he translates thus; Dipping is the formal cause of Baptism, and if dipping, then not washing or pouring. How ab­lutio should [directly] signify pouring, is beyond my Construing-book to inform me; however, I am very willing to ac­cept of his grant, that it signifies such a washing as is by pouring on water, op­posed by him to dipping; and then it will yield us something, which draws near [Page 27]at least to sprinkling. If my memory fail me not, he useth it in his first Book, to set forth dipping; (I have not the Book by me, to search it out). But that by tinctio there, the Authors mean, not dipping, but rather aspersion or sprinkling, I shall offer these two things for.

1. A phrase that Dr. Couper in his Dictionary hath out of Ovid, who doubt­less well knew the signification of Latin words. Corpus tingere sparsa aqua; which the Dr. renders, To wash his body by ca­sting water on it. Whence it seems tingo] is not always used, for to dip, but some­times to asperse or sprinkle. Sparsa aqua.

2. The opposition here, between tinctio on the one part; and lotio, lavatio and ablutio on the other. If tinctio here, be dipping, then the others must be sprink­ling, which he renders pouring; a wash­ing by pouring on water. It must be one of these two; for there's no other way of Baptizing, besides dipping and sprink­ling; if dipping, then not sprinkling; if sprinkling, then not dipping. And it seems Mr. Danvers could not avoid the translating of ablutio, by pouring], if he meant to make tinctio, dipping. I am much mistaken if lotion and ablution be [Page 28]not used by him in the Book I answered, contra-distinct to sprinkling, and for dip­ping; but I will not positively assert it, for I would not wrong him.

To draw to an end, I return his own words, with a little mutation, and addi­tion; if those learned be not right, or he hath misapprehended or misused them, then sure, he my reprover is wrong, and deserves blame and shame for his rashness, or something more.— By what I have said will appear, that his Logick hath not proved the subject to be of the essence of the matter of Baptism.

In baptizing the infants, or young chil­dren of an inchurched Parent, we do not alter and change the subject, but do give them what God hath appointed should be given to such, whose Parent is externally in covenant with him: and that is, the initiatory sign and seal of that covenant of grace which God made with Abraham and his Church-seed. See more at large in my Essay. But I am forced to say some­thing to it, that the Truth of God, and the Church of God, may not suffer by my silence.

As or the baptizing of Swords, &c. he may please to remit it to the Pope, and his Croissa­does.— Nulla selus bello, pacem te posctmus.