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 't is true those words before-mentioned 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 new-born Infant is excepted then comes in those words Because every age is subject to Sin every age is fit for the Sacrament and the very next words are these eadem ratione Baptismum asserit Pervulorum lib. 10. Epistolarum Epistola 84. that is by the same reason he asserts Infants-Baptism in the eighty fourth of his 10th Book of Epistles Whether now Mr. Danvers hath not weakly opposed and dealt sophistically with this Quotation of Ambrose and whether it be not a pitiful shift in him to say the being fit for the Sacrament of which Ambrose speaks must be supposed to be meant of those only who are capable to confess Faith is submitted to the judgment of the impartial Reader As for what he objects that if every age be fit for the Sacrament in regard every age is obnoxious to sin then Infidels are fit subjects of Baptism I answer that the foregoing words of Ambrose viz. Neither the Old man that is a profelyte nor the New-born Infant is excepted shew that he speaks of those who are within the Church The last man that we bring for Infants-Baptism and excepted against by Mr. Danvers is Nazianzen and 't is observable that he confesseth what we urge from him hath most in it It seems then I was mistaken for I thought what we bring from Chrysostom and Ambrose had altogether as much in it as what is re-urg'd from Nazianzen The words quoted from this Father are out of his 40 oration viz. Hast thou a Child let it be early consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its Infancy To which he replyes 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 judgment was they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less and so be baptized nevertheless say they in some other place of that Oration Nazianzen declares omni aetati Baptisma convenire That Baptism is fit for every age comporting herein with Ambrose as before But whether I or Mr. Danvers do impose a fallacy let the Reader judg by what follows 1. Nazianzen was for baptizing Children in case of danger though as young as the Children of 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 baptized without knowledg than to die without it for saith he it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel upon which Vossius hath this note in his Thesis of Baptism Non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infants-Baptism and his judgment will be taken as soon as most mens 2. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for a state of Childhood yet in that place of Nazianzen we mention it is not to be taken so largely that is Children of some understanding as Mr. Danvers doth suggest because of the instance of Circumcision given by the Father 3. Nazianzen being a Greek-Father intends the word according to its proper signification and as it is generally taken in the New-Testament as well as in prophane Authors and that is a state of Infancy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Infant saith Mr. Leigh Crit. Sac. and is properly spoken de partu recens edito of a Child newly born quoting Beza on Luke 18. 15. who saith the word properly is taken for Infantes teneri nimirum adhuc ab uberibus pendentes parvuli i. e. Sucking Babes such as are carried in arms The same word is given to Christ when the Wise-men found him in swadling-clouts Luke 2. 12. And we have it again for a new-born Babe 1. Pet. 2. 2. As new-borne Babes desire the sincere Milk of the word c. But Mr. Danvers hath not done with Nazianzen yet and therefore frames an Objection for us and answers it himself thus It is not manifest that in case of death he would have an Infant baptized To which he answers It is true but that was not quà Infant but as a dying person We see by this acute distinction that our Antagonist is not only a Critick but that he hath some Logick too in which he saith he owneth little skill but that little I suppose is in that part which they call Sophistry or the abuse of Logick But that the weakness of this distinction may appear consider 1. That it is true Nazianzen would not have an Infant baptized quà Infant 2. It is untrue that Nazianzen would have an Infant baptized quà a dying person for if they were to be baptized under either of these Considerations then had he been for the baptizing all Infants and dying persons promiscuously 3. But Nazianzens judgment was to have them baptized because they were the Children of Christians in iminent danger of death They were such as were capacitated for that Ordinance on the account of God's Covenant else why doth he speak of circumcising Children in the very place which is now under debate Melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non Signatos et initiatos vitâ excedere Nazianz. Orat. 40. It is better saith he they should be consecrated without their knowledg than to die without the Seal and not be initiated idque nobis designat octavum diem circumcisio illa itaque fuit figurale signaculum ac propter irrationales introducta For so it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel But let the account be what it will upon which Nazianzen would have Children
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 baptize them Paraeus upon Matth. 3. 7. hath those words Ad eos Infantes 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 c. non quod doctrina non debeat praecedere baptismum in adultis sed quod debeat etiam sequi in infantibus baptizatis 1. The general command of Christ Go disciple all Nations appertains to Infants neither doth it hinder because Infants can not be taught for the Greek word doth not properly signifie to teach as it is commonly rendred but make disciples as it is expounded Joh. 4. 1. According to Christ's Command Teaching doth follow Baptism For it is Baptizing them and then teaching them to Observe Make disciples by Baptizing and Teaching c. not that Teaching ought not to go before Baptizing in the Adult but that it ought also to follow in baptized Infants Spanhemius in his Dubia Evangelica tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render teach signifies to make disciples which is done saith he by Baptizing and Teaching and he gives this reason for this his Analysis because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie only to teach there would be found a tautologie in Christ's words Thus Go Teach all nations Baptizing them Teaching them The sense therefore saith he of Christs words is this Goe ye make Disciples to me out of all nations by Baptizing and Teaching and the former way of making disciples Infantibus etiam aptari poterat may be applyed to Infants 4 I think I could bring some scores that understand the Commission in this sense and therefore argue against the Anabaptists thus The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature All nations must be discipled but Infants are a part of this Creation are included in all Nations therefore they must be made disciples also for Them in the Commission must refer to Nations or else it relates to nothing for it hath no relative besides to answer to and therefore Infants being a part of the Nation where the Gospel is preached must be baptized Thus we see hitherto Mr. Danvers cannot discharge himself of the charge of Prevarication and perverting the Authorities produced by him but like a discontented man is angry with every Body he meets with that crosseth his humour and therefore falls a Skirmishing with the Lutherans Calvin Baxter and concludes bitterly against me with an Appeal to the Reader whether it can be supposed I did read his Book and answer it with consideration and so whether I ought not to be esteemed a person extreamly void of Reason and Conscience And let the Reader likewise judge whether this be suitable to the Title of his Book A Sober Reply to Mr. Wills against whom I may rightly object that of Ambrose on the 119 Psal. Quem veritate non potest lacerat convitiis 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 my self a solid grave person a Minister of the Gospel a Master of Arts and a Learned Man and one that hath spent much time in the University which is more than ever I profest or pretended to he thinks it not enough to render me ridiculous but wicked also and therefore insinuates that I have a peculiar malignity against his person whom I never saw as well as against the Truth To which I shall only say That Mr. Danvers hath cause to repent of his great Uncharitableness especially because I have exprest my Charity towards him declaring in my Infant-Baptism Asserted part 2. page 224. That I hope he is a Godly-Man and I appeal to the searcher of Hearts in this matter who knows that he wrongs me that I look upon him rather as an Object of pity than hatred And for that other which is much worse that I have a malignity against the Truth I can speak it in sincerity my Conscience bearing me witness that I can do nothing willingly and knowingly against the Truth 2 Cor. 13. 8. Wherefore I desire him to search his own Heart whether the malignity be not there and so I shall leave him to our great Master whose Prerogative it is to judg and who I hope may in time convince him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jude 15. of all his virulent Speeches Mr. Danvers having thus discharg'd his Stomach offers to joyn issue with me in order to the speedy trial at whose door the Falshood lies He hath made a good beginning hath he not and 't is very like we shall have as good an end 1. First I charge him with Falshood for saying the Magdeburgs tell us that in the first Century the Apostles Baptized only the Aged I told him the Falsehood lay in this because he addeth the word Only which is not spoken by them And how doth he clear himself of this Why by inveighing against me Suo more and telling the World that I am an injurious Man and charge on him a Falsehood of my own making how so Since saith he my words are thus As to the subjects of Baptism the Magdeburgs tell us that in this Age they find they Baptized only the Adult or Aged I do not say saith he that they tell us that in this Age they Baptized only the Adult risum teneatis amici Reader I think thou art hard put to it to find how I have injured him for it seems by his own confession they tell us they baptized only the Adult but I wrong him for not putting in his other words that they did find it But it is to be supposed that whatever they did tell us they did find it But I must tell Mr. Danvers that they do not say that they find they only Baptized the Adult This is all they say Baptizatos esse adultos exempla probant de infantibus baptizatis exempla quidem annotata non leguntur Examples prove that the Adult were Baptized and as for the Baptizing of Infants we read not any Examples upon Record Now for to say that the Magdeburgs tell us they find they Baptized Only the Adult is as he brings it in a subtle insinuation to deceive the Reader for the words being placed in that order by themselves do import as if the Magdeburgs did not look upon Infants-Baptism as Apostolical or that any such were baptized in the Apostles days whereas their very next words
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 baptized his Book though little of either is found in it who lays down this position That no part of Gods 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. Gerâ—â— and some other Divines that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular circumstances or the subject to which that Ordinance is to be apply'd For the Ordinance it self 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 it self 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 iâ— 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 it self 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 Scripturis necesse est certa non expressa nominatim oracula de omnibus quaecunque afillis Dei sive publice sive privatim suscipi convenit Mr. Danvers hath pickt up another saying of Mr. Collins before his Vind. Minist Evang. viz. That in things relating to the worship of God nothing ought to be done without express Warrant in the Gosple This Assertion of Mr. Collins's in that latitude as it is laid down is liable to exception for there are many Circumstances relating to Gods worship as time place and order that are not so expresly 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 Souldiers that took up the practice of Preaching without Ordination and his endeavouring to make the bow straight 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 closly 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 Womens 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 Womens receiving the Lord's Supper are in express terms against him it being these all that beleived were together and as he argues rightly the Greek phrase is expresly of Men and not of Women viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being masculin expresly limits it to Men and not to Women c. 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 first-Day 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 Womens 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 judg 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 shewn Thus we have manifested the Sophistry and weakness of Mr. Danvers's 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 Triumviri I cannot imagin unless it be because one is an Independant 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 linkt 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 whilest 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 judgment in what follows 1. He tells us he will allow of Consequences when there is express Scripture for the thing else-where 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 avail'd 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-Commandments without Consequences and very few will be found literal transgressors but most deplorable debaucht 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 Baptized have they any express Word or Example for it doth he not fly to rational Inference how doth he know Baptizing 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 Judg 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's Torch they might have seen what had been plain proper and true Inferences but the Vanity of his discourse in this kind we have shewed 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 Oyl Spittle 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 Oyl Spittle c. This trumpery is an addition of his own to render Infant-Baptism odious although he knows it was used also in the Baptizing 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 enjoyned 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. Taylors 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 Baptized 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 inforcing 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 Judg 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 falshood Lastly he concludes that till any instance be produced of any Child that was Baptized 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 Magdeburgs that the Records of Antiquity say nothing of the particular persons either Infants or Adult that were Baptized in the third Century but only there is mention made of one Family Baptized 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 Baptize Children as we have it in the same place before-mentioned 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 Baptized it Let Mr. Danvers's Friends judg whether this be not enough if no more could be said to confute all his Discourse about Antiquity Add hereunto this
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 administred to Infants as well as grown men Tombes 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. Tombes himself doth lend us his helping hand to pluck down this rotten fabrick 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 crambe we had in effect long since by Mr. Tombes in his Exercitation There were many other things saith he went under the name of a Tradition which were but meer humane Inventions What then Ergo Infant-Baptism which went under the name of a Tradition is also human Invention Shall I shew 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 'T is true saith he many things in those days went under the name of Apostolical Tradition which were but humane Inventions and 't is as true as before is fully shewn 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 Ax to the root of the tree But to this I answer 1. The Magdiburgs do not question it but own it as authentick as any of the rest of the Councils Cent. 3. C. 9. p. 203. 2. Mr. Tombes was so wise as never to question it in all the contest he had with Mr. Marshall 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 't was at Carthage no doubt Mr. Danvers would then give me the lye 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 Latines 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 c. But when I speak of an esteem of it my meaning is That they did not judg 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 falle 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 judg weak and leaving other unanswered Whenas I profess I let many things pass because of their weakness and have even wearied my self out with making answers to his Impertinencies I could have given him the same answer which Mr. Marshall did to Mr. Tombes near 30 years since when he objected the weakness of Cyprian's grounds viz. If what Cyprian spake was weighed in the Ballance of his judgment it would not be found light and even Mr. Tombes himself confesseth that Jerom and Austin relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of Baptizing Infants which acknowledgment saith Mr. Marshall strengthens my opinion of the worth of Cyprians grounds for two such eminent men would not have relyed 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. Tombes saith Tossanus notes it for Cyprian's Error That Infants should be baptized ne pereant lest they perish 2. That it washeth away original sin so as it is never to be imputed This is the judgment 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 judg 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 tendred to all therefore all Children should be Baptized I see no such weakness in this for though it be laid down in such general terms that Grace is to be tendred to all and none hindred from coming to Christ yet as Mr. Marshal observes what he saith ought to be understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified and 't was concerning such that Fidus stood in need to be informed as to the time of Baptizing and the Magdeburgs 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's dress The Magdeburgs express it otherwise thus Si quid hominem impedire a baptismo potius adultos peccata sua arcere deberent quam Infantes 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 Rhetorick in Cyprian importing only that Children are objects of
Mercy 6. Because the Soul that is not baptized is lost This is to the same purpose with the first but the Magdeburgs 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 Baptizing Infants Therefore Mr. Danvers must find it elsewhere or else he split the first Reason into two cujus est darâ— 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 Magdeburgs the Fathers Greek and Latine and even by Mr. Tombes 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 Magdeburgs 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 Lye 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 reckon'd 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 shews 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 baptizing the Children only of In-Churched 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 shewed 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 acknowledg Tertullian hath divers passages seemingly against Infants-Baptism but according to his humor 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 baptizing than of grown persons baptizing and in the 43 page we shewed 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 dye unbaptized 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 judgment 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 priviledg 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. Tombes 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 opinione pueros non tam cito baptizandos osse atque ad illud Matthaei 19. Nolite parvulos prohibere c. Tertullian say they is of a strange opinion to disswade the Baptizing 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 baptizing of Children or have urged that the coming there was a coming to Christ for Baptism who never Baptized 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
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 judg how fairly I have dealt therein and truly 't is 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 acknowledg 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 cashier'd 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 joyn'd 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 begining 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 vertue of God operating is within us the Renovation of the Spirit and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ by which also we are receiv'd 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 vertue of God operating and the last Clause by which also we are received into the Congregation c. 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 expresly 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 thieves and the Apocalyptical Harlot This Confession Mr. Danvers hath left out in his Reply and I know not the reason unless it be beeause 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 Gods Ordinances then is he worshipped in vain and which is done when Grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and persons enjoyned 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 Baptizing 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 Baptized with the superstitious Rites of Salt Oyl Spittle c. they charg'd them with denying Insant-Baptism This is the Judgment 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 above-mentioned Confessions Mr. Danvers should have rectified me and forborn the out-cry which he makes in his Preface for abusing the Consessions 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 my self to the Judgment 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 perswade my self an impartial eye cannot discern it but 't is 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
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 cashier'd and Mr. Danvers must have an unparallel'd 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 publickly as the former but Guitmund and Cassander say quem tamen Errorem in publicum non produxit that is he never publickly denied Infant-Baptism Mr. D. translates it not so publickly 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 Magdeburgs 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 de 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 Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians for denying Infant-Baptism It is true he tells us that the Arch-Bishop did eos diocesi sua expellere because illius doctrinam populis disseminarent but that Thuanus should say he did it because they denyed Infant-Baptism is one of Mr. Danvers's 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's 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 beleive 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's 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. Marshall says to Mr. Tombes 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 Bishops Mitre and the Monks 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 damn'd 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 Chrisme and Oyl and Spittle in the baptizing 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 through-out 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 denyed Baptism to little ones affirming that only the Adult should be baptized 'T is 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 baptized 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 denyed 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 medled with in that Council I let pass also Vice-comes because he writes palpable lyes how that Luther Calvin Beza denyed Infants-Baptism and why because as Mr. Danvers say's 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 my self with Patience for Mr. Danvers is come to his Paroxysme and would even move a Stoick 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 belyed Osiander belyed Cluniacensis belyed Peter Bruis belyed the Truth which by this forgery he would cover abused the World belyed 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jude 14. Or shall I bespeak Mr. Danvers in the Language of Craesus 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's Preface I will not render railing for railing it being ever judg'd 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 judg'd 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 applyed them to Peter Bruis and Henricus of the 11th though I find all of them joyned together by the Magdiburgs under Cent. 12th The occasion of this mistake was a cursory reading of Dr. Homes his Answer to Mr. Tombes the Book being lent only for a day or two where the said Doctor reckons up about 20 errors charg'd upon the Albigenses as he hath it from Osiander I profess that I speak the truth I had no design to misrepresent Mr. Danvers's pretended witnesses and to cast a slur upon it and I hope this is enough to satisfie 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 Judgings 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 my self 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 judg 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's 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 ballance 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 expresly say the contrary viz that 't is meant of the fleshly and natural Seed and Estius declares his judgment against him And if I were addicted to such Billings-gate language I could retort upon him He belyes Calvin he belyes 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 fetcht from the Catholique Emperours and Popes Councils and the rest of the Tribe that follows Monkes Abbots Inquisitors I shall believe it as much as that of Vice-comes who saith not only Peter Bruis c. 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 Baptize 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 c. 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 denyed 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 denyed it For Vindication of my self 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 don 't prove Rainerius charges them with