the ingraffing of the Gentiles What hee saith yet they shall be ingraffed as a visible Church and this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church taking as reduplicatively cannot bee true for then every visible Church should have all in it saved and for the reasons he brings to prove they are answered before the fathers are nor mentioned as roots but Abraham who is a root not of the visible Church aâ— such but of the invisible of true believers and they are ingraffed as the other were broken off from the invisible Church Mr. Bl. saith This arg well husbanded might have made three to the first I say that a Churchstate in Scripture phrase is salvation Job 4.22 seeing Churchmembers are partakers of saving ordinances And the fruition of ordinances under Gospel dispensations is a great salvation Heb. 2.3 And so that text Rom 11.26 And so all Israel shall be saved must be understood as I told Mr. T. p. 67. of my answer out of the last annotations and so Diodate Answ. This then is the meaning of Rom. 11.26 All Israel shall bee saved that is they shall be in a visible Churchstate partakers of saving outward ordinances under Gospel dispensations But can Mr. Bl. or any sober man think this to be the meaning they shall be saved that is they shall be in such an estate in which they may bee damned and in which many are damned or that God where hee mentions the effect of his his great Covenant of the Gospel means no more but such an estate Is this all or any part of the new Covenant Heb. 8 10 c. Heb. 10.16 17. to have a meer visible Churchstate I did alwayes think the Covenant of Grace had promised the spirit of Christ thâ—t the Ministery thereof was of the spirit 2 Cor 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. not of a meer visible Churchstate And sure if we look to the place whence these words are quoted as Mr. â—l saith Isai. 59.20 Jerem. 31.34 there is an express promise of the spirits continuance upon them which is sure much beyond a visible Churchstate As for what he brings out of Scripture it is shamefully wrested For Joh. 4.22 a meer visible Church-state is not termed salvation but whether by it bee meant by a metonymy the doctrine of salvation or the authour of salvation Christ himself it is certainly another thing then a meer visible Churchstate yea in that sense the speech were absurd to term a meer visible Church-state salvation and false to say thaâ— the visible Churchstate was of the Jewes And for the other text â—eb 2.3 it doth not term the fruition of outward Ordinances under Gospel dâ—spensations great salvation but the great benefit purchased by Christ termed eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 declared and offered in the Gospel Diodati annot on Heb. 2. â— So great namely everlasting redemption revealed and communicated by the Gospel and implâ—citely opposed by the Apostle to the temporal deliverance out of Egypt for the contemning of which the Israelites were punished in the wilderness And though the new Annot. and Diodati paraphrase Rom. 11.26 by put into the way of salvation yet they do not restrain this to a meer visible Churchstate yea both add that by all Israel may be understood the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 of Jews and Gentiles which is the invisible Church And Diâ—son thus parapâ—raseth the words And so all Israel that is the multitude of Jews comprehending the body of the people dispersed shall be converted And Piscator in his Scholie The fulness of Israel shall be saved to wit being effectually called by the preaching of the Gospel and justified by faith in Christ. But what is said of all Israel is not to be extended to each but to be understood of the greatest part from which the denomination is wont to be made Mr. Bl adds And such men brought into a Churchstate are turned from iniquity partially from their former way of iniquity their contradicting and blaspâ—eming having escaped the pollution of the world 2 Pet. 2.6 of the world â—hat remains out of the Church of God Answ. 1 Were this the meaning yet infants should be excluded who are not thus turned 2. That such a partial turning cannot be meant is manifest in that the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungodlinesses that is all sorts of ungodliness from Jacob that is as Piscator in his scholie by pardoning or remitting and justifying by faith and this to be done by the redeemer which shall come out of Sion who so turns from iniquity as to bless them whom he turns Acts. 3.26 which doth not agree to Mr. Bls. partial turning More rightly Diâ—son thus paraphraseth the words He foretelleth that so it should be that the true redeemer should free his nation from the guilt and servitude of sin the iniquities of that people being pardoned and that it should be that he would receive them into the Covenant of grace to the full abolishing of sin But saith Mr. Bl. Their sin is pardoned quoad hoc and when Moses prayed for the pardon of the sin of Israel Exod. 32. and God promiseth it 2 Chron. 7.14 it is so to be understood of a national pardon Answ. A partial pardon quoad hoc of some particular sin and releasing onely of some particular evil cannot be meant Rom. 11.26 27. sith it is a taking away of their sins by the agency of the redeemer that comes out of Sion and according to Gods Covenant to them which 1. the same with that Jer. 31 33. Heb. 8.12 10.16 17. in which eternal redempâ—ion and inheritance are assured Heb. 9.12 15. I grant it shal be a nationaâ— pardon understanding by nation the greatest or chiefest part of the nation but different from the pardon obtained by Moses Exod. 32. or promâ—sed 2 Chron. 7.14 To what I said in answer to Mr. Geree that I thought at the Jews restauration there shall be some of them formalists and hypocrites but none of the re-ingraffed Mr. Bl. replies The re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes and therefore were hypocriâ—es and formalists and the ingraffed such as might fall which is not spiritual Israel but carnal But the Text doth not say the Jews shall be re-ingraffed in their shead that sell away by multitudes but onely that the Gentiles be graffed into the Olive in stead of the Jews broken off v. 17. and the Jews shall be re-ingraffed when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in and both be ingraffed together not the one broken off to make room for the other as in the calling of the Gentiles v. 19. Yet were it so as Mr. Bl. saith how doth it follow the re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes Ergo the re-ingraffed were some of them formalists and hypocrites I conceive it follows rather on the contrary those that fell away were hypocrites therefore they that are ingraffed in their stead are living branches
much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense the Church beiâ—g the number of persons taught and on whom bapâ—izing 〈…〉 not the personâ— teaching or practising who are stilâ—d â—he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in Sâ—â—ipâ—ure 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 Nâ—â—â—ianzen taugâ—â— that infant children indefinitely considered might be baptised and if dâ—â—ger â—pproached must how young soever they wâ—â—e 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Coâ—ncel mentionâ—â— in Cypâ—ian Epist. 5◠〈…〉 whicâ— it is true determined in opposition t◠〈◊〉 his scrâ—ple the lawfulness of baptizing any day but not of any infants who were likely â—o live without apparent shew of danger of death but â—aâ—her â—he contrary is manifest from their reason wâ—y they would hâ—ve them baptâ—zed any day afore thâ— 8th bâ—cause the son of man â—am to save mâ—ns souls as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be loâ—â— and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th Nâ—w this 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 onely of those infants who being in apparent danger of dâ—ath would be lost if not baptized Nâ—w it is true 〈…〉 and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists thaâ— baâ—tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised peâ—â—sh and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practise of the Church yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists who contrary to Nazianzens mind would not have infants baptized in that case onely or for his reason but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death and not deferred upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing 2dly saith Dr. Hammond that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that or former ages to authorize it Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church and to be of equal authority as Cyprians and his Councels Augustines and Hieroms 3dly Saith Dr. Hammond that the state of children being so weak and uncertain that 't is hard to affirm of any that they are not for the first three years in any danger his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger but of urgent or pressing danger as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 press urge or impel shews And thus it is practical as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew Fourthly saith he that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose â—arents are newly converted and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Answ. The reasons being general this restriction appears groundless not is the Drs. conceit of any validity that because four pages before â—e speaks to them therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onely Lastly saith he that the deferring till three years old if it were allowed would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions and so still the former passages ought be of force with all and no heed given to the whispers of Mr â— and others as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger when he clearly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear I do not deprehend I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them 2. Thaâ— men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours if they seek the truth impartially I know not sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old will not satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted no nor till thirty except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ But it satisfies us in this that Nazianzens judgement was that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism unless in case of imminent and apparent danâ—er of death though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct theâ— 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism and from the nayles signifie tender age yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy judged it better to have them first instructed If he did he would have it to onely in case of danger of death imminent But saith Dr. Homes p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years it is so much the better for us â—nsw I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen that the danger of deaâ—h is a sufficient reason for the baptiâ—zing an infant for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism ex opere operato and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him sith it thwarteth his opiâ—ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holineâ—s and his practise of doing iâ— ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case And it would bee considered that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing in a different manner and upon a different ground as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists that their alleging the ancients commemoratiâ—n of the dead proves not the Popish prayiâ—g for the dead to be ancient as Dr â—sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory and for them that are there the Ancients for the Apostles Martyrs c. who are past Purgatory and for their resurrection in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery which either was necessary onely by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times or if voluntary yet with labour of their hands and so different from the Popish Moâ—kery which is idle besides Gods appointment volâ—nâ—â—râ— superstitious upon an imagined perfection in that
of grace in the judgement of charity and that baptism seals regeneration c. not conferred but to be conferred Dr. Th Goodwin that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump yet all make the promise I will be the God of thy seed applied to infants of believersâ— contain the promise of saving grace and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion As for the two cases he puts I neither grant all the Infants of the Jewes nor visible Christian professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant it 's the Pedobaptists expression not mine except where I use the term to express their mind nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank that is that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made when I speak after mine own mind But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank it was not because I took it so to be but because the Paedobaptists so count it as Mr. Calvins words before recited shew SECT XXXI Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant and the severall sealings of them BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and he teâ—s me that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Iesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers and so to every one who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism Answer Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and I am very willing so to do as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken and do abuse others in this point by reason of their inconsideratenass or superficial consideration of this thing The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Souldier to his Generall in Ecclesiastick Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion and it is used most by the African Writers Tertullian Augustine c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks Chrysostome Cyril c. Chamier Paustrat Cath tom 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem serò tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat quod diligenter attendendum Certè sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum qui suo exemplo posteris praiit deinde Augustini definitione c. Whence I inferre that as the term Sacrament so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments some making seven some three most Protestants two onely would be lessened if moderate learned men had the handling of it I confesse that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly shew the two rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper to be the chief rites of the Church as 1 Cor. 10 1 2 3 4. 12 13. Eph. 4 5. Mark 16.16 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 11.23 c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments or sets down one generall nature of them in a certain definition of them cannot be demonstrated They are certain rites appointed for certain vses according to certain rules but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites as laying on of hands c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture Divines elder and later have framed their definitions according to their own conceits After Augustines time that definition was commonly received in Schools That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zuinglius that they did conferre gratiam ex opere operato give grace by the â—aâ—e outward use of them Zuinglius denying them to be any more than signs the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacie the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe used by them all whereupon the opposers of infant-baptisme falsly termed Anabaptists proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine I wil set down Mr. Bedfords words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther No Faith no Baptism Coetaneous with him was Zuinglius and others who to overthrow the reall presence insisted upon it â—hat Sacraments were but signs for representation and when that doctrin was once broached the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it To answer whom the Lutherans maintain that by baptism or before they are made believers as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Montâ—elgard cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 15 p. 143. shew Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus â—it lavacrum regenerationis teste Paulo sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum Ecclesiae vel in ipso actu baptismi regenerationis quae siâ—e fide esse non potest And to this opinion did many in England warp when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part 3â— Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant Dr. Ward Mr Thomas Bedford which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford notwithstanding the late Synectism or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford Brother you know my mind that I conceive the ground of Anabaptisme to have been the erroneus Doctrine
that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest was held in the beginning of the world Gen. 3.15 that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a meer figment But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed He tells us The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan v. 25 26. to the future Church state of Japhet v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams Babes as soon as born were to be slaves but Japhet parent child are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate as is evident Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely held forth as his new Gospel is here I see not why we should so much blame as we do Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose than this is for Mr. C's The servil condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them and the Gibeonites were made slaves which though it did extend to their Children yet was not such but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel as Araunah the Jebusite and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Faâ—â—h Matth. 15.28 and therefore not excluded from the visible Church And for the blessing of Japhet whether we read it God shall enlarge Japhet as some or perswade Japhet as others I see not how it is well cleared that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Jaâ—het as the Greeks and others into the visible Church because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japhet whereas the Tyrians and Sidonians and Carthaginians and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well if not as soon as many of the Posterity of Japhet as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them and famous Writers And therefore for my part I encline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon and possessing Palaestina of which Judaea was a part or of the Romans subduing Carthage and possâ—ssiâ—g Judaea But â—e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick state of these people with what Argument will Mr. C. prove That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem is refered rather to the visible than the invisible Church They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body and partakers of Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel Ephes. 3 6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel and so of the invisible Church than to understand it of the visible Church as visible as I have shewed in the first part of this Review yet were it meant of the visible Church there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japhet as soon as they are born For what though it be that Canaan and Sem and Japhet â—e all collectively taken yet Mr. C. himself pag. 161. hath taught us That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes collectively taken are true in respect of the choice or refuse part and so may or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude nor collective Sem or Japhet comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet but a notable part And if those of Japhet that dwelt in the Tents of Sem that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church were brought in by perswasion and this perswasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters the Argument is forcible to the contrary that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded but only such as could hear and understand and were perswaded by the Gospel to joyn themselves to the visible Church of Christ. After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23 24. Gen. 21.10 That even as Ishmael and hiâ— were cast out of Abrahams family and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched so Ecclesiastical Isaac Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politiâ—al Gospel-Church But the Apostle doth not speak of â—asting out of the visible Church as such but out of the Inheritance of Sons that is justification and salvation and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not Jâ—ws as Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out But Ierusalem that now is notes the legal Covenant and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem buâ— so many whether of Jews or Gentiles as sought righteousness by the Law and not by Christ as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh that is trusted in the flesh as the Apostle speaks Phil 3.3 that is in their legal righteousness and carnal privileges And on the other side Sarah and Ierusalem above signifie the Gospel-Covenant vers 24 25. which begets Children by Promise that is â—â—cording to the Doctrine of Faiâ—h in Christ typified by Isaac and these that believe are born after the Spirit and do inherit life righteousness salvation There 's not a word of Abrahams Church-seed there or any where else in Mr. C. his sense and Ecclesiastick Isaac is a new Notion and a meer figment of Mr. C. in his sense and the casting out is meant of the invisible Church of the saved such as do rejâ—ct Christ and adhere to the Law and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved them that believe in Christ or aâ—e united to him and not of an in-Churching of meer visible Professors Parenâ—s and Children into the visible Church by an outward riâ—e The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all misâ—alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers to wit Esay 65.20 the impertinency of which to this end is shewed in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27 in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument In answer
the Gospel of God held out of God to his peâ—ple salvation is made over by vertue of Covenant to all thus in Covenant in that sense as Christ speaks Joh. 4.22 salvation is of the Jews In that sense as Christ usâ—th it of Zacheus family this day is salvation come to this house Luk. 19.9 In that sense as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaks of it where he sets out the danger of neglecting so great salvation Heb. 2.3 In that sense as I conceive the Apostle speaks of it where he saith that upon the call of the Jews all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 Answ. That by salvation Luk. 19.9 Heb. 2.3 Rom. 11.26 is not meant outward priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained hath been shewed before Sect. 44. And though I grant that salvation is said to be of the Jews in that from them was the doctrine of salvation yet I see no necessity to expound the term salvation metonymically as if by salvation were meant barely the doctrine of salvation but the sense may be truely conceived thus salvation remission of sins justification adoption eternal life is of the Jews as instruments by preaching the Gospel of converting and so saving men But that God when he promised Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as this promise is Evangelical meant this all the professors of faith and their seed shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained is proved false 1. In that the writers of the New Testament never so explain it but where the promise is mentioned as Evangelical they declare it imports a further thing proper to the elect and true believers 2 That they never by Abrahams seed as Evangelically understood mean any other then elect persons and true believers both which are proved largely before Sect. 28. 3. That in this sense the promise were not made good for God doth not make good to every professour of faith that he shall have â—hose priviledges as to be baptized be in Church-communion have the the Lords supper have a Pastour to preach the Gospel much less to every one of his natural seed as frequent experience shews 4. By this exposition nothing is assured to the infant of a believer or to a professour of faith which is not also to an unbelievers child yea to an unbeliever who as well as they have title to saving grace and justification to eternal life upon termes and conditions in the Gospel of God held out of God to his people Mr. Bl. adds And this that professors of faith or believers upon their call shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained is all that câ—n by any means be squeezed out of their words that say the Covenant of grace was made of God with Abraham and hiâ— natural seed or with believers and their seed It is even irksome to read the large business that Mr. T. makes of it to finde out Mr. Ms. meaning about the Covenant of God made with Abraham and his seâ—d and both Mr. M. and my self must per force confess that we mean â—t of a Covenant infallibly absolutely to confer grace and consâ—quently salvation Answ. 1. That more may be squeezed out is proved in my Exam. part 3. sect 3. in this parâ— of the Review sect 30.31 c. And if no more be mâ—ant by them these things wâ—ll follow 1. That they mean by the Covenant of grace a covenant of outward priviledges of viable Câ—urch-membership Baptism the Lords Supper to every beleever by profâ—ssion though a Gentile and his natural seed under the pretence of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which pretended outward Covenant of outward priviledges is a meer counterfeit neither Gen 17.7 nor any where else to be found in the holy Scripture 2. They do most grosly abuse the text Gen. 17.7 for proving such a Covenant quite besides the expositions given of it throughout the New Testament as is proved in this Part of the Revew sect 28. and quite besides the expositions even of the reformed Divines though Paedobaptists in their commentaries on the N. T. and writings against Arminians 3. They do mock Readers most palpably 1. in telling them the Covenant of grace cenâ—ains the promise of remission of sins c. is for substance the same in all ages and say it belongs to all the infants of beleevers that they are in it that is that Covenant of grace they are confederate with parents as the words of the Directory Mr M. and others cited by me Exam part 3 sect 3 shew and yet deny this Covenant of saving grace is made to them all but upon such conditions as upon which it is made to unbeleevers children yea to every man in the world 2. In that they when they make the Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace and attempt to prove it from Rom. 4.11 which mentions onely a seal of the righteousness of faith they make them seals of the righteousneâ—s of faith and say infants are in the Covenant and the seal must follow the Covenant and yet nevertheless deny all the infants they baptize by vertue of being in the Covenant of which Baptism is a seal to be in that Covenant of which Baptism is a seal but say they are in a meer imaginary Covenant which they call an outward Covenant of which Baptism is no seal but rather according to their conceits the thing it self covenanted or promised 3. They mock parents by telling them in wrâ—tings and sermons that they are to be comforted concerning their children that if they be beleevers their children are saved by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 that they are bound to beleeve it and yet when they are pressed with the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. and other arguments they deny that they understand it of the â—ovenant of saving grace which alone can infer salvation infallibly and absolutely to confer grace but either they make it onely conditional if they repent and beleeve which no man is sure any infant doth or they say in the judgement of charity which is fallible and is no object of faith we are to take them to be in Covenant and to bâ— saved or else they say which is now the common shifâ— they are in the outward Covenant which is a figment and of which they cannot say but that a person may be in it and not saved 4. That sith it is commonly conceived by readers and hearers that they mean that which Mr. M. Mr G. Mr. Bl. c. do disclaim Paedobaptists are bound to â—each the people at their baby sprinklings and at other tiâ—es when they avouch the infants of beleevers and of meer visible professors of faith to be in the Covenant of grace Genâ— 17 7. and thereupon derive their title to Baptism that they mean but as Mr. M. Mr. Bl. say that they may acquit themselves from deceiving the people and being
of a City or of a family and why not of a Church If I say children are members of this Kingdome or to please you Commonwealth or if I say children are members of every City in the land and of every family where they are this is all true and me thinks a man of your parts should understand it And why not when I say that infants are members of the Church But if you will not understand there is no remedy Answ. That Mr. B. and I are not agreed what a visible Church is hath appeared before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. I think I understand others when they speak of a visible churchmember and I think I now understand Mr. B. But in the Dispute I confess I did not understand Mr. B. when he termed infants visible churchmembers not because of the difficulty of the thing but because Mr. B. had a language as I then imagined and now find of his own of a mediate Disciple and a visible Churchmember by anothers faith without any note in their persons whereby they are discernable sensibly to be Christians more then infidels children Nor did he in the Dispute or since clear it to me that anothers faith could be a form oâ— note whereby an infant might be denominated or discerned sensibly to be a visible Christian churchmember or a Disciple of Christ. This if he shall yet do I shall not trouble him to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking of the brest nor being brought up in a godly family but shall passing by his jeer at the Parliaments altering the term Kingdome into Commonwealth confess infants members of the visible Church as of civil Kingdomes and Cities Till then I take Mr. Bs. language of infants discipleship and visible churchmembership by a promise and parents faith to be frivolous gibberish and false doctrine But Mr. B. attempts to prove his minor 1. from Mal. 2.15 where he would have a seed of God to be visible churchmembers But 1. he no where shews this to be the sense 2. this is not the sense For here the proper end of marriage is expressed which is common to believers and infidels But it is not the end of the marriage of infidels to seek a seed which should be churchmembers visible or invisible neither their nor any others marriage is to propagate godliness or the profession of it but to propagate a legitimate posterity who are called a seed of God because according to his institution But of this interpretation I need say no more then what is said in answer to Mr. M. in the first part of this Review sect 13. and to Mr. Bs. exception against my interpretation here in the 17th section 2. Because infants in Abrahams family were churchmembers before Circumcision Which I grant after the time of Abrahams call and Gods separating his house to be his people and therefore if limited to the space of time between Abrahams call Gen. 12. and the institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. I should grant the minor in Mr. Bs. argument and deny the consequence of the major Nevertheless in the proof of his minor there are sundry things which I think not meet to pass by without animadversion 1. That which he saith Circumcision did not not make infants churchmembers I grant it yet it made them visible churchmembers though not of it self alone yet with other signs So that although I deny not other signs also to have concurred yet this sign in part made them visible members of that Church 2. When he saith the Covenant maketh churchmembers how far it is true is shewed above at large and withal how Mr. B. is mistaken in making it the sole efficient cause 3. If it be true that Circumcision is but a sign of the Covenant as he saith how is it a seal as is commonly asserted and by Mr. B. himself as somewhat more then a bare sign 4. If it be not a sign chiefly of that Covenant which maketh churchmembers but which promised Abraham the extraordinary priviledges after his believing then it is some other Covenant which Circumcision was chiefly a sign of then the Covenant which maketh churchmembers which being as I conceive the Covenant of grace in Christ it follows 1. That the Covenant Gen. 17. according to Mr. B. was not the Covenant of grace 2 That it promised extraordinary priviledges to Abraham 3. That Circumcision was chiefly a sign of this promise and consequently the use of circumcising infants was not out of a reason common to believers infants but peculiar to Abraham and his seed which cross sundry of Paedobaptists prime hypotheses 4. Neither doth the Apostle say Rom. 4. that the promise went before Circumcision nor doth it follow if he did that churchmembership then went before it 5. It may be and by learned men is questioned whether the infants or the parents be termed the breakers of Gods Covenant Gen. 17.14 and if they were it follows not they were of that people and in the Covenant before the breaking the Covenant being not a breaking off from being in Covenant but a breaking of Gods command in that Covenant and their cuâ—ting off from Gods people might be by preventing from being Gods people as well as by making them not his people who were 6. Though the Scripture do not intimate that Abrahams family was then first made a Church yet in calling that Church the Circumcision it intimates that then when they were circumcised they were solemnly declared to be Gods people And if the Scripâ—ure do not intimate that then infants were first admitted members as Mr. B. saith here it will concern him to shew where the Scripture intimates their admission before and how I did conceive by Mr. Bs. words p. 24. and elsewhere that as he now avoucheth no other way by precept or example of admission but by Baptism so he avouched formerly no other way but by Circumcision I wish he had in the beginning told us his mind plainly the concealing of which in the Disâ—ute and since hath occasioned the misleading of many and a great part of my trouble 3. Mr. B. argues thus That infants were churchmembers before Circumcision I prove most likely thus If God had before the same tender love to the faithfull and their seed as he had after and there be no mention in Scripture when the churchmembership of infants did begin since the first infants then we are to judge that it did not begin at the institution of Circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off because Gods love to the faithfull and their seed was as great before as after But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent He that will prove a beginning of infants churchmembership since the first infants let him bring any Scripture or good reason for it and I will believe him which I never exâ—ect to be done Answ. 1. This reason if it were good might as well prove the invisible
severity intimates an inclination or desire to it which is stopped by a contrary inclination whereas Gods attributes are all equally in him nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will 2. It is falsly supposed as if visible Churchmembership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Church-membership were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin whereas the taking or not taking into visible Churchmembership iâ— as election to eternal life or reprobation an act of soveraignty and liberty which God useth as hee pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions 3. It is also as falsly supposed that by not taking infants into visible Churchmembership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Churchmembers puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies even as well as if they were taken to be visible Churchmembers and baptised 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Churchmembership to wit eternal life out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb are abortives or still born And if Mr. B. do deny it hee must hold a tenet like the Papists that without his visible Churchmembershâ—p infants are damned 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah comen already freedom from the bondage of the law in the powring out of the spirit in the new Covenant c. although infants be not visible Churchmembers 6. Gods tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church it being not out of any defect of mercy in God or deprivation of mercy to them which they may not have without it but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not bee by natural descent but by faith not national but of believers of all Nations 7. How God is said to admit into visible Churchmembership infants needs explication admission as I have hitherto conceived it beeing the act of the administratour of baptism according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense that God will baptise some infants with water which is a friâ—olous conceit 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should bee granted him the conclusion should bee rather that God will not permit the infants of the godly to bee put to death but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors for otherwise hee should be more prone to severity to the wicked then to mercy to the godly and their seed For all the instances hee gives of Gods severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives and therefore his inference if there were any force in it would concâ—ude not the visible churchmembership of the infants of the godly but the preservation of their livâ—s in common calamities and persecutions which it is certain he doth not but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all Eccles. 9.2 Which things being premised thougâ— the minor of M. â—s first syllogism may be well questioned yet waving it I deâ—y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself as if none could know what he doth not He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus Ch 25. The 20th arg I draw from Deut. 28.4 18 3. Those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their body and of Covenant-breakers it is said cursed shâ—lt thou be in the fruit of thy body thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people and thy eyâ— shall look and â—aâ—l with longing for them c. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters but thou shalt not enjoy them for they shall go into captivity The argument that I fetch hence is this That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition or as bad then the curse in Deut. 28. doth make the children of Covenant breakers to be in is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth the infants of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers doth make them to bee in as bad or a worse condition then is threatned by that curse Deut. 28. Therefore it is false doctrine The major is undeniable The minor I prove thus The curse on the children Deut. 28. is that they go into captivity Now to bee put out of the whole visible Church of Christ is a sorer curse then to go into captivitie therefore that doctrine which puts infants out of the Church doth make them in a more accursed state then those in Deut. 28. They might bee Churchmembers in captivity as their parents were or if they were not yet it was no worse then this To bee in captivity is but a bodily judgement directly but to bee out of the Church is directly a spiritual judgement Therefore to bee out of the Church is a greater judgement which I must take for granted having before proved that it is far better to bee in the visible Church then out Answ The minor of the first and secâ—nd syllogism are both denied For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavie curse yet to be put out doctrinally that is to teach that infants are not visible Christian churchmembers is not to put them under any curse at all neither is it to be so any judgement spiritual or bodily nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Churchmembers and baptised then they are without both nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shewed to bee vain Another argument saith hee this text would afford in that the judgement on the children is part of the curse on the parents cursed shalt thou bee in the fruit of thy body now GOD doth not curse the faithful but hath taken off the curse by CHRIST though corporal afflictions are left But I must haste Answ. That non-visible Churchmembership of infants now is any part of judgement or curse for the parents sin hath not the least colour of proof from this text or any other The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan while they kept Gods Commandments and adhered to him and curses on them and theirs if they fell off from God the curses are for
bound by the precept Gen. 17.9 the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise their children This is as near as I well can gather it the force of Mr. Cs. discourse Against which I except 1. That the term everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 doth not prove it to bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed For besides places before alledged wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed for a time of some few ages and shorter Numb 25.13 God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12 It is promised Ier. 35.19 that Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever and yet this could be true onely of some ages Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term everlasting to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good For if it were then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place But that is manifestly false for the Text saith Gen. 17.8 that God would give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan wherein Abraham was then a stranger which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites Perâ—zites Jebusites c. I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams spiritual seed though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8 yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost and it is in mine apprehension a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction therefore Gen. â—7 9. which though it be so in the English translation yet is it in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Tigur And thou by Pareus But thou by Piscator Thou verily which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference sith there is no firm ground on which it rests 3. But were it granted that therefore Gen. 17.9 were the onely reading and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days yet that the inference of the command v. 9. should be onely from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4 5 6 I know no goâ—d reason iâ— or can be given 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt containing both spiritual promise if Mr. C. be in the right and promise pecuâ—iar to the natural seed of Abraham me thinks the precept should be onely to that spiritual seed which is also natural and not bind the Gentile believers sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the pâ—ssession of the earthly Canaan from which the duty is inferred as well if not onely as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted that the term everlasting possession v. 8. proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that therefore v. â— proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now that it is from the promise v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4 5 6. that it is to Gentile believers now and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh yet sure if the promise bâ— the reason of the command and the commandâ— belongs to them to whom the promise belongs it belongs to no other and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made no meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise sith no promise is made to them 6. Were this also granted that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old which is contrary to Christianity For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this Mr. C. saith It is to be observed that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty namely the Covenant to be kept and not upon this or that way of keeping either by circumciâ—â—ng or baptizing so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onely upon this because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant and by the words it is supposed that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant it should no longer be a duty and what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same Covenant would be the duty in stead thereof Mark the words he doth not say Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you for so had that been made the token for perpetuity to have continued so long as the Covenant it self But 1. in general he saith v. 9. that is they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be and he addeth in the 2 d. place v. 10 14. therefore as I said as for Circumcision that was a duty onely upon those words declaring that to be then the token Circumcision is now abolished yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead thereof Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined but to be determined two thousand years after Thou shalt keep my Covenant that is what ceremony I shall now appoint thee or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous un-intelligible to be understood at one time one way at another time another way are so like Delphick jugling answers as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down For present these arguments from the Text are against it 1. There is nothing enjoyned Gen. 17.9 but what Abraham was enjoyned in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations this is proved from the express words And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therefore and again thou and thy seed after thee in their generations twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named and the term therefore spectially applied to him and after with difference from yet with his seed so that to deny this is to deny it's light
not be vanquished till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire But the Emperour objected to the Protestants that their Preachers were a great occasion of the Rustical war wherein an hundred thousand were slain But whether it were so or not so what ever Mr. Crs. protestations be the writing this Epistle with some other passages at the time and to the persons to whom it was directed shew what we are to expect from him and such as he is if ever they have power over us But of these things onely by the way SECT LXXXVIII Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon nor his testimony about the antiquity of Infant Baptism AFter his own Epistle and the Epistle of I. T. P. and the reprinting of the conference between me and Mr. Vaughan and the dispute between me and himself Mr. Cr. leaving out the former Epistle of I. T. P. begins with a descant on the title of my reply which he vainly makes to imply a suit against the universal Church though it be onely an action against innovators who have left the plain way of Christ and his Apostles and as they have done in many other things brought in infant Baptism to the great corruption of the Church of God And for Mr. Halls inditement it is such as is fit for boys onely to make sport with and were Mr. Hall or Mr. Cr. of such serious and grave spirits as they should be they would have buried it in silence or been humbled for handling things of God so lightly such writings being fitter for light wits in the University then for Preachers and Pastors over Churches of Christ. My calling Mr. Baxters book a cheat and mock titled book is proved here to be right and that Mr. Ms. is no impregnable Defence is here shewed The rest of Mr. Crs. light Poetry in sect 1. c. par 1. I let pass as the scum of his wit and onely take notice that he terms from Stow Sir John Oldcastle a traitor who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Gyles field whom Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs in the time of Henry the 5th hath against Alan Cope vindicated and by sundry arguments particularly by the manner of his death mentioned by Mr. Cr. made it probable that he died a Martyr oppressed by popish Prelates Whose case is a good document how little credence is to be given to the censures of men when the relations of them are made by their prevailing adversaries What I think of laying on hands may be seen part 2 of this Review sect 23. Dr. Featly was a man with whom I had sundry times conference when he was in his greatest esteem but never found him such as I durst not look in the face when living and sure his book of Baptism is besideâ— what Denn hath done shewed here and elsewhere not to be unanswerable With what spirit Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists and my self have written on this subject must be left to the cognizance of our Judge If Austins saying l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. c. 23. That what the universal Church holds nor was instituted in Councels but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority were meant as Mr. Cr. sect 5. p. 67. expounds it including the Apostles I should yeeld it But 1. I do not conceive that to be Austins meaning for 1. then the speech would be an inept tautology to say that what the whole Church including the Apostles holds is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority it were as if he had said what the Apostles held the Apostles held 2. The very speech shews that Austin meant it of the universal Church of his time the word tenet being in the present tense and the Councels meant being such as were since the Apostles and that he counted that to be instituted in no Councels but to have been always held of which he could not shew any beginning or any interruption 3. Elsewhere his speeches shew this was his mind as Epist. 118. ad Joann Illa quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab iâ—sis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ— saluberrima autoritas commendata atque statuta retineri and he instanceth in the anniversary solemnities of Good Friday Easter day Holy Thursday and Whitsunday and adds and if any other thing hath occurred which is kept by the whole Church where ever it spreads it self And accordingly he makes the necessity of the Communion to eternal life as of Baptism to the Kingdome to be from Apostolical tradition tom 7. de pecc mer. remis l. 1. c. 24. Mr. Crs. conceit is not right as if the words And if any man seek for Divine authority in this thing did intimate that his following rule was meant of what was held in the Apostles time for in them he means that which he after fetcheth from Circumcision out of Scripture besides that which the whole Church holds not instituted in Councels yet still held In this sense it is urged by Canus l. 3. loc Theol. c. 4. as a rule to know genuine unwritten traditions Apostolical from spurious and rejected by Chamier paustr. cath tom 1. l. 8. c. 14. § 13. as impossible sith what hath been in all ages and Churches from the Apostles cannot be known and it is urged by Bellarm. de bonis oper in part l. 2. c. â—4 for Lent fast and refuted by Chamier paustr. cath tom â— l. 19 c. 7. § 36. 2. This rule cannot stand the Epistler in any stead for proving infant Baptism without the Apostles writings 1. because there is no way without them to know what was universally held there being no man able to know what the Church holds in all places in his own time much less what in former ages was held and many things have been taken even by Austin as universally observed which were not and many Councels held which are unknown and many corruptions crept very early into the Church whose original cannot be sâ—t down determinately of which Ushers general answer to the Jesuites challenge gives reasons 2. Infant Baptism cannot bee proved to have been universally observed but as now it is taught and used hath been opposed by some of the Ancients and is now rejected by Protestant Divines as it was by the Ancients taught and used Nor is Austins testiâ—ony Seâ—m 10. de verb. Apostoli not Serm. 15. that the Church always had and held Infant Baptism valid for Mr. Crs. purpose 1. because the term hoc this may bee rather referred to tâ—e doctrine of infants being born with original sin rather then the practise of their baptism and to this senâ—e both tâ—e scope words precedent consequenâ— and the terms had held perceives from the
of Command or example have gâ—eat force against Lutherans for as much as they use that principle every where that the â—ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there is to be rejected yet it is of no force against Catholicks For altâ—ough we find no command expresly that we should baptize infants yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures as we have shewed above and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us then Scripture for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write But that this is an Apostolick tradition wee thence know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture to wit from the testimonies of the ancient Church The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. § 24. not § 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause and they plainly shew the meaning of those men to be that the Scripture onely proves infant Baptism by that sense of it which is not manifest but by the tradition and practise of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. not tom 7. as Mr. B. directs I know none such but tom 1. l. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l 5. c. 9. § 32. But I am not thereby satisfied that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken Mr. B. proceds Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgement Mr Bedford tels me he hath corrected his wordâ— in a later edition How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wrong'd your self Is nothing written in Scripture but expresly yea is not that Scripture proof and plain proof which shews plainly from Scripture the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of the practise Dr Prideaux thought Episcopacy provable from Scripture and therefore if hee thought that infant Baptism must bee proved the same way he is sure against you For Dr. Taylour if you have read all his books I hope you will no more reckon him amongst Protestants having so much of the body of Popery in them Mr. Youngs words if they be his are against you in the thing you cite them for There are testimonia minùs aperta and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamto praemissis quae sunt minùs aperta directâ— pro conclusione My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must bee bâ—tter repressed then thus if you will satisfie men of reason and conscience Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words And if M. Bedford have corrected his words I wish it have not been fâ—r the cause sake against his conscience If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wiâ—h the same breath I know no wrong to my self done by alleging Dr. Field Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expresly yet is not that Scripture proof nor plain proof for infant Baptism any more then infant Communion which shews plainly from Scripture Pauls conclusion of original sin Rom 5.12 and Christs Joh. 3.5 which Ancients took falsly for grouâ—ds reasons and causes of the necessity oâ— infant Baptism as they did Joh. 6.53 of infant Communion yet took the use to bee a custome â—f the Church countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ or practise of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning is plain from his words and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England by thâ— words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Baâ—tism and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book Catechism art 27. of the Church of England And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture I have not read all Dr. Taylors works nor do I know but that hee is to bee reckoned among Protestants Dr. Youngs words are much for me 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism 2. Thâ—t hee confesseth the practise Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer and therefore addes the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custome of the whole Church especially when he saith we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him sith Dr. Young denies that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain â—estimonies the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed nor men of reason and conscience satisfied I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origens words I go on Dr. Hammond in his Defence of infants Baptism pag. 98. saith thus About the same time the 3d. Century or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very ancient and learned Authour He therefore in his 7th ch of Eccles. Hierarch Edit Morel p. 233. proposeth the question as that which may seem to prophane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of Baptism concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximuâ— his scholiast adding to the same head also that others in their stead pâ—onounce the abrenunciations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. That many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God 2. That we affirm of this the same things which our divine Officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again our Divine guides i. e. the Apostles saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can bee more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer avouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffâ— of prophane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time wherein that Author wrote which must needs be in the 4th Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more ancient and so to be placed in this 3d. age Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiquiâ—y of
phrase tingi disciplina religionis to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion meaning evidently being baptised Where the Dr. by the way doth ill render tingi by sprinkled no Grammarian doth so render it nor doth Tertullian so mean it as in the place may be observed But to the thing This cannot be the meaning of Tertullian in that place 1. The words are these ut opinor autem aliud est aspergâ— vel interciâ—i violentià maris aliud tingi disciplina religionis As I think it is one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted with the violence of the sea as Peter was when against his will he was in the sea anoâ—her thing to be baptised with the discipline of religion that is out of a willing yeilding to baptism by the learning of religion that is knowledge and profession of faith which religion prompts to meaning plainly not the doctrine or command of Christ but the learning or discipline of his own heart in the sense that Tertullian useth after disciplina verecundiae modestiae And that sense which I give the Scope leads to which is to shew neither the Apostles being dashed with the waves when the ship was almost covered nor Peters being almost drowned was Christian baptism because it was not out of a voluntary disposition from that discipline of religion which doth dispose to it but the violence of the sea 2. Tertullian could not mean as the Dr. would sith there is no such institution of Christ either expressed by the Evangelists or by Tertullian The Evangelists express no title to baptism but by the persons own faith or discipleship who is to be baptised as is proved Review part 2 sect 5. And Tertullian in his Book of Baptism a little after the words cited by the Dr. c. 12. expresseth the institution of Baptism thus Lex enim tingendi imposita est forma praescriptae iâ—e inquit docete nationes tingentos eas in nomen patriâ— filii spiritus sancti Huic legi collata definitio illa nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua spiritu non intrabit in regnum coelorum obstrinxiâ— fidem ad baptismi necessitatem Itaqae omnes exinde credentes tingebantur And after Nam prius est prâ—dicare posterius tingere and in the 18th chapter gives his reasons against the hastening the baâ—tism of infants as being not necessary which if he had acknowleâ—ged such an institution as the Dr. imagins he could not have said and directs according to the institution Let them come when they grow up when they learn when they are taught wherefore they come let them hee made Christians when they can know Christ and afâ—er prescribes How they should go to baptism with prayer fasting kneeling confessing of sins and in his Book of Repentance cals Baptism the sealing of repentance no where is any such institution of infants Baptism from the faith of one parent and therefore I conclude ex institutionis disciplina is not meant as Dr. Hammond conceives On the other side I conceive that he means by sanctos procreari real holiness future and by ex institutionis disciplina learning of the doctrine or institution of Christ. That the holiness is real saving holiness is gathered first from the joyning together designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis which plainly shews that the holiness meant is that by which is salvation 2. This is confirmed in that it is made the effect of being born by water and the spirit 3. Shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven is expounded by sanctus holy 4. It is opposed to that uncleanness which they had in Adam and it is expressed to bee in Christ which must needs bee a real saving holiness 5. If it bee that which is by baptism then it is not baptism it self as the Dr. expounds it but a consequent on it which is no other then saving holiness 6. This is proved from the expression of designatos sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis this is confessed by the Dr. to express the same with procreari sanctos ex institutionis disciplina but designatos sanctitatis hath the sense of designed to be holy that is a believer by education and so saved I will set down the words of a Letter of my learned and much honoured friend and quondam scholler Dr. Wilkins Warden of Wadham Colledge in Oxford who at my request imployed a friend to enquire into the sense of this passage of Tertullian and thus wrote to me As for that phrase Designatos sanctitatis salutis though this reading be approved by Pamelius and de la Cerda in their editions yet 't is corrected by Johannes a Wouwer by that famous Manuscript Copy of Fulvius Ursinus now in the Vatican which hath it Designatos sanctitati Which reading is now generally received as the most genuine as may appear by Rigaltius and Georgius Ambianus in his last and best edition of Tertullian at Paris 1648. And the most proper sense of this phrase must be such as are designed by their parents to a religious education which is likewise signified by that other expression ex instituionis disciplina So that designatos sanctitati ac per hec etiam saluti plainly expresseth that whereas the Pagan idolaters did dedicate and consecrate their children to Devils and thereby made them unclean the children of the believer were brought into the world holy both in that they were free from such pollution and also by prayer vow or resolution designed or intended to be made holy by the disciplin of Christian institution and so to be saved or to enter into the Kingdome of heaven by faith in Christ. 7. This sense is confirmed by the words hujus spei pignora the pledges of this hope which shew that the holiness and salvation meant in the words before was a thing not then existent at the childrens birth but intended and hoped for at age upon endeavours used by the believing parent 8. This interpretation of designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati is confirmed by the expressions of Hierome Epist. 153. to Paulinus where he saith Of thy second Problem Tertullian hath discoursed in his books of Monogamy affirming the children of believers to be called holy because they were as it were candidati fidei candidates of faith and not polluted with any of the filth of Idolatry Which phrase expresseth the same with designatos sanctitati and alludes to those who in Rome stood for Offices in white and notes that the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized quod veluti ambiunt expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Epist. 153. to Paulinus or designed that is intended to be holy by the parents that is to be bred up to profess the faith and so to be baptized To this saith Dr. Hammond 1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierom refers to but some other in his Books de Monogamia that one
of saving faith and therefore expressed by candidatos fidei and that this holiness was such a real holiness appears by the addition ac per hoc etiam salutis there being no other holiness that could bring salvation and the term candidatos imports a suing or seeking for it as Erasmus expresseth it veluti ambiunt expectant and Dr. Hammond p. 92. himself expresseth candidatos daemoniorum candidates of the Devils ambitious to be admitted thus early into his service So that all these reasons shew that designatos sanctitatis notes the intention of the parents with endeavours to produce faith and so to bring them to Baptism Which is the more evident if it be read designatos sanctitati for that case plainly intimates a tendency to it As for designatos sanctitatis which the Dr. that he may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve his own purpose which he elsewhere causlesly imputes to me turns sealed of holiness I crave leave to tell the Dr. that in my appehension it makes Tertullian speak non-sense and that it cannot be the meaning that it should note the consecrating by baptism it appears in that it should have been then sanctitate or per sanctitatem Besides they are said to be designatos salutis as well as sanctitatis and I hope the Dr. will not render it sealed of salvation as if it noted the ceremony of consecrating Salvation in no Writer being put for for Baptism And however here it 's a distinct thing from sanctity which the Dr. makes Baptism So that I think I may safely infer that Tertullian means by designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati rather not Baptism but the intention of the parents for of their act he speaks in opposition to the Gentile parents designing their children to Devils or as the terms are vowing deputing to them making them candidatos to breed them up in the faith and so to bring them to Baptism and Salvation which his words in his Book de Baptismo c. 18. shew he approved as best except necessity through danger of death imminent and apparent urged the hastening of it in little ones regularly he would have faith first and baptism after as the words in his Book of Baptism and Repentance forecited shew And whereas the Dr. saith in the Church writings the word believers is never bestowed on any though of mature age and knowledge till after they be baptized and so faith must be subsequent not antecedent to baptism as I set it the Dr. may perceive his mistake by the words of Tertullian before quoted Itaque omnes credentes tingibantur Lavacrum illud est obsignatio fidei and this is agreeable to Christs speech Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved to which perhaps Tertullian alluded when he said designatos sanctitati which Grotius follows Annot. ad 1 Cor. 7.14 or condidatos fidei ac per hoc etiam saluti or salutis The relative holiness which vessels in the Temple were capable of is far from Tertullians meaning Certainly Tertullians phrase of designed to holiness is so far from proving infant baptism that it proves the contrary sith he is not said to be designatus or candidatus who hath an Office or thing in possession but he who is chosen to it or seeks for it and so hath it onely in intention or expectation As designatus saluti is not actually saved so neither designatus sanctitati actually baptized He adds The children of believers I willingly grant are presumed to be by them intended to be bred up to the faith but if that intention of theirs bring forth no present effect if they do not bring them thus early and enter them into the Church by Baptism why should that bare intention of the parents give them the stile of holy or sanctified or how should these infant children which may die before they come tâ— those years receive any present priviledge or benefit by that which is thus far removed from them Answ. The Drs. words answer this p. 92. when he saith Whosoever is born from either parent Christian hath one priviledge by nature by his very seed that he is not so polluted as the Idolatrous heathens children by their Idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy in that respect which is a present effect opposite to the present evil effect which the heathen Idolatrous devotions brought on their children He goes on Now for the 2d part of this suggestion that what I say from Tertullian that they were holy i. e. baptized in seminis praerogativâ is a mistake I must answer by viewing of the proofs of his assertion First saith he the holiness was not onely by prerogative of birth but ex institutionis disciplinâ This is sure a strange proof It is not so because it is not onely so 'T is certain that Tertullian saith they are holy ex institutionis disciplinâ and as certain that they are as much so by prerogative of their birth the words are most clear tam ex seminis praerogativâ quam ex institutionis disciplinâ and that I never denied the second could not be mistaken in affirming the first Answ. The words of the Dr. in his 4th quaere gave occasion to think he conceived the children of believers to be termed holy by Tertullian that is baptized either onely or chiefly by prerogative of birth as that which gave them title to baptism But it seems he means that they had title to it also by the discipline of institution But p. 92. he expounds the prerogative of birth onely by their freedome from Idolarous pollution Now sure that gave not title to baptism An Idolaters child if born without those pollutions had not title to baptism he must be born according to his own exposition of the Apostles and Tertullians words of one believer therfore he must needs be mistaken in affirming the first and he must needs miss Tertullians meaning if by holy be meant baptized and says they are baptized tà m ex seminis praerogativâ if that give no title to it The Dr. expounds ex institutionis disciplinâ thus by the Doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ by which Baptism is allowed to children born of either parent Christian. I have shewed before how short his proof is of this sense For present Tertullians words according to this exposition have an inept tautology For it is all one as to say they are baptized as well by prerogative of birth as by prerogative of birth the prerogative of birth by which they are baptized being all one with their priviledge of being born of a believer which is accâ—rding to the Dr. the discipline of instiâ—ution If Tertullian had meant as the Dr. would have it he had not used tà m and quà m but said holy by prerogatiâ—e of birth according to the discipline of institution whence it may appear that the discipline of institution and holiness is another thing then the Dr. interprets it nor by his interpretation of
16.15 v. 32 33. shew that by the house are meant persons of age and by so expounding we diminish not Gods word nor make exception that God hath not made nor imply a contradiction nor incur a curse as Mr Cr. after his vein of pratling writes All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism proves not my words an untruth nor a frontless assertion and is answered before sect 88 89 9â—â—n which and sect 90 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th and 8th untruth as he terms my words is examined I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse it being derived from these principles unwritten tradition and necessiâ—y of it to save an infant dying which are judged Popish errours And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th untruth as he terms it I refer the Reader to the 9th Section of my Praecursor not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now What he saith against the first is but a repeating of the reasons without any confirmation but some light Poetical pedaâ—tiâ—ue expressionâ— which deserve onely neglect Against the â—d he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism which are nothing â—o me who asserted not thâ—â— baptizing twice was true Baptism but baptizing â—f persons of age professing â—aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives For 1. in the institution of Baptism Mat. 28.19 the precept is to the baptizer and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him And as for the act of the baptized which is implied it is true neither is it determined to be once or twice and may therefore seem to be left to liberty That he allegeth Whatsoever is not of faith is sin is clean mistaken by him the meaning â—eing onely what a man doth with a doubâ—ing conscience is sin to him so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it And when â—e saith Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship I presume he means it of that which is used as worship and determined to be but once But then the question is only begg'd not proved that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once In that which he saith of Act. 19.3 which is an instance of being twice baptized I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the proâ—ession of Johns Disciples and this was true Baptism from Heaven not differing in the nature of it from Christs as say Protestant Divines and it is certain that to be baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus iâ— to be baptized with water into the profession of him as Act 2. â—8 41. 10.48 the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were â—aid to hear and to be baptised v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. buâ— twelve onely v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable and in mine apprehension certain as the Ancients did conceive that those twelve were baptized with water twice once according to the profeâ—â—â—on Johns Disciples made at Baptism and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius â—pâ—roved by Beza in hiâ— annot in locum and followed by many others That the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily answer each other and therefore â—he words v 4 5. be Pauls For 1. the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put oft and the matter requires it should be so conceived here either as an expletive that is without force to which in the vulgar translaâ—ion nothing answers as it is Act 3.21 22 c. oâ— an adverb of affirmation or if it be a conjunction diâ—cretive that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense to say John verily baptised with the Baptism of repentâ—nce saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after that is on Christ Jesus but they hearing this c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech if the particles be discretive the other part is concealed and should be to thiâ— purpose But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come And for this reasâ—n the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded as our interpreters when or as a meer expletive as in the vulgar 2. The words Act. 19.5 do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke thus When the twelve mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul that it was Christ â—esus to come after John on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him Nor is it true that there is express Scripture Ephes. 4 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism against the iteration of the same Baptism For as one Faith notes nâ—t one act of believing but one kind of faith from the unity of the object bâ—lieved which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law fâ—r righteousness termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord though it be an hundred times iterated The same man baptized an hundred times and an hundred men once onely baptized each of them have one Baptism in the â—postles sense if they be baptized with the same profession and the same person though but once baptized yet if with another profession hath not that one Baptism there meant One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more but Baptism into one profession and no other The 2d argument is of no force Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it we are caâ—nally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once Faith though it admit of gradations begins but once Baptism that matriculates us into Christs School is to be performed but once Answ. The Scripture no
that Author to be afore the 3d. century and consequently not that Dionysius the Arâ—opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet med Patrum l. 11. c 9. Perkins prepar to the demonstr of the probleme 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive that that Author is to be placed in the 3 d age by reason of some words of Photius which for want of books I cannot examine yet Salmasius ad Colâ—ium saith p 1â—9 quamvis subdititius ille Dionyâ—â—us Areopagita sit auctor nec antiquior quinto seculo p. 441. quem certa fides est scripsisse circa finem quinti seculi And that which Scultetus ubi supra observâ—s that in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things of Temples of â—ltars of Holy places of a Quiâ—e of consecration of Monks of the tonsure and shaving of heads iâ— me thinks a good argument that the Author was somâ— idle dreaming Monk no elder then the 5th century and is so far from being accâ—unted a Wâ—iter of esteem among Divines that he is rather censured as one who by his curiosities hath corrupted Divinity 3. Whether those who deemed infanâ— baptism unreasonable were infidels who derided it or Christians who scrupled it is noâ— câ—eared by the Dr. Nor is it aâ—pareâ—t that by Divine guides are meant the Apostles 4. Bâ—t if it were that Author makes it no other then an unwritten tradition if he did he would â—ave alledged some Scripture for iâ— and the words our Divine Officers being instructed not as Dr. Hammond translates it by Divine tradition but unto or of the old tradition have brought down unto us do shew that he counted it a tradition unwritten and delivered from one Officer to another until that time Now it is granted that in the end of the 3d. and following ages infant baptism and in like manner infant communion were counted traditions Apostolical to save infants from perishing and such seems to have been the opinion of that Author Pamelius annot 89. on Cyprian de lapsis Tractat hunc locum D. Augustinus Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Haud obscure autem hic quomodo suprâ— indicatur vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo communionis parvulorum qualem etiam indicaâ—e videtur Dionysius Areopagita sub finem Eccles. Hierarch sua adhuc aetate D. Aug. Epist. 107. ad vitalem All which being consideâ—ed this testimony is so far from being a most convinciâ—g â—estimoâ—y of the derivation of infant baptism from the Apostleâ— â—hat considering upâ—n what ground they observed it and how much vanity was in the Ancients in their retaining many fond customes and fathering them on the Apostles and when common defending them by Scriptures perverted it is a convincing testimony that infant baptism was no more froâ—â—he Apostles then infant communion both meer corruptions taken upon mistakes and defended by abuse of Scripture Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes Dr. Hammond alledge Gregory Nazianzen his 40th Oration about baptism in which he adviseth the baptizing of infants which saith Dr. Hammond is a plain testimony of the Churches doctrine at that time the 4 th century about the year of Christ 70. he flourished and died in the year 389. Against this sundry things are objected 1. that the same Author saith as I find his words in Chamier paustr. cath tom 4 l. 5. c. 9. § 66. where he gives instance in his 40th Oration of baptism of those who decease without baptism Neither can they receive it either perhaps by reason of infancy or some altogether involuntary chance by which it is that even they who would obtain not that gift From whence it is manifest that in Gregory Nazianzens time infants did decease without baptism and that they could not receive it by reason of infancy Nor is this objection salved by making the reason of these childrens not receiving baptism because that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their children to baptism because they dwelt among infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the word and sacraments for themselves or their children therefore they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their children which seems to be Mr. Ms friends evasion in his Defence p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hinderance of the baptism of children as of elder persons For the words of Nazianzen shew that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unvoluntary accident whether by the hand of God or men so others he saith deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely by reason of infancy and that by reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not in power or capacity to receive it Which is a plain testimony that however in câ—se of apparent daâ—ger of death then infants miâ—ht receive baptism according to his opinion yet ordinarily they were not in the power or capacity to receive it and so did sometimes die without it 2. It is objected and thereby this observation is confirmed that when he comes in the same Oration to set down what he would have done about infants baptism he resolves 1. that they should be baptized if danger did urge it that they might not miss of the common grace intimating thâ—t otherwise they should 2. He gives his judgement for others that they should wait longer 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waitiâ—g is that they may hear some mystical or spiritual thing may be taught to answer somewhat and if they understand not fully perfectly and exaâ—â—ly yet they are instructed and informed 4. That not as Dr. Hammond to give colour to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing 1 Cor. 7.14 by this means they may be baptised souls and bodies for if this were good reading 1. they should baptize themselves 1. they should bapâ—ize â—heir souls which were ridiculous but so as that they sanctifie both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation Which shews he conceived 1. that by baptism benefit did come to infants though they perceived it not 2 that it sanctifies their bodies 3. that it is beâ—ter done when children are taught to answer 4. then they sanctifie soulâ— and bodies 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of inâ—ants 6. that without baptism infants should misâ— oâ— the common 〈◊〉 To 〈…〉 Dr Hammond thus 1. It is clear that it no way prejudgâ—s â—he doctrine and practise of the Church formerly set down 〈…〉 him that infant children indefinitely considered might be bâ—ptized and if dangâ—r apprâ—acâ—ed must how young soever they were which is as contrary to the Anâ—ipaedobaptist and so to Mr. T. as any thing Answ. 1. The phrase the doctrine and practise of the Church is according to the Prâ—latical language I think as