Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	church_n	infant_n	visible_a	1,818	5	10.0471	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96113	A scribe, pharisee, hypocrite; and his letters answered, separates churched, dippers sprinkled: or, A vindication of the church and universities of England, in many orthodox tenets & righteous practices. Whereunto is added a narration of a publick dipping, June 26. 1656. In a pond of much Leighes parish in Essex, with a censure thereupon. By Jeffry Watts B.D. and Rectour of Much-Leighes.	Watts, Geoffrey, d. 1663.	1657 (1657)	Wing W1154; Thomason E921_1; Thomason E921_2; ESTC R207543	280,939	342

good to give unto them a full and proportionable answer what pains and time soever it should cost me But that which you propound in your second sheet to me is nothing but certain Considerations of your own against baptism of Infants and about some Texts of Scripture the very froth and barmings of your own head the which if I should let alone unreplied to as once I was resolved would of themselves sink disperse and fall to nothing But lost you should swell and be puffed up in any conceipt of these your considerations as the Bladder is with its own winde I will as briefly as I can with my short breath by reason of my old age blow away your froth and let out your winde that so the hollowness and shallowness of them may appear to the Reader The Title you set over your first Consideration is this More particularly about the Doctrine of Babtism Baptism consider these Arguments proved by clear and plain Scripture Sir this is a false Title to your Tractate for if you would have done here more particularly it should have been and you should have said about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism for if you bring not Arguments not onely about Baptism as you say but against Infant baptism and these proved by clear and plain Scripture I shall not consider them neither have you considered well of our difference 1. You bid me Consider that the Doctrine of Infants Babtism overthrows the nature of the Covenant of grace and the whoe whole Gospel of Christ why so because the Covenant of grace and Gospel of Christ stands upon the account of faith actual in there one heir own persons as uppears in John 3.36 and John 5.24 But Infants Babtism stand upon the account of the faith in there their Parents or Surtie Sureties although they have none for themselves and so makes faith void and unnesesery unnecessary to the perticipation participation of the Covenant Rom. 4.13 Gal. 3.17 8. But what do I did I not say I would not transcribe your words of your second sheet but I see I must do it for there is so much false-written English in them that I must of necessity do it lest if inscribed to my Answer that may be thought mine But to the matter Baptism of Infants of Believers doth not overthrow but establish the Covenant and Gospel of Grace because it sealeth and executeth it Neither doth the Covenant of Grace and the Gospel stand upon the account of actual Faith in all mens own persons but onely such as being grown in years are converted from Paganism these must make profession of faith before they can come into the Covenant and be sealed But actual faith is not a Condition required as to the Covenant or Seal in Infants Your Text therefore of John 3.36 is not to the purpose as which onely sets everlasting life upon to use your phrase the account of actual faith which I grant and so doth the next Text John 5.24 as appears for that he begins with and speaks of such as do hear the Word of God and beleeve in Christ which is not appliable to Infants but grown men And as to your Inference The baptism of Infants stands upon the account of their being in Covenant together with their Parents and not upon the account of the Faith in their Parents or Sureties but only so far as the Faith of the Parents serves to shew them a seed of the faithful and the Faith of the Sureties undertakes for their education in and profession of Faith afterwards How strangely also do you pervert that Text Romans 4.13 For it is there said the promise was made to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham and his seed through the Law but through the Righteousnesse of Faith Which he had yet being uncircumcised to whom God upon this account of this faith made the Promise both to himself and his Seed you would have the faith there spoken of to be the faith of the Seed or Infant as holding it necessary to the participation of the Covenant and so falsifie both Covenant and Text which both together with your last Gal. 3.17 do quite overthrow your first overthrowing Consideration for Argumentation here is none More of this you shall have hereafter Your second Consideration because it hath a Narration yea a repetition of what you set down in your first Page about the nature of the state so you speak whereas rather you should say the state of the Nature of Christs true visible Church under the Gospel to the shewing of which you here onely describe Christs true invisible Church and therefore cite the Texts you did before and add some more that speak onely of invisible Members such as you call Saints made so by the immortal Seed new Creatures by the benefit of Regeneration I shall therefore say nothing to that here but refer you and especially the Reader to what I have largely before discoursed about the state and nature for I will correct my self too of the Church both visible and invisible for though you may perhaps have no such care of me I must and will be carefull that I dead not the Reader by any tedious and vain repetitions and Tautologies Yet this I say in anser to it That Infant-Baptism in the Church is so far from overthrowing as you argue the nature and state of Christs true visible Church that it is rather much confirmed and established increased and enlarged thereby because thereby more are admitted in present members visible and are engaged to be for the future visible professors and confessors of Christ yea and the invisible Church also is not overthrown but upheld and augmented by our Baptism of Infants as whereby many Infants are not onely dedicated and consecrated unto Christ but are also by Baptism as a Seal and Means as I have shewed regenerated and so fitted and prepared the better for Heaven and happiness And whereas you add That Infants Baptism is grounded upon the Relation they have to the Church by generation onely or by the meer pro ession of faith and repentance in the Parents and Sureties I see you are corrupted in your Principles and grounds of Divinity Once more I tell you I pray learn it now for I will teach you it no more for the Readers sake that Infants Baptism is grounded and foundationed upon the Covenant of God made with the believing Parents for himself and Infants and that which you call Generation doth but raise up the ground and foundation-Covenant to bring it into some act of visibility in relation to the Church for the Seal thereof And so also Infants have not their relation unto the Church by generation rather by this they have relation to the world nor by the meer faith and repentance of the Parents and Sureties but by the Covenant and the Seal thereof in both which Infants are interessed together with their Parents have they their relation

Baptism in a proportionable time if there be no intercoming excusable impediment like as the same were of Circumcision And now also before I set upon your next Consideration consider with your self whether your Doctrine of baptizing Believers onely and thereupon your not baptizing of Infants of Believers until they come to have actual Faith and to a confession of it doth not rather overthrow the state and nature of Christs visible Church under the Gospel I have largely proved before and that out of Texts you here cite to the contrary Romans 1.7 1 Cor. 1.2 c. That Christs visible Church under the Gospel consisteth and is made up of visible and outward members and professors some of which though unknown unto us are members also of the invisible Church under the Gospel and I have also clearly shewed you that Baptism is a means of entrance and admission into the visible Church whereby Infants who by vertue of Gods Covenant may also belong to the invisible Church as members are reckoned enrolled even made members of the visible Church N●w then whether of us do overthrow the State and Nature of Christs visible Church under the Gospel we who help to uphold and increase it by our ad nitting and initiating of our Infants to be visible members thereof through our baptising of them in their Infancy or you who by your not baptising of them for the space of 15. or 16. years and more and sometimes as much more do all that while with-hold visible members from the Church yea and do all that while leave them to a visible standing and being under the kingdom of darkness though invisibly it may be otherwise which is most opposite to the Church of Christ Let the next Reader judge for you are neither fit nor able to judge herein as who are already prejudiced prejudicated and prepossessed with a Spirit of delusion as to the Nature and State of Christs visible Church under the Gospel 3 You bid me Consider That Infants babtism it overthrows the end for which true babtism was appointed For the Chief one of Christs true babtism of beleevers was to distinguish the true Church from the World Col. 2.12 Compared with Verse 20 Gal. 3.26 and 27 Act. 2.41 But Infant baptism overthroweth this distinction because all are admitted in by it and no distinction made Sir I not think of it until just now or else I should have asked you a Quaere Why you alwayes write it Bahatism when as you are so great an enemy to Babe-baptism I shall be bold to answer it thus because you do so babble about baptism For is not this in present as there hath been much of it before profane and vain babling which the Apostle bids you shun to talk of The end for which baptism is appointed and then to call it a Chief one And then to instance in the distinguishing of the true Church from the world as a chief one which is the inferiour one and lastly to cite holy Scriptures which are too no such purpose is not this prophane and vain babling But I answer to the matter 1. It is an unsound and lame assertion or proposition to say that Infants baptism is to be rejected for ever as you conclude your Considerations with and therefore mean so in every one if it should overthrow one chief end for which true baptism was appointed when as in the mean it upholds five other ends as chief if not chiefer which I have reckoned up to you in my fift warrantable Reason for baptism to which I refer you 2. How will you prove Infants baptism to overthrow the end why true baptism was appointed because it overthroweth the chief one which was to distinguish the true Church from this but how if there be the ends as well as the end why true baptism was appointed how if amongst the ends there be chiefer ones than that chief one you mention how if Infants-baptism do not overthrow those five chiefer ones though supposed onely it should overthrow one chief one Here be now some Quaeres for you But now how prove you also The chief one end of true baptism to be to distinguish the true Church from the world you cite Col. 2 12. and 20. There is mention made of baptism and the world and a spiritual end and effect of baptism that therein the Colossians were buried in Christ and risen with him alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion and emersion to signifie them both they were freed from the Rudiments and Ordinances of the World that is of the Legal oeconomy of the Jewes and what 's all this to the purpose of baptisms being a chief end to distinguish the true Church from the Heathen World which is also but an external end And though the Text speak of grown persons and Heathens converted yet it is true also of all elect and regenerate Infant of which there are many you cannot deny it that they are buried with Christ in baptism and risen with him c. So that you get nothing by this Text against Infants-baptism They rather gain by you hence for their baptism But ther 's nothing at all gained for the distinguishing the true Church from the World by baptism as the chief end thereof So that other Text Galathians 3.26 Is nothing to your purpose yea against your purpose for it speaks onely of the inward and spiritual effects of Baptism and of baptism into Christ that thereby the Galathians had put on Christ and were so incorporated as they were one in Christ so that there was neither Jew nor Gentile bond or free So far is this Text from shewing the distinction of the true Church from the World to be the chief end of baptism that it rather and onely shews the spiritual Union of true Christians with Christ to be one end and a chief one which also all Infants regenerate and baptised into Christ do attain unto as well as these grown Galathians and converted Heathens I professe I never read in all my life time Texts of Scripture more impertinently cited and I had once thought to have let your Citations of the word alone and onely have replyed to your words But that I honor the word and you do dishonor it by citing it for that which is not in it even as Christ said he honored the Father but the Jewes dishonored him by saying he came not from the Father Your last place though it comes some what neerer that the former as to an external addition of the 3000. Souls unto the Church by baptism yet it as far from mentioning any distinction of the true Church from the world and making it the chief end of baptism as the other before 3. Infant baptism doth not overthrow but support that end the distinguishing of the true Church from the World that is from the World out of the Church which is the Pagan and Heathenish World you must mean this or else

3. The case of necessity in state of Person I scarce understand unless it be this When as he or she earnestly desireth and imploreth for the same whether by its speech or its need and there is no Minister to give it Baptism here the Lord will have mercy and not sacrifice and men are not to stand upon this ordination but the persons salvation Let but your Brother or your self stay and expect such cases of necessity before you or he dip any more or baptize again and then though you be not nor he set a part for the administring that Ordinance but are meer Lay men you shall hear nothing from me against the same I assure you But if in a well ordered and already planted and constituted Church and that when there are no such cases or states of necessity but that lawfully ordained Ministers may easily be procured you and your Brethren will go on still to dip and baptize and that publiquely being no better ordered or set a part then you have related I shall say though again Ye take too much upon you ye sons of Gad for I shall not hold you of the Tribe of Levi Num. 16.7 or Issachar rather couching down between two burthens Genes 49.14 your Laical and Ministerial Callings And it shall come to pass as Zacharias saith Zach. 13.4 5. that such Prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision which he hath prophesied and every one of his Division that he hath made and set a partition yea of his Dipping also that he hath ministred and Baptisin and he shall say and confess at last I am no Prophet I am an Husbandman for man taught me to keep cattel from my youth God never ordained me to dip Christians from my birth Distinctly Take this a Presbyter or Priest in respect of his Ministerial Character and Order I mean onely a sacerdotal gift power and commission is primarily and principlally the publick and ordinary minister of Baptism A Deacon may baptize also and that publikely so it be at the appointment of the Bishop or Priest but a Priest by his own right may baptize ex officio as we say by vertue of his sacerdotal office even in the presence of a Bishop But a Layman may not baptize publickely but onely privately neither privately in the presence of a Priest or Deacon but onely in their absence neither alwayes in their absence but onely in case of necessity Then it hath been permitted according to the good old way and new way also of true Churches some such times to Laymen to baptize so he intend to do that which the Catholick Church doth in that kind of administration The second Catechistical Quaere is concerning the Persons Dipped Quaere 2. What warrant of precept or example have you from the Sacred Word or Prim tive Antiquity for your Dipping and Anabap●iz●ng Christians washed before or members of the visible Church baptized once in their Infancy by lawful Ministers so as the two Women and Sisters were whom your Brother Dipped Ask now of the days that are past which were before since the day that God created man and woman upon Earth and commanded circumcision in the eldest Chruch of the Jews and appointed Baptism in the younger Church of the Gentiles ask from the beginning to the end of both whether there hath been any such thing as this that a person circumcised or baptized in their infancy were ever recircumcised or rebaptized at growth or yeras after when they could render a Reason or make confession of their Faith c. Instance in one if you can and be instant upon it as you will and is not then your dipping the formerly dipped a new business As for that example of Joshua upon Gods command Circumcise again the children of Israel the second time Jos 5.2 This doth not intimate any Repetition or Reiteration of that Sacrament in or to the same particular Israelitish person circumcised as if he should be now circumcised again but onely relates the Restauration and Renovation of that Sacrament unto the people of Israel in general amongst whom Circumcision was a long while intermitted and discontinued by reason of their frequeut yea continual journals and removings up and down as the 4 5 6 Verses do evidence the same As for that Acts 19.5 of St. Pauls practise the example of the Ephesian Disciples in the Acts it is abundantly answered in my Instruction of your Scribe to which I refer you and I add this for a plainer and shorter Resolution for you 1. That it maketh nothing for your Re-dipping and Re-baptizing 1. Because St. John's Baptism being there spoken of and you or your Sect being Popish in your opinion of Re-baptizing and so holding from hence that the Baptism of John and Christ are two different Baptisms and that in the substance and not onely in the Degree of their signification and efficacy Here was no iterat on of one and the same but the ministration of a diverse Baptism and so is not to your or my purpose 2 For that there is no Baptism of water spoken of much less there laid to be reiterated that the Ephesian Disciples had long before received from some of Johns Disciples but onely the Baptism of Fire i.e. of the Spirit and the miraculous gifts of the same is there mentioned which they confess they had not so much as heard of namely that they unsually as then accompanied the other Baptism of water And so that the former was that they were baptized with and was poured upon them there in the Name of Jesus namely the gifts of the holy Spirit which were miraculous If you shall produce as somewhat you must say for your selves the example of Saul Cornelius and the Eunuch baptized in their elder years upon their conversion to and cofession of Christ and the commands of God to Ananias Peter and Philip c. to baptize them thereupon All this and as much more which you might have alledged of the same sort brings no advantage to your practice no age to your new business of Rebaptising the second time for that the mentioned above were their first and onely baptizings they being some of them Pagans born others aliens from the Covenant of Christ adverse and opposite to ignorant at leastwise of the Christian Faith were then frist of all baptized upon their embracing of it and never after baptized again No not the Black Aethiopian amongst them was ever dipped the second time And what is all this to your Redipping of two Women baptized before in their infancy as being born Christians and within the Covenant of Grace and Christ Yea more if the Pope of Rome should come over into England and turn Protestant or become one of your Sect a separate nor we would nor should you of right baptize him again having been baptized before rightly as to the Element and Words of Institution Therefore the Ancient Orthodox Church never Re-baptized Hereticks themselves upon their

some used the one in their Dioceses some the other manner of baptizing in their Divisions and both sorts with an opinion of indifferences of the thing in it self and with liberty of practise left each unto other as the affairs and the occasions of the Church required of changing and altering Who can justly challenge or rebuke our Church of England and the guides thereof for holding and retaining either the one or the other or both as she doth in some way and case but betaking her chiefly and most usually to aspersion and pouring on-water and that but once so leaving both the Ancient Fathers of old some of them and the younger Fathers of Rome all of them in the number of the Trin or thrice for that the Trinity is sufficiently enough set out in the very form of our baptizing In the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost why should any impose upon us or require of us either the Trine immersion at all or immersion at all constantly and continually considering we are not of the Eastern Churches where the Clymate being hot parties to be baptized might the better undergo the waters and be dipt but we are of the Church Western and our Church of the more Northerly side were the air waters clymate being cold the tenderer bodies of our infants cannot be immerged or dipt without evident danger to their healths and lives Have we not power to lay down and old custom as well as Gregory and Augustine and Cyprian or I onely and Barnabas the Ministers of the Church of England have we not power to forbear dipping and immerging especially where it may be sodangerous prejudicial What though some ancient Churches had such a custom of old we have no such custom neither the Churches of God now a dayes 1 Cor. 11.16 and when they had it it was but for a time Temporary it was but for an use upon an occasion Arbitrary it was not under a necessity for but with a liberty to other Churches It is a part of the former Gregory his words in the same Epistle worthy notice taking In eadem fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa where there is the same faith and an unity in it a different custom in things indifferent nothing burteth or prejudiceth the Church of God as which hath power and authority to enact and to abrogate such things to be observed or omitted to all her Church children and members And therefore Sir I have not nor do censure and condemn you absolutely for the one and simple immersion nor for immersion simply and onely but for your immersion your simple one an immersion that hath almost nothing of Antiquity being such as is every way distant and different from the ancient immersion in all things but in this that your dipping was but once and simple and also for that it was a rash and presumptuous undertaking of a few private Plebeians and vulgar people without any Law or Licence or order of Church or State so far is it from any precept or prescript or President of the Word and Scripture I will be briefer in the next Corrollary for it is time to have done about this matter Coroll 3. §. 3 The nature of baptism is but this the cleansing and washing away the guilt and filth of sin by the application of waters according to the appointment of Christ signifying and exhibiting the blood of Christ that purgeth and purifieth that way and all the outward Sacramental actions thereof are but onely to represent and set out more lively the inward grace of baptism which is still but the ablution of sin This indeed ablution and washing of sin is necessary as being of the nature as I said and Essence of Baptism for this is called therefore the very washing of regeneration by which we are saved through the mercy of God Tit. 3.5 and so the washing of water by the Word with which Christ doth sanctifie and cleanse his Church Ephes 5.26 and so St. Paul tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you soul sinners but ye are washed but ye are sanctified c. in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God But the manner and way of washing and ablution of sin either that way by dipping and immerging the whole body into and under the water or by aspersion or perfusion or rather superfusion of water upon some part of the body this is not necessary but as I said Indifferent and Adiaphorous and Arbitrary and so not of the essence and form but of the accidence and formality rather or solemnity of Baptism so then if the ablution of sin washing off the guilt and filth thereof may be as well if not better represented by aspersion and sprinkling and pouring on of water upon some part of the body and gently rubbing on the same by the moving of the hand thereupon as by the dipping immerging and plunging of the whole body into and under the waters and holding it some while thereunder as it must be I add also if it the aforesaid aspersion or perfusion be as effectual to the good spiritual ends and purposes of baptism as the aforesaid immersion I see no reason to the contrary but that both the ancient and modern or present aspersion and perfusion or superfusion of water is as warrantable and allowable in baptism if not still more as the somewhat ancienter immersion dipping and diving in and under water for as for any such modern or present immersion dipping or diving under water as yours is I acknowledge it not we have no such custom nor the Churches of God as I said but now It is true the body must be washed and wetted with water in baptism either one way or another and that 's enough for the truth and nature of baptism now this may be and is done when we baptize with sprinkling and pouring water upon it or part of it and gently rubbing the flesh therewith as well as by dipping and immerging And therefore we do not speak falsly when but sprinkling and pouring on water we say we do baptize and do not dip that 's your false speech for though we dip not into the water we lay on water and wash and therefore do baptize Oh but were it not far better more agreable to Antiquity and the benefit from baptism more ample and large if the whole body were dipt and immerged then onely some part thereof the face forehead or head aspersed and washed This is answered already that our way of superfusion or aspersion with water is as significant as effectual as the other and as ancient within a sew years if any as the other way yea was in force and life amongst the Ancients when the other was dead and gone and besides we are freed from it where we will plead our freedom because we live out of the Hot Countreys where it was bred and born and was to be

give not the Believers And Christ of old too gave the Keyes and the power of them one part whereof is this setting apart of persons to the administring of holy Ordinances to Peter and the Apostles as bearing the persons of the Pastors and Guides of the Church Mat. 16.19 and not as representing the Church of Believers for then these also must have power to binde and loose in earth and heaven by Censures John 20.23 as well as the Apostles and Pastors and so women and children may come in for it as Believers I could never see yet that the Ministery of the separation had any separation to the Ministery just and right according to the good old way onely a kinde of popular Democratical designation they have but no authoritative or official Ordination which is Aristocratical But why do you not speak out to the full Was he your brother set apart of the Church i.e. your selves the Brethren to administer the Ordinances of Christ and was he not also authorized to give Orders or do you mean these also orders by them Ordinances how else will you be given to preaching or be a gifted Preacher ere long if not already Nay when your Church and the Brethren did set him apart to the Ministery did not your Church and Brethren give him Orders and Ordination to the purpose that so he might give back again to your Church and any of the Brethren Orders and Ordination and so make yours a very orderly Church indeed in running round in a ring until you be turn-sick and giddy-headed But enought of this having spoken largely of it in the Instruction of the Scribe § 3. Set apart of the Church but how I ask You say by fasting and prayer and this was all it seems And why not also by Laying on of Hands according to the good old way laid open and plain in the Text before cited Acts 13.3 and tracked or traced by St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.14 and 2 Tim. 1.6 Thus of old they the holy Spirit and the Apostles did set apart Brethren to the administring of the Ordinances and this of old namely the Laying on of Hands also was a note of conferring ministerial power and authority as a means also of procuring spiritual gifts and abilities Now the things which god hath joyned together in the constitution and sending out of a Minister in holy Ordinances let no man put asunder or set apart Fasting Prayer and Laying on of hands none do or will but such as have a spirit of Division and Separation an humor of Novelty and Innovation and therefore I do not wonder at it in you Besides you had no hands to impose in such a business they are too short to reach up and to lay upon the head of a Brother as to Commission or Ordain him or set him apart as from God for the sacred administration of Baptism you mouths shut up by fasting and your hearts enlarged by prayer may do well as to commend and present him to God for his blessing and confirmation of his graces when such are rightly and duly set apart § 4. You have done now with your set apart Brother but there is another matter yet to be done according to the old way for they also in the 13. Acts 4. sent away Paul and Barnabas And so Rom. 10.15 How shall or can they preach or baptize except they be sent True St. Paul saith Christ sent me not to baptize 1 Cor. 1.17 chiefly and primarily but to preach yet he baptized as well as preached and intimateth that Christ sent him to do both as being conjunct parts of the Ministery Mat. 28.19 20. though distinct offices in themselves and the one preeminent to the other at leastwise in St. Paul But now you were not in a capacity as to this sending out of a Brother to administer this or other publique holy Ordinances as he would not take this honor to himself to be an Ambassadour of Chri●● so you and your Brethren could not give it unto him and send him forth for that you must be sent your selves before you can send others to go forth into the nations Teaching and Baptizing So Christ himself John 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you In a word was or is your Brothers separation to administer Baptism and other Ordinances ordinary or extraordinary If extraordinary then your Church did nothing here for that is neither of man nor by man you did not then set apart If ordinary then your Church had nothing here to do as which it self was never set apart or sent out from Christ and his Authority to such purpose This being not done as yet to you or him you may think what you will of your Creature and admire your Feature your Brother set apart Dipper is still in the estate and condition as your selves and as before he was for any thing you have done a Brother but no Minister a Separate no Set apart a Dipper but no Baptizer a Lay Teacher but no lawful Preacher And I will tell you what Austin saith of such and I will tell it you in Latine because you understand it Si Laicus Baptismum dederit null â cogente necessitate alieni muncris est usurpatio lib. 2. contra Parmen cap. 13. This I desire you to English to your Brother And because perhaps you were enjoyned before your dipping to renounce your Latine also as a profane thing or else since your dipping you may have drowned much of your Latine or drained it from you I will give you another saying of Tertullian in English in his book of Baptism To give Baptism is in truth the Bishops right after him it belongeth to Priests and Deacons but not to them without Authority from him received for so the honor of the Church which being kept preserveth peace were it not in this respect the Laity might do the same all sorts might give even as all sorts receive But because emultation is the mother of Schisms Let it content thee which art of the order of Lay men to do it in necessity when the state of time or place or person thereunto compelleth for them is their boldness priviledged that help when the circumstance of other mens dangers craveth it Both these learned and pious Fathers yield even to a Lay man such a one as your Brother or your self to baptize in a case or state of necessity and one of them enlargeth it To time place or persons I shall but guess at the particular meanings of them if I miss let who can and will rectifie me I will thank him for you I know cannot if you would 1. The case of necessity in state of Time is when the Christian party unbaptized is in present danger of death and no lawful Minister at hand or to be suddenly procured 2. The case of necessity in state of Place is when Pagans are converted and a Church there to be planted and no ordained Minister amongst the Converters