Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes, Dr. Hammond allege 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 children's 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 Defense, p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hindrance of the baptism of children as of elder persons. For the words of Nazianzen show, that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unvoluntary accident, whether by the hand of God or men; so others he saith deceased 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 barely by reason of infancy, and that by reason of it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were not in power or capacity to receive it. Which is a plain testimony, that however in c • se of apparent da • ger of death then infants mi • 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 th • t otherwise they should. 2. He gives his judgment for others that they should wait longer. 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waiti • 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 exa •• lie, yet they are instructed and informed. 4. That (not as Dr. Hammond to give color to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing, 1 Cor. 7.14. by this means they may be baptized souls and bodies ; for if this were good reading, 1. they should baptize themselves, 1. they should bap • ize • heir souls which were ridiculous;) but, so as that they sanctify both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation. Which shows 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 be • ter done, when children are taught to answer; 4. then they sanctify soul • and bodies, 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of in • ants, 6. that without baptism infants should mis • o • the common 〈◊〉 .

To 〈…〉 Dr Hammond thus,

Answ. 1. The phrase [ the doctrine and practice of the Church ] is according to the Pr • latical language▪ I think as much as the doctrine and practice of the Prelates, 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense, the Church bei • g the number of persons taught, and on whom bap • izing 〈…〉 , not the person • teaching or practicing, who are still • d • he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in S •• ip • ure. 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 N ••• ianzen taug •• that infant children, indefinitely considered, might be baptized, and if d •• ger • pproached, must, how young soever they w •• e, 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Co • ncel mention •• in Cyp • ian, Epist. 5 • 〈…〉 , whic • it is true determined, in opposition t • 〈◊〉 his scr • ple, the lawfulness of baptizing any day, but not of any infants who were likely • o live without apparent show of danger of death, but • a • her • he contrary is manifest from their reason, w • y they would h • ve them bapt • zed any day afore th • 8th. b • cause the son of man • am to save m • ns souls, as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lo •• , and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th. N • w this 〈◊〉 , that 〈…〉 only of those infants who being in apparent danger of d • ath would be lost, if not baptized. N • w it is true 〈…〉 , and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists, tha • ba • tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised pe •• sh, and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practice of the Church, yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practice of Protestant Paedobaptists, who, contrary to Nazianzens mind, would not have infants baptized in that case only, 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 Church membership as their privilege, not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing.

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 Latin Doctors. 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practice of the Church, and to be of equal authority as Cyprians, and his Councils, Augustine's, and Jerome's.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , press, urge, or impel, shows. And thus it is practical, as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently show.

Fourthly, saith he, that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to be understood of those whose • errants are newly converted, and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptized 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 • e speaks to them, therefore that counsel of his concerns their children only.

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 • . and others, as if that holy Father dissuaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger, when he clearly saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let him in the tenderest age be Baptized and consecrated to the spirit.

Answ 1. Why he should call my words or writings whispers anymore then his own, since 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 Doctor would have them. 2. Tha • men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctors, if they seek the truth impartially, I know not, since where truth is sought both sides are to be heard. 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old, will not satisfy us as sufficient to rectify 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 judgment 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 dan • er of death, though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct the • . 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism, and from the nails signify tender age, yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy, since he made persons uncapable of baptism by reason of infancy, judged it better to have them first instructed; If he did, he would have it to only in case of danger of death imminent.

But saith Dr. Homes, p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should be baptized, in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years, it is so much the better for us.

• nsw. I suppose the Doctor doth not think with Nazianzen, that the danger of dea • h is a sufficient reason for the bapti • 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 be the worse for him, since it thwarteth his opi • ion of baptizing upon an imagined privilege of Covenant holine • s, and his practice of doing i • ordinarily to infants of Church members out of that case. And it would be considered, that where the ground of a practice is disclaimed the alleging of the practice correspondent to that ground and no further, is impertinent for confirmation of the practice 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 commemorati • n of the dead, proves not the Popish prayi • g for the dead to be ancient, as Dr • sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge, since 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 only by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times, or if voluntary, yet with labor of their hands, and so different from the Popish Mo • kery which is idle, besides God's appointment, vol • n •• r • , superstitious, upon an imagined perfection in that w • ich is indeed sinful. And so for confirmation by laying on of hand, anointing wi • h oil▪ use of the sign of the cross, setting up lights and many more, it is fr • quent • y shown that they countenance no the P •• ish confirmation, extreme unction, use of the sign of the cross, lighting candles at noon day in their •• mples, &c. because they were in different m • nner, and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them. And indeed the discovery of the different reasons, manner, and end of rites used b • the Ancients, from that they are now used, is of greatest moment to show the novelty of the Popish, Prelatical, Paedobaptists usages, who have not only quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity, even in those things which the Ancients practiced indeed, but not as they do.

Secondly, saith Dr. Homes, he doth give another reason, beside that of partaking of common grace, namely, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it, then to depart without the seal. So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A reason also of this to us is Circumcision, that was wont to be done on the 8th. day, &c.

Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace (for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified) only with a little enlargement. 2. The 2d. is indeed rather a preventing of an objection [that they could not be par • akers of the common grace without perceiving it] rather then a further reason of baptizing them. And the answer is from two examples, one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason, the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts, whi • h were things insensitive, bringing salvation to the first born, which is such a wooden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place.

Thirdly, saith Dr. Homes, We answer that all three reasons stand in force, as well for all believers infants (God putting them under the promise, Gen. • 7.) a for the infants that are in danger of death.

Answ. Wh • tever force there is in the reasons (which in my apprehension are frivolous) to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practice, yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are only for the colouring over of the practice of infant baptism, of any whether believers or unbelievers children; only in case of apparent danger of imminent death, and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants only at all times as federally holy.

Fourthly, saith Dr. Homes, that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons (to him evincing) for the baptism of infants in danger of death: but for the delaying of others not in danger of dea • h, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I give my opinion • he calls it his opinion. And what is it? That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such children should stay till three or four years old more, or less? And what is to be expected from children of that age? more then from infants toward baptism? For Nazianzen himself confesseth, that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things, yet they understand imperfectly. But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing? None. Doth he give any reason? Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death, to wit, that they may be sanctified in mind and body.

Answ. 1. It is true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death, which is the sanctifying them by it, not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door p • sts, being answers to an objection, as I said before. Now that reason is so far from being Divine, that it is from a mere superstitious conceit, as if the mere outward Baptism did sanctify: Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which he gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death. For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies, yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctify only the body, the other to sanctify body and mind. He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing, though imperfectly, and so the baptism may be a sign to them though obscure, and there may be some memory of what is done, though confused, which though it be not as it should be, yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism, where there is no signification to the baptized, nor remembrance of it. 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion, and that it betters not the thing much, and his reasons not so right as they should have been, there is in this passage this evident, that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now, nor upon such reasons as now, nor approved of as now it is, but out of the case of danger of death imminent, apparently dissuaded, and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age.

Dr. Hammond adds, That Chrysostom in his Homily to the Neophyti, hath these words, For this cause (i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited, ten in number) we baptize children though they have not sins, and that he flourished in the beginning of the fifth Age.

Answ. Though find in two Homilies, one in the fifth, the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostom's works of Eton print, some speeches unto the newly enlightened or planted, yet I find not these words there, nor anywhere else in any of his homilies. Yet I deny not them to be Chrysostom's finding them in Augustine tom. 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian, ch. 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed, it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used, were only in case of danger of death apparently imminent, or without that case. It is likely he meant that infants or little children were baptized only in case of danger of death imminent, since many of his Homilies express, even that where these words cited were, exhortations to the newly baptized, and the relation of his life testifies, that when he was persecuted by the Empress, and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used, the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked, being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension, which shows they then baptized persons naked. And the occasion of the speech, as s • t down by Austin, shows it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace, which is manifest by the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for this cause And the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , also, in the Greek, shows there was mention of baptizing others then little children. And in the same place Austin saith, • ohn Chrysostom held, believed, and taught this, not only that little children were not only to be baptized, but also to have the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, for without his flesh and blood they could not have life. As for the other place Dr. Hammond ci • es in Chrysostom's 40th. Homily on Genesis, that Baptism is lawful in the first age, I yield that Chrysostom did in that age allow infant Baptism, but I think the Dr. cannot show that he held it was to be done out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death, or that the practice of baptizing them out of that case was ordinary It is most evident by many proofs, that both then and some ag • s after, the ordinary usual baptizing was of chatechized persons at the solemn feasts, when most in the Empire were by profession Christians.

SECT. LXXXX. The arguments to prove Infant Baptism an innovation Exam. pag. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal, and Dr. Homes.

WHereas Mr. M. had said in his Sermon pag. 3 that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of •• iquity, both in the Greek and Latin Church, that the Christian Church hath been in possession of the privilege of baptising the infants of believers for the space of 1500. years and upwards ; I said in my Examen p. 9. But it is wonder to me that if it were so manifest as you speak, you should find nothing in Eusebius for it, nor in Ignatius. nor in Clemens Alexandrinus, nor in Athanasius, nor in Epiphanius, that I mention not oth • rs

To this Mr. M. or his f • iend replies, that I add three arguments to show that Infant Baptism was not known in the Greek Church, but therein he abuseth me, for I add • d them not to that end, but to show that it was not so manifest as Mr. M. said, that it was not universally known.

To my mention of the silence of Eusebius, &c. he saith. 1. The question was not started then, as the Fathers spake not clearly of the traduction of original sin, before it was denied by the Pelagians. 2 That it is enough to him that none of the • uthors named by me spake against it.

Answ 1. The question of the Hieracites was raised in Epip • anius his time, which did lead to speak of infants Baptism, and ye • Epiphanius allegeth not in • ants Baptism against them, though it had been for his purpose. 2. Sure Eusebius that writes the Ec • lesiastical story, and such as wrote the history of the Church, had occasion to mention it is • hey do the B • ptism of persons of age, he use of the Lo • ds Supper, the meetings of Christians, the orders of the Church, the ordinations o • Bishops and other things and would it i • were so man • f • st as Mr. M. said it was. • 3. It may be they spake not against it▪ because there was • o question about it. Bu • it is l • kely there was no question about it, because there was in the first ages no practice of it, or very obscure. For as soon as it began, Tertullian put in some exc • ptions against it and after him Nazianzen. 4. If the Fathers afore Po •• gius arose, did not speak clearly of original sin, then it is likely the pa •• ages in Origen on Levite. Rom. Luk. were nor his, since they speak clearly of the traduction of original sin and that speech of V • ssius Hist Pel. l▪ 2 • art • th 6. p. 153. is right; For who can at this day discern what passages were the brats of Origen or his paraphrasts ?

He adds. 1. If anything were brought out of Ignatius, you would tell me, that you did not know Ignatius when you see him.

Answ. 1. Though Ignatius Epistles be very doubtful, yet I incline to think some of them to be his which we have, and that genuine passages may be discerned from spurious. 2. If any p • ssage, though spurious, were to be found in him for infant Baptism, Paedobaptists would not stick to produce it, who make no conscience to allege the words falsely ascribed to Justin Martyr in the book of questions and answers to the Orthodox, and stick not to maintain the allegation of it, as his, th • ugh it mention Origen, whom Dr. Homes imagines Justin Martyr might hear of, though he died by his confession anno 169. and Origen wa • not born till about 156. as the passages in his Animado ▪ on my Exercit. p 111, 112, 127. compared do show. Besides the allegation of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as Dionysius the Areopogites, the questions ad • ntiochum, as Athana •• us his show, that neither this Author nor other Pae • obaptists are ashamed to allege bastard writings, which say anything for infant Baptism.

Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus he tells me Defense p. 19. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith (which is not true) why sure he had none but gre • t infants to be his Scholars (I conceive he means p • ofessed Pagan infidels, But I t • ink this not true, since in his writings he directs Christians, and opposeth heretics) if you (who pretend to be acquainted familiarly (which is very false) with the secrets of antiquity) be acquainted with him you will know what I mean: He desired (as it is likely more Greek Fathers who were converted from Paganism did) to set forth religion in such a way, as might move other Pagans to come and confess the Christian saith, that so they might be added to the Church by Baptism, in such a way as was proper to the baptising of grown men. Which is true, and confirms my presumption that when he speaks of Baptism, as he doth lib. 1. paedag. c 6. and elsewhere, he would have mentioned infant Baptism and its benefit to the same end, if it had been in his time in use, as Mr. M. in his sermon said.

Concerning Athanas • us he speaks thus,

Answ. It is: But wh • se is it? Is not that Book one of those suppositi • ious writing in the 2d. tome of Athanasius works, of which Scultetus Medul patrum part. 2. l. 1 c. 42. saith, qu dam nullo judicio videntur con cripta quae se satis produn? Among which also are the quaestions to Antiochus, out of which Mr. M. or • is friend pag. 20, 21. cite two testimonies, on • out of quaest 2▪ and another quaest▪ 114 and saith, the woe • ds are safe and sound buil • on a • os • el ground, owned by all the reformed Churches ▪ which make infants of believers baptized to enter into the Kingdom of heaven, excluding the unbaptized, which hitherto hath b •• n termed Popery. Nor is he excused • rom abusing Readers with these bastard writings, by saying, the words following may be erroneous, and yet written by Athanasiu • ▪ when the words following are part of the answer, which is erroneous, and they are so connex that they must be the same Authors. As for the words, How do you prove what you allege out of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen, and tha • I make this a plea for myself▪ that my allegations may gain a favorable construction, that my proofs taken out of antiquity do as strongly prove the point in hand, as proofs are usually taken in such matters, no whit excuseth him, since my proofs are from writings not suspected, his are from treatises judged by many of each tide to he supposititious, mine from passages not excepted against, as his are, and therefore my wondering ceaseth not: and the silence of these, together with Epiphanius his not urging infant Baptism against Hieracites; yield a strong presump • ion of the rarity of infant Baptism then, though from thence the non usage be not syllogistically concluded. And for the words he brings out of Epiphanius, he might call Baptism the great Circumcision, yet reject infan • Baptism (though I said not he did, but that it's like •• it was not so manifest as Mr. M. said) as he might call Pre • byters Priests, and Deacons Levites, and yet not tie Presbytery or Deaconship to a tribe, and the age in which each sort ministered in the Temple of the Jews. I add, that the words cited out of the supposed Athanasius prove dipping under water then the usual way of Baptism.

What Dr. Homes brings Animadv. on my Exercit. pag. 143. out of Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 3. pag 461. serves not his turn, but is rather against him, for it mentions only one Baptism of Believers. And the same may be s • id of what he brings out of Epiphanius his 2d. Book • om. 2. contra haeres. 30. pag. 52. In which he makes the perfect Circumcision not to be only of men in the time of their imbecility, but of men and women, all the people of Christians indeed, which omits if not excludes infants.

Answ. 'It is true I cannot, nor did I ever intend to prove that children were not baptized in the third age, but the putting the questions to infants to answer, shows that at first none were baptized but such as could answer to them: and since this was but a ridiculous thing, which this Author will not go about to prove to have been done warrantably, to put questions to infants to answer, doubtless it came not from the Apostles or Apostolical men, who would never have appointed so frivolous a thing▪ but as this Author doth very honestly confess, they baptized such as were taught and catechized, and as he well notes out of Clemens Alexandrinus, Catechism leads men to faith, and that to Baptism. And this undeniably proves, as Ludovicus Vives truly gathered, tom. in August de civit. Dei c. 27. l 1. tom. 5. that at first none was baptized till he could ask for it and answer to the questions, which custom he saith he hath heard continued in some Cities of • taly. It is likely those of the Greeks about Cal • bria • ▪ and so far as I can yet by search discern, this continued the first and second Age, to baptize only persons of age. In the third Age, infant Baptism with many other corruptions began, and then to keep a mimical show of the old manner of a • swering the qu • stions, some made answer in the infants name; which being after objected to Augustine, he answers Epist. 23. that the answerer did not speak falsely, when he said the infant did believe, because he had the Sacrament of faith: which was indeed no answer, since the answer was made afore the Sacrament, and the Sacrament could not make him a believer who was not. Now this answer was not to engage them to undertake their education, as this Autho • seems to imply, but to assert they did believe afore they were baptized, it being originally the right use of that rite, to baptize none but those who were first believers, till the supersti • ious conceit of an infants perishi • g without Baptism first brought it in, as necessary in case of apparent danger of imminent death, and no otherwise; as those many relics of Antiquity in the speeches of Tertullian, Nazianzen, and others show; besi • es the narrations of baptizing he catechized at solemn times, and the not baptizing of children of believers till they came to age, the inten • of b • ptizing Austin when in you • h he was sick, but putting it off when recovered. But after his time, the necessity of it being so vehemently pressed by him, and urged against Pelagians, infant Baptism in process of time quite swallowed up true baptism, and that which this Author here ingenuo • sly confesseth was the primitive use, is now cried down as i • it were an innovation and an heresy. So monstrously hath the ignorance and intemperate speeches of Fathers, School-men and others, and the violence and mistakes of Luther, Calvin, and others, perverted the doctrine of Baptism, and oppressed those that have sought to reform it, though if there were no more to be said for them then what here this Author, whether Mr. Marshal or Dr. Young confesseth, it were enough to sati • fi • men that were willing to be satisfied, that infant Baptism was not at fi • st when the Gospel went first abroad into the world, and yet th • n doubtless Believers had infants; but that afterwards men brought their children to Baptism, when • orrupt opinions of its necessity and the giving grace by i • were • eceived, and to all • ay the extreme bit • er and unreasonable heat of spirit, which is in the clamarous Paedobaptists of our days. But I go on.

Mr. M. or his friend tells me, Thirdly▪ you conceive because many children born of Christian Parents were not baptized when they were young, therefore it was not their custom to Baptise infants. For the making good hereof, you bring forth instances of Constantine • the Great, Greg▪ Nazianzen, and Chrysostom. Afore he speaks of these instances, he sets down some known reasons, some imagined, why some deferred among the Ancients their own Baptism; and he thinks they might upon the like reasons defer their children's.

Answ. 1. That they did defer their children's Baptism confirms my opinion, that it was not ordinary in the Greek Church to baptize infants. 2. That if they did defer it upon the reasons imagined by him, then they thought it not necessary to be done in infancy, as Paedobaptists do now, chiefly Mr. Baxter, plain Script. proof part. 2. ch 8 who will have infants baptized immediately, as soon as ever they are disciples ; which by his grounds is at the first instant of their birth, or afore. 3. That very reason why some deferred Baptism to old age to wit the doing away sin, was indeed the very reason of their baptizing infants And Nazianzens confutation, telling some that all times were fit for Baptism, seeing no time was free from death, shows how ill Mr M. chose that passage to put in the Title page of his Book, unless • he would have Readers to baptize upon that opinion, as if thereby they could work out their salvation. 4. All this discourse about the various reason of men's deferring their own Baptism, is quite besides the point about parents deferring their infants Baptism, which not to have been upon any of those imagined reasons, but because they thought it not necessary, nor did practice it but in case of apparent danger of imminent death to the infant, will appear by weighing his answer to my instances. • o that of Constantine's being not baptized in infancy, though Helena his mother were a Christian it is said; 1. That it appears not that Constantine's parents were in his infancy become Christians. 2. Himself was also an unbeliever many years. To which I reply though it be not apparent that Constantius or Helena were Christians in the infancy of Christians, yet those Historians that do conceive they were, and yet it being agreed he was not then baptized, o • acitely yield▪ that it was not unusual for the children of Believers to be unbaptized till they came to age.

Dr. Homes tells me That I have ill urged Constantine a Latin, for an instance that Baptism of infants was not ordinary in the Greek church ▪ But I think otherwise since Constantine lived and died in the Greek Church, and therefore fitly mentione • among them.

The next mentioned by me is Gregory Nazianzen, the son of a Christian Bishop, and brought up long by him, was not baptized till he came to be a youth. To this saith Mr. M or his friend How do you prove he was the son of a Christian Bishop▪ His father was once in the Hyp • istarian error, whether he were converted before Gregory was bo • ni • is not expressed. When he was young he was b • ed at A •• ens under heathens, to which it's not likely his father would send him if a Christian, and why he was not baptized as soon as he was converted to Christianity I conjecture the reason was that he might the better prepare himself to receive baptism.

Answ. I did little imagine that this Author would have so far gratified the Papists, as to join with Baronius and other Romanists, by shifts to avoid the evidence of this instance, which Protestants urge to prove Bishops to have then married and begot children after marriage. To his question, I prove him to have been a Bishop by the same words of Gregory Nazianzen himself in the verse of his life ; by which Chamier paustrat. Cath. tom. 3. l. 16. c. 13. §. 41. Dr. Hall honor of the married Clergy 2d. Book Sect. 8. and others, prove Gregory Nazianzen to have been begotten of his Father being a Bishop, where he brings in his Father speaking to persuade him to help him in his charge, in these words, as Dr. Hall turns them into English out of Greek, The years of thy age are not so many as of my Priesthood Which how to free from Baronius his devices of an byperbole, and the inconsistency with the other passages of his fathers Baptism, and his study at Athens, and seeing Julian there, the Reader may see in Chamier ubi suprà at large. Where and in Dr. Hall he may find, that his mother was also a pious Christian when he was born, and that she begged him of God. And the Century Writers of Magd. say cent. 4 c. 10. She was born of pious and holy progenitors. And though he travailed abroad, suppose at 12. years of age, yet was he long brought up by his parents, especially in that time in which he was to have been baptized, if the Baptism of infants had been then ordinary: yet was he not baptized (as this Author confesseth) till he was of age, after he returned to his Father, who it is not likely did send him to be trained up under infidels, however he might light on their acquaintance and hear them. As for the reason of deferring his baptism, it is in vain to inquire into another cause, then that which Gregory Nazianzen himself in his 40th. Oration of holy Baptism gives, when he adviseth to baptize infants in case of apparent danger of imminent death, but out of that case to defer it. And this appears to have been the genuine reason, and the practice accordingly in that (as Gregorius Presbyter relates in his life ) when sailing to Athens a storm arose, so that his life was in apparent danger, he was afraid of dying unbaptised, and resolved to be baptized. The other reason assigned by Mr M or his friend, is frivolous; for though the better to prepare himself to receive baptism, might be the reason of his deferring it so long as he did when he came to age, yet it could not be a reason of his parents deferring it, or of his in infancy. So that notwithstanding these vain shifts of this Author, wherein he joins with the Papists, who use the like devices to avoin this testimony urged by Protestants to prove the marriage of Bishops then, and is refuted by them, yet this one instance is an evident proof, that in the Greek Church baptism of infants was not ordinary in the fourth Century, but used perhaps extraordinarily in case of apparent danger of imminent death.

There is the less need of insisting on the instance of Chrysostom his birth of Christian parents▪ and educated and baptized at age by Miletius, since that of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 pregnant. 'It is true I did allege it as Grotius 〈◊〉 saying, whom I found counted for a learned man by Spanheimius and many others, and I might well make use of him, as Protestants sometimes do of Papists that are corrupt in point of antiquity. If Dr. Young were the Author of the first part of Mr. Ms. Defense, and of the Latin Book of the Lord's day, published in the year 1639. under the name of Theophilus P • ylokyriaces Loncardiensis, he himself cites Baronius for the Lord's day in the very title page of his Book. What Grotius was in his life and studies, I leave for those who knew him to judge; his books though in many things corrupt, I might be allowed to make use of, as of other learned men with judgment. In this thing I did think I might the more securely take his word, because in the same place Annot. in Matth. c. • 9.14. he declared he was for infant Baptism; nor do I think it was without some reason which he affirmed, though my time and Library yield me not the advantage of making search into this thing. It is enough that it is supposed by learned men probable, which would not be if it were not then ordinary, that the children of Christian parents were baptized after they had themselves been believers. Which i • plain by the resolution of the Synod of Neocaesar • a, elder then the first Nicene, which determined; That a woman with child might be baptized, because the Baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb, because in the confession made in Baptism, each ones free choice is shown. For if in the confession in Baptism each ones free choice is shown, then infants were not ordinarily baptized, who could show no free choice in confession.

How this is vindicated from the shifts of Mr. M or his friend, may be seen in my Apology sect. 16. p. 87, 88. which I think needless to repeat. And for Grotius his saying, tha • in every age many of the Greeks unto this day, keep the custom of deferring the Baptism of little ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their saith, may be true, if either those in Italy mentioned by Ludov. Vives Comment in Aug. l. 1. de civit. Dei, c. 27. were Greeks, as it is likely in Calabria, where are Greek Churches as I remember Brerewood shows in his Enquiries of Religion, or the Georgians children, or the Christians children of Cholcos we • e Greeks; o • whom Heylin in his Geography in the description of Armenia, out of Brerewood, Alexand. Ross in his Censure of Religio Medici, &c say▪ they are not baptized till they be 8. years old. Nor need the Anabaptists yet to blush, for all Mr. Ms. or his friends, or Dr Homes, or Dr. Hammonds, or Mr. Craggs allegations, in saying that the An • ients, especially the Greek Church, rejected the baptism of infants for many hundred years. For there is no evidence produced for infant Baptism in the Greek Church till Nazianzens time, who flourished saith Dr. Hammond about the year of Christ 370. and died in the year 389. which is above 300. years, and he dissuades it except in case of apparent danger of imminent death, and saith some are kep • from Baptism by reason of infancy, and as Mr. M p. 24. of his Defense saith, all times were fit for Baptism, seeing no time was free from death, intimates Baptism not fit for some time, except in that case, which may be gathered to have been the only reason of infant Baptism, from what is s • id before of the story of hi • own baptism; and therefore I doubt not to conclude▪ that infant Baptism was not so ancient in the Greek Church as i • by Mr. M. and others pretended, and as now it is taught by him and others, is a late innovation.

SECT. LXXXXI. The testimonies of Tertullian for Infant Baptism, and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of chap. 39. de Anima, are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14.

I Proceed to review the proofs from the Latin Fathers for infant Baptism.

Answ. 1. That Tertullian might not be mistaken, or that the practice of infant Baptism could not be clouded or forgotten, is said by Mr. Cragge inconsiderately; 〈◊〉 afore Tertullian's time the great differences about keeping Easter between Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, where it's said, John lived much and died; and Victor of Rome, who pretended tradition from Peter, the mistake of • renaus about Christ's age, with sundry others. 2. That Tertullian would have called it down as an innovation, if the practice of it had not been as transparent to every man's apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams, is a confident speech, but of no credit with those who know Tertullian hath not called down, the anointing the baptized, giving milk and honey, using the sign of the cross, &c. which yet are undoubted innovations. 3. It is granted that infant Baptism was used in his time, but it is withal true, that he dissuaded it or did call it down as an innovation, except in case of danger of death, and that by sundry reasons; which if he had taken ken infant Baptism to be from the Apostles, he would not have done. 4. The allowing of it in that case arose (as Mr. Craggs quotations show) from the error of the necessity of it to salvation. But Dr. Hammond saith further.

1. He omits the making good of his paraphrase of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.12, 13, 14. except only those words [ else were your children unclean, but now they are holy] supposing it unnecessary if the interpretation of the last words appear to be this [but now are infant children partakers of the privilege of Baptism ] which I acknowledge were true, if he could make good this interpretation without making good the paraphrase of the rest. But there being a manifest coherence of all together, and a plain argumentative consequence implied v. 14. of the later part from the former, if the interpretation of the later part will not consist with the words going before, nor a good coherence and consequence in his sense making good the rest of his paraphrase, it is necessary he should make good, at least that which if it be not made good against my exceptions, the interpretation of the last clause will not stand. Now I conceive there are in my exceptions, most if not all those things, which I urged against his paraphrase and interpretation, which do overthrow it, since there would be either want of sense, coherence, or consequence in the Apostles speech, if Dr. Hammonds exposition were received, which Dr. Hammond hath not acquitted it from in his Defense.

One main thing on which the hinge of his paraphrase and interpretation turns, is, that the sanctification and holiness there is derived from the faith of the one party, and not on the conjugal relation; and therefore the term [ believer ] which is not in the text) is put by him in his paraphrase, and the terms [husband and wife] omitted, which the Apostle puts down with emphasis. I presume the Reader that reads my exceptions from p. 316. to 325. will judge the Doctors excuse not sufficient, he gives for not answering them more fully, when he assures me it were easy fully to answer them p. • 5. but does not, especially in this point on which the controversy between us depends, and therefore not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Dr. terms it. I think the Dr. hath made a more immoderate excursion in his heaping up testimonies out of the Fathers, in his standing so much on the denial of an enallage, and the force of the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But I resolve to follow him, and hope to overtake him in long running, though his Pen and Press be quicker in dispatch then mine.

The first thing the Dr. attempts is, to prove out of the Fathers, that the term [holy 1 Cor. 7.14.] is as much as [partakers of Baptism] First saith he, the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect, call Baptism sanctification, and Cyprian and Nazianzen are cited.

To which I answer, 1. The word of the Apostle is [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] the adjective [ holy ] which notes a state of discrimination from the unclean, not [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sanctified ] a participle connoting the action of the sanctifier, as well as the state of the sanctified, and therefore may import Baptism, and not the other; now the two Fathers the Dr. cites with Gregory Nyssen after, use not the term [ holy ] but sanctified, and therefore were it granted that they used [ sanctified ] for baptized, yet this proves not they or the Apostle to have used [ holy ] for baptized.

2. I think the Fathers he cites, did not in those passages he cites call Baptism sanctification, though they took the person baptized to be sanctified by it. My reasons are from their words. For when Cyprian saith [ him who is born to be baptized and sanctified ] he seems to me to distinguish, not to confound baptism and sanctification; and when Nazianzen in the place quoted useth this phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I think it is ineptly rendered by the Dr. p. 102. by this means they may be baptized souls and bodies : sure the Baptism of water doth not touch the soul: and therefore Nazianzen is to be so interpreted as though he included baptizing in the phrase of sanctifying as the means of it, ye • he doth not confound them, or call Baptism sanctification. The like I imagine might be said of Gregory Nyssen, if I had his book, whose words it's likely if the Dr. had set down more fully, as he doth in others, the impertinency of his allegation would have appeared. As for the Jewish style of sanctifications for Baptisms ▪ it will be to be considered after. Macarius his saying, that the Jewish Baptism sanctifies the flesh, is not a calling Baptism sanctification. But the Dr. stands most on Tertullian, in which he takes i • , that [ holy ] is used as he conceives Paul to use it 1 Cor. 7.14 for [partakers of Baptism] so he expounds, designatos sanctitatis, the designed or sealed of holiness, in the sense he conceives, wherein they that are baptized are by the ancients frequently said to be sealed and p. 92. designati sanctitatis, sure must signify that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian right, or sign, or ceremony of Baptism, as those which had the Heath • nish ceremonies used upon them, were candidati daemoniorum, candidates of the Devil in the former, thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra But neither do I conceive the Apostle to have used [ holy ] for holiness by baptism, nor that Tertullian doth mean that which the Dr. would have him, nor do the Apostle and Tertullian perfectly accord Twice in that Chapter doth Tertullian use the term [ holy ] once [ holiness ] once [ sanctified. ] The fi • st passage is thus. Hinc enim & Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tàm ex seminis praerogativa, quàm ex institutionis disciplina. From hence the Apostle also saith, holy ones to be procreated from either sex, sanctified as well by prerogative of seed, as by discipline of institution. By either father or mother sanctified the Dr. co • ceives meant, when either the father or mother is received as a believer by baptism into the Church, by [holy] baptized, for he makes the notion of [ holy ] in those words of Tertullian to be the same with designatos sanctitatis, which he interprets by sealed, that is baptized in the ancients language. Pag. 61. [holy] appears to be this [but now are your infant children partakers of the privilege of Baptism. ] But that Tertullian mean by [ sanctified, baptized ] is not proved by the Dr. and his paraphrase makes it in 1 Cor. 7.14. to import being converted to the faith ; and so Tertullian ad uxorem l. 2. explains what he means by [sanctified] gained by the wise to the faith. I deny not that he made Baptism a means of that sanctification, but he doth not call (as the Dr. saith) baptism sanctification, but the whole fact of God's grace, as he saith, Dei gratia illud sanctificat quod invenit, by teaching and enlightening the person sanctified. Yet herein Tertullian and the Dr. accord not with the Apostle, for the Apostle supposeth 1 Cor. 7.14. the person said to be sanctified still an unbeliever, otherwise his reason had been nothing to confirm the resolution v. 12, 13. which was the believing yoke fellow might live still with the unbeliever, for the unbelieving husband, that is the husband continuing an unbeliever is sanctified ; but this cannot be meant either of conversion to the faith or baptism, for then he should be a believer when he is said to be sanctified, so that it is plain neither Tertullian's expression concurs with the D • ctors notion, not do the Dr. and Tertullian agree with Paul. The other words sanctos procreari, since he restrains to infants, the sanctity pag. 72. hath this sense; the infants are procreated holy, that is baptized, for thus he speaks; the Apostle in that place makes the sanctification or bap • ism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever. But herein neither doth Tertullian or the Dr. accord with Paul, for he makes not the holiness of the children to be the benefit of the parents faith, but of their conjugal relation, nor doth the Dr. accord with Tertullian. For the holiness there meant by Tertullian, is not meant only of the time of infancy. 1. Because he saith it to be as well, ex institutionis disciplinâ, as ex seminis praerogativa. Where ex seminis prerogativa the Dr. agrees p. 92. to be in that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies, and so is in some degree holy, not federal holiness, as Mr. M. pag. 35. would the whole scope showing that to be the meaning, that they are not so polluted as heathens children. Now ex institutionis disciplina, the Dr. would have have p 9 • . meant the doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ in his Church; for by this it is that baptism was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati, born of parents of which either of them was Christian. Thus in his book de bapt. c. 12. he uses a like phrase, tingi disciplina religions, to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion, meaning evidently being baptized. 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 asperg • vel interci • i violentià maris aliud tingi disciplina religions. 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, ano • her thing to be baptized with the discipline of religion, that is, out of a willing yielding 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 show 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, since 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 baptized, 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, i • e (inquit) docete nations, tingentos ease in nomen patri • & filii & spiritus sancti. Huic legi collata definitio illa: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu non intrabit in regnum coelorum: obstrinxi • fidem ad baptismi necessitatem. Itaqae omnes exinde credentes tingebantur. And after, Nam & prius est pr • dicare, posterius tingere, and in the 18th. chapter gives his reasons against the hastening the ba • tism of infants, as being not necessary, which if he had acknowle • ged such an institution, as the Dr. imagines, 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 he made Christians when they can know Christ ; and af • er prescribes, How they should go to baptism, with prayer, fasting, kneeling, confessing of sins ; and in his Book of Repentance, calls Baptism the sealing of repentance, nowhere 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 joining together, designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis, which plainly shows, 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 Kingdom of heaven, is expounded by sanctus, holy. 4. It is opposed to that uncleanness which they had in Adam, and it is expressed to be in Christ, which must needs be a real saving holiness. 5. If it be that which is by baptism, then it is not baptism itself, 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 honored friend and quondam scholar Dr. Wilkins, Warden of Wadham College in Oxford, who at my request employed a friend to inquire 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 'tis 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 discipline of Christian institution, and so to be saved, or to enter into the Kingdom of heaven, by faith in Christ. 7. This sense is confirmed by the words [ hujus spei pignora, the pledges of this hope ] which show that the holiness and salvation meant in the words before, was a thing not then existent at the children's birth, but intended and hoped for at age, upon endeavors used by the believing parent. 8. This interpretation of designatos sanctitatis, or sanctitati, is confirmed by the expressions of Jerome, 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 Jerome, 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.

Answ. 1. It is more probable that this is the place Jerome meant, the expressions so agreeing and the matter, and that Jerome writing in hast mistook the the Title of the Book, and the term candidatos used in the Chapter before for designatos. 2. However, whether it were so or otherwise, the words cited by Jerome being to the same purpose will fitly explain the other.

Answ. 'It is true both places of Tertullian are very reconcilable, but not Dr. Hammonds interpretation of designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati with candidatos fidei. For Dr. Hammonds designatos is as much baptized, but candidatos notes only a future thing in expectation, and candidatos fidei answering to designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati shows the holiness to be saith, and that tending to salvation, not the bare title of a believer by baptism, but such a faith as saves effectually ac per hoc etiam salutis, which puts it out of doubt, that a real holiness though in intention and expectation only, and a real saving faith though future, is meant by Tertullian in both expressions, which is not avoided by the Doctors answer.

Answ. 'It is true Jerome expresseth another way of holiness which infants might have without understanding, but that this should be by baptism he doth not intimate. But if he did, yet he doth not make it the meaning of Tertullian's candidatos fidei, and therefore serves not his turn to prove that by holiness Tertullian meant baptism. Yea, this very thing is against it, since it is added as another way of sanctity then that he first mentioned, as the words simul{que} considera do seem to me to intimate; and therefore candidatos fidei and designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati is not partakers of Baptism in Tertullian, as the Dr. would have it.

Answ. 1. It gives but a lame account till it be proved St. Paul useth holy for baptized. 2. Though Jerome do say the Scripture names holy for clean, purified, and expiated ; yet this doth not prove he conceived the Scripture puts holy for Christian baptism.

Yet again saith the Dr.

Answ. How this testimony serves my turn upon more mature consideration of it▪ is shown. It is true sancti and sanctificati are used of the same persons, yet they are not the same; as calidum and calefactum may be said of the same wood, yet are not the same, since fire may be said to be hot, but not heated▪ and God may be said to be holy, but not sanctified. But the Dr. f • rge • s himself when he would have sanctified and holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. to be interpreted in the same sense. For then when it is said the unbeliever hath been sanctified, that is, brought to the faith by the wives counsel and example, it should be said of the infant children that they are in the same sense holy, that is, converted to the faith.

Yet further saith the Dr.

Answ. That the interpretation I give is neither groundless nor inconvenient, is manifest by the phrase itself, designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati ; the Doctors interpretation is altogether groundless and inconvenient; For he renders p. 59. designed by sealed, but he shows not that ever [ designatos ] signifies [sealed,] the term for that is obsignatos, Tertullian in his Book of Repentance saith, Lavacrum illud (meaning baptism) est obsignatio fidei, quae fides a paenitentiae fide incipitur & commendatur : The term [ designed ] notes plainly the intention of the parent, and this is also plain from the next words [ of this hope ] which shows it is not baptism in infancy they were designed to, for that they need not hope for, they might presently have; but real holiness 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 show, that designatos sanctitatis notes the intention of the parents with endeavors 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serve his own purpose (which he elsewhere causelessly 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. show 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 show. 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, Ita{que} omnes credentes tingibantur, Lavacrum illud est obsignatio fidei ; and this is agreeable to Christ's 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 Tertullian's meaning: Certainly Tertullian's phrase of designed to holiness is so far from proving infant baptism, that it proves the contrary, since 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 only 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 style of holy or sanctified, or how should these infant children, which may die before they come t • those years, receive any present privilege 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 privilege 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 only by prerogative of birth, but ex institutionis disciplinâ. This is sure a strange proof, It is not so, because it is not only so. 'It 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 only 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 only by their freedom 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 Tertullian's words of one believer: & therefore he must needs be mistaken in affirming the first, and he must needs miss Tertullian's meaning if by holy be meant baptized, and says they are baptized tàm 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 shown before how short his proof is of this sense. For present, Tertullian's 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 privilege of being born of a believer, which is acc • rding to the Dr. the discipline of insti • ution. If Tertullian had meant as the Dr. would have it, he had not used tàm and quàm, but said, holy by prerogati • 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 the place will the place be clear. For not two privileges (as the Dr. makes it) but one privilege, to wit, holiness, which the Dr. makes to be baptism, is ascribed to them by a double means, freedom from heathenish pollutions, and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism: Whereas freedom from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism, and if prerogative of birth • e meant of federal holiness (of which is not a word there) and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer, it is either an inept tautology, both being the same, or incongruous speech, which should be thus mended, by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church, imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture, nor Tertullian.

Nor do Tertullian's words following, de Anima, c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be enrolled in Christ, and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled, prove that by [holy] Tertullian meant baptized. For in the words before (to which [ ita so ] refer) he makes holy to be the same with entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit.

Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius, enough hath been said already. Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostom's words prove, that [holy] is as much as [ partaker of baptism ] in the Ancients language, much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14. to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond.

I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14. that the term [ young Children of Christians ] is more then is in the text, which hath only [ your children ] which is not restrained to infancy. But the Dr. proves it is, 1. By the authority of Tertullian, who saith of infant children, that they are procreated holy ; and Nazianzen, who using this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle, and so renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their children, by their infant children.

Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy only 2. No • is there anything said to make it in any sort probable, that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle, in which is neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor that he should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth, but only useth a description of young age, which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anywhere.

2. The other reasons are farther from the thing. For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers, that the parents faith profits only their infant children, some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan, the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue, that faith of parents profits children who were not infants. The other reason runs upon this mistake, which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning (but is denied by me) • hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14. sanctification or baptism of the children, a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever.

I said [ holy ] for [ admitted to baptism ] is a sense of the word nowhere else found. But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared, both from the usage of • he word among the first Christian writers, which is answered, and the Jewish, of which in that which follows, and saith.

Answ. True: But do • h he term any infant so in those places? or give them those titles barely from Baptism? doth he not expressly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism? The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my mind, but I think as I did his interpretation new, strange and absurd.

I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remiss. c. 26. (and the like is said l. 3· c. 12.)

To this the Dr. answers,

Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumen, mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers, who being termed holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. should seem not to need Baptism, which Augustine answers, 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification, but not determining which is there meant. 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers (not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumen) it belongs not to that • uestion of Baptism (not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of, except it be that of Baptism, it cannot avail to the remission of sins, &c.) to wit mentioned ch. 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism, original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy. Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant only of baptism of infants of believers, by virtue of the believing parents faith. As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered, I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them, that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them.

SECT. LXXXXII. Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from [hath been sanctified] for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14. is nullified, and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated.

CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus. First then to my first evidence taken from the word [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath been sanctified] referring to some past known examples and experiences, of this kind (of a wives converting the husband, &c.) he hath a double answer. 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it, it should signify not only that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified, but also that there is hope they will, and so it should note not only some example past, but also some to come, of which there can be a less reasonable account given, then of putting it in the present tense in English. 2. That the enallage or change of tense is frequent ch. 11.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the present tense for the future, and here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and in the next v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the preter for the present, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, not, hath been, but is sanctified,or if in the preter tense, yet that to be understood of a past thing, yet continued, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 John 3.18. notes an act still continued in force. To these two I reply briefly, and first to the former (the same which he had mentioned before, and excepted against as an excess in my paraphrase, but both there and here without the least cause;) For in my paraphrase I look upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a verb of the preter tense, and as such only adapt the sense to it, referring it not to future hopes, but to past experiments or examples; only because examples are rhetorical syllogisms, and what hath been frequently experimented may also reasonably be hoped, I suppose that the Apostle so meant these examples, as grounds of hoping the like for the future, not making this of the future any part of the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the preter, but explicating the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or rational importance (which is somewhat more then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Apostles speech) and supposing this conclusion to lie hid under this premise, as it is ordinary in all discourse to set down the • remises, distinctly leaving the conclusion by every ones reason to be drawn from thence, without setting it down explicitly.

Answ. That the Dr. in his paraphrase qu. 4. §. 31. of his letter, put so much as I have noted Review part. 2. sect. 26. of which there is nothing in the text expressed, is not justified by this plea. For what ever addition a paraphrast be allowed, yet sure no paraphrast is allowed to express that which he conceives it deducible from the sense of the words in thirteen lines, and the sense itself only in three and especially when he lays that in his paraphrase as the ground of his argument for his position, which hath not a word in the text to lead to that inference. Sure I had great cause to except against his paraphrase, which was so monstrous as to be defective in letting down what was the chief thing to be heeded in the Apostles speech, to wit, the relation of husband and wife, and so extremely exuberant, as to express that as done often, which is mentioned in the singular number only, and ascribe the sanctifying to the conversation not at all expressed, and put in a long inference that hath no intimation in the text, and mention an act of the Church, of which there is no inkling there or near it, or anywhere else in Scripture, and so many ways corrupting the sense, as I show ubi suprà, especially in the main supposing a mention made of a husband converted by the wife, and yet the husband expressed by the Apostle as continuing an unbeliever, and a husbands being sanctified by the wife which is ever ascribed to God's spirit, never to any Apostle, to make that which is used as a reason of lawfulness, as if it were a motive from an advantage, to make that as a Rhetorical motive, which is a Logical proof, to make that which was a rare contingent event, which might and it's likely did as often fail as a convincing argument to settle the conscience in the lawfulness of cohabitation, with other faults, as being so audacious an attempt, as I think no approved writer can be shown to have made, nor any considerate Reader will allow of. Nor would it ever have come into my thoughts, that so learned a man as Dr Hammond is, should have vented such a conceit as this is in his Letter and Annotations, did I not find him set to maintain what the Church of England, that is the Prelates, held or appointed, as others what the Scottish or New-English Churches approve of.

As for his excuse of his dealing in his paraphrase, it is too narrow a plaster for such a sore. For neither is anything 1 Cor. 7.14. set down as an example to move the will the judgment being before settled, nor any Rhetorical syllogism, used, but a Logical; as the terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , used Rom. 11.6. 1 Cor. 15.14, 18, 29, &c. show, nor doth the Dr. prove, but suppose the Apostle so meant; nor doth he answer the allegations I bring to the contrary, Review par. 2. §. 26. And his words here do imply as if this were the conclusion, that it is probable and a ground of hope, that the unbelieving yoke fellow will be converted by the believer cohabiting, and this the premise, for it hath often so come to pass, whereas there is not the least intimation of that conclusion in the text, and it is manifest by the term [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for ] that v. 14. is a proof of the determination or conclusion v. 12, 13. concerning the lawfulness of married persons living together in disparity of religion, not of Dr. Hammonds imagined as tacitly implied conclusion.

But he saith.

Answ. Dr. Hammond had no assurance from v. 16. that the unbelieving husband is oft converted by the wife; the thing being expressed so doubtfully as an uncertain contingent though possible, and so with some hope sperable, [ Jerome. come. in 1 Cor. 7.14. In dubium quidem • osuit sed semper ambiguam melius evenire credenda sunt. ] much less that there is a conclusion of the probability of the converting of the infidel yoke • fellow, v. 14. deducible from the example and experiment of what was done in time past, v. 16. being neither explication nor proof of what is said v. 14. but a motive to make the thing determined as lawful, v. 12, 13. more swasible, or a motive to what is said v. 15. that God hath called us in peace. In my apprehension if v. 14. were as the Dr. means, the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified, that is converted by the wife often, and therefore it is probable, or there is a ground of hope, or it is to be presumed, it will be so for the future, the Apostle had said the same v. 14. which is said v. 16. and so there would have been a mere tautology in the Apostles speeches, which is not to be conceived. As for 1 Pet. 3 1. though it show such an event possible, yet not frequent, nor is there in Peters words the least hint that Paul's words 1 Cor. 7.14. are to be understood as the Dr. would have them. But the Dr. hath another string to his bow, which he thus urgeth.

Answ. 'It is true that Jerome comment. in 1 Cor. 7.14. reads per mulierem, but in Ep 7 ad Laetam he reads in uxore, and August. tom 7. l. 2. de peccat. merit. & remis. c. 26. and that in Jerome in both places the terms fidelem and fideli are, but not in August. though he render the later part thus, & sanctificatur mulier infidelis in fratre. And I find in the scholies of Erasmus 〈◊〉 Roterdam, on Jerome's Epistle to Laeta this the fir •• note. For he is san ••• fied] The place is with S. Paul in the former Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 7. In the ancient copies we find written in the husband, not by the husband, and in the wife, not by the woman. For the Greek hath it, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife in the husband. Moreover what the interpreter adds [believer and believer] he hath done for explication. By which it may appear, that Erasmus saith otherwise then the Dr. saith Marianus Victorius doth, and for my part I imagine Erasmus is the more credible scholiast of the two. 'It is true that Jerome come. in 1 Cor. 7.14. hath the words the Dr. allegeth, but then he addeth, which the Dr. leaves out. Item ideo vir & uxor invicem sanctificantur: quia ex tradition Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae. That is, Likewise therefore the husband and wife are to each other or for each other, or in course sanctified, because by the tradition of God marriages are holy, which expresseth Jerome's second and better thoughts. By which it may appear that Jerome took of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if it were in the present tense. And for the other place of Jerome it is true, Jerome hath the words the Dr. cites, if the word [ Jovem ] be not put for [ proavum ] or some such word as Erasmus thinks. But then it is plain from the words left out by the Dr. Jam candidatus est fidei quem filiorum & nepotum credens turba circumdat. That is, He is as one that would be baptized, who hath a company of believing children & grandchildren about him. That the sanctifying is not made the privilege of the husband in respect of his wife, or of the children by the parent, but also the grandfather is conceived likely to be sanctified by the children and grandchildren, and all is ascribed to example and instruction, with this express speech, Fiunt non nascuntur Christiani; Christians are made, not born such. And though Jerome saith of Laeta's daughter Paula, that she was prius Christo consecrata quàm genita, and she had conceived her, ante votis quam utero, yet the words cui imperatori, cui exercitui nutriatur, cui promissa sit, regis amplexibus parat, de spiritualibus nuptiis sciscitantem, do seem to me to imitate that young Paula was not then baptized, which if right it is manifest, that children of believers were not baptized ordinarily then in infancy. And me thinks the words of Jerome in his commentary on 1 Cor. 7.14. on the words, Else should your children be unclean, but now are they holy; If it were not so as I say your children would yet remain infidels: for it would often happen that the children would follow those parents, who had believed. Upon which hope he would have it believed, that the other might be saved as well by the example of the children as by the marriage ; show that Jerome understood not the holiness of the children, of their baptism in infancy, but of their embracing the faith, by following the example of the believing parent, and in like manner the unbelieving parent was sanctified according to him, as well by the example of the children as the marriage. So that however Dr. Hammonds paraphrase in the forepart seems to have some countenance from these passages of Jerome, yet the latter part is expounded clean besides the Drs. mind, and the passages yield us such hints of the not baptizing of infants of believers, as do overthrow his conceit; as if the infants of believers were then ordinarily baptized.

Dr. Hammond adds. As for his 2d answer, I acknowledge such Enallages to be ordinary in the Hebrew, and sometimes, but more rarely, found in the Hebraizing Greeks or Hellenists, and consequently, that where the context will not bear the sense of the tense which is used, there may be place for this Grammatical figure, which yet is not to be made use of unnecessarily. Accordingly if there were any convincing reason offered, that [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the preter tense] could not be born, • should not then doubt to interpret it by this figure, either in the present or some other tense: But when (as here it is evident) there is no such necessity, then 1. I cannot think fit to do so, ('tis dangerous to forsake the literal sense, when it may be commodiously retained, and fly to either a Rhetorical or Grammatical figure;) and having no motive to do so, I am next to consider, what is the properest importance of that phrase in that tense wherein it is used, and then I could not (I believe) have fallen upon anything more natural, then that the preter form of speech referred to the past experiences, &c. This is a full satisfaction to his answer.

Answ. 1. The Drs. acknowledging that such Enallages may be, and sometimes are, shows that his interpretation is not necessary, and therefore his inference thereupon not certain, which is enough to make good my answer. 2. It is to me a convincing reason, that there is an Enallage of the preter tense for the present, not only because Camerarius and other learned men conceive so, and our Translator so render i • ; but also because by the making it to import an experience past • nely, a sense is brought in (as I have shown in my Examen, par▪ 3. sect 8. in the first part of the Review, sect. 19, &c. in the second part of the Review, sect. 26.) which is neither agreeing with the words, nor pertinent or accommodate to the matter of the Apostle speech 3 However the Dr. believe, yet it is shown here, and Review par. 2. sect. 6 that to refer the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14 to past experiences, is not natural. For the Apostles speech being a reason, not of the commodiousness of living together in disparity of Religion, (for if it had been of i • , they could have better resolved themselves then the Apostle, yea, they could have refuted the Apostle, and re ••• ied his reason against him, we find it not so by experience,) but of the lawfulness, the reason must be conceived to import right, not event; and so the speech is not of what hath been, which only mentions experience, but of what is de jure, or is lawful; and as Piscator rightly Schol. in 1 Cor. 7.14. Sanctificatus est] id est, usus illius ut sanctus, & conscientiam uxoris non ladens concessus est. And in this manner it is usual to express such sentences in the preter tense, yet to be expounded by an Enallage, as in the same Chapter the next v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the preter tense, yet rightly rendered [ is not under bondage,] v. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therei • difference, v. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is short, 1 Cor. 8.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is known, 1 Cor. 4.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 am justified, 1 Cor. 15.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye do stand, v. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are perished, 1 Cor. 16.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is opened, Tit. 1.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are defiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usually is written, Matth. 13.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is given.

Yet (saith the Dr.) I may in the 2 d. place ex abundanti add thus much more, that the utmost he can pretend to by the enallage (whether of the preter for the present, or of the preter understood of a past thing yet continued) is as commodious fo • my interpretation as the preter is: For if it be in the present, then the importance will be, that it is a matter of present daily experience; if in the past continued, then that it is matter both of past and present experience, that the unbeliever is thus wrought upon by the believer, and brought into the Church by Baptism, and this a just ground of hope, that so it may be again in any particular instance, and so a competent motive that the believing wife should abide with the infidel husband, and not depart as long as he will live peaceably with her: And this sure was S. Jerome's understanding in the words newly cited, the Apostle makes instance, produceth example that this hath (and doth) ordinarily come to pass; And to that also agrees the 16th. verse, For how knowest thou &c.

Answ. 1. If it be in the present tense, the importance will not be, that it is a matter of present daily experience, unless it be proved the term [ sanctified ] notes an iterated event, which I conceive and think I have proved to import right or lawfulness, so as that the sense is, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to or in respect of his wife (as Beza, Piscator, Grotius, &c. do conceive) that is, lawfully used, which is the only sense that fits the determination of the Apostle, which is not of the conveniency or commodiousness or advantage in living together, but of the lawfulness, v. 12, 13. Nor if it be in the past continued, will it fit the Drs. sense. For the Drs. sense is as if sanctification were the same with conversion, but that is an act transeunt, past, and not continued; and if it include baptism, as the Dr. would have it, the sense should be, The unbelieving husband hath been converted, and brought to baptism, and continues to be converted and brought to baptism by the conversation of the wi • e; which cannot be said of the person said to be sanctified: Yea, there is no less then an implicit contradiction in the words so expounded; for then it should be thus meant, The unbelieving husband (remaining an unbeliever, as the Ap • stles speech supposeth, else it were not apposite to the case v. 12, 13.) is and continues to be wrought upon by the believer, and brought into the Church by baptism. Yet were this exposition allowed, it would no whit avail to the Drs. purpose, unless the futurity of the same act were implied in that imagined sense of the Dr. For it is not the event past that is the motive of cohabitation, but the hope of that which may be: And yet the Dr. tells us in his paraphrase, he looks upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a verb of the preter tense, and as such only adapts the sense to it, referring it not to future hopes but to past experiences or examples. Ye • he saith, the Apostle produceth example, and to that also exactly agrees the 16 th. v. For how knowest thou, &c. which doth not at all mention an example or past experience, which could not be not done being once done, but only an uncertain and doubtful futurity. So that in this again the Drs. speeches do enterfere, and his speech is most false, that the words v. 16. do exactly agree with the meaning of the forepart of the 14th. v. as the Dr. expounds it. I omit that there is not a word that intimates the bringing into the Church by baptism; and i • there were, it would import a strange experience of a wives bringing her husband into the Church by baptism, which cannot be avoided by saying through her persuasion it is done by another; For the Text expressly assigns the sanctification, what or however it be, to the wives individual person, if then, to her as an agent it is done by her. But I have said so much here, and Review 2d. par. sect. 26. of this exposition, as me thinks should make this exposition of the Dr. to be exploded by the learned.

Yet he writes further thus.

Answ. This instance is convincing, that enallage of tense is sometimes used, it being used in this place, as Piscat. scholie in locum, Enallage temporis & metaphora. And the Drs. reason doth no whit weaken the allegation of it; for that which notes Paulo post futurum, a future near approaching, is not without an enallage expressed by the present tense. And for the enallage in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I conceive with the Drs. good leave, that usually the Greeks express by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what the Apostle doth by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so there is an enallage of tense or mood; and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 15. if an enallage be not conceived, then it must not import the present tense at all, whereas the Dr. grants it notes the preter tense yet continued, which is all one as to say it notes the present tense, which without an enallage it could not do. As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Joh. 3.18. I wonder the Dr. would intimate as if it were produced by me to the prejudice of the preter tense, when my very words say expressly it notes a past thing yet continued, and bring it to that purpose: But how this is far from being still perfectly agreeable to his notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the unbeliever oft hath been, and daily is converted; and brought to baptism by the believer, is apparent, in that the continuation of the condemnation, Joh. 3.18. is only in respect of legal force and virtue; but the sanctification 1 Cor. 7.14. is as he expounds it, a mere transeunt act that imports no legal right, force, and virtue, and therefore cannot be said to be continued as the other can. And how vain the Drs. sense is, and how justifiable my interpretation is by an enallage, is shown before.

SECT. XCIII. Dr. Hammonds rendering [by] 1 Cor. 7.14. is reselled, and my rendering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [to] justified.

SEct. 3. The Dr. omitting what I said, that if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be rendered [ in ] it serves my turn, not his unless it be proved it must be rendered [ by, ] and his supplement [ by the company and conversation of the believer ] proved, saith somewhat to my reasons of adhering to the reading of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 7, 14. by [ to ] 1. because this seems to me the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense. But 1. he tells me this is the begging of the question, that it is such must not be here supposed when it should be proved. To which I reply, 1. if it be the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense, it is some proof. 2. That it is the only sense which can stand with the words and scope of the Apostle, and is avouched so by learned men, ancient and later Protestants and Papists, is shown at large in my Exercit. sect. 5. Examen, par. 3. sect. 8 Review, par. 1. sect. 11, &c. here sect. 76, &c. Refutat. of Dr. Savage his position in Latin, sect. 9. Antidote, sect. 7. besides what occurs in my Apology, Postscript, Plea, which is abundantly sufficient for acquitting me from begging the question, which he doth so importunely urge. 3. That the Dr. rather begs the question then proves his interpretation, hath and will appear in this and the former view taken of it.

But the Dr. sullies the beauty of my sense of the Apostles words thus.

Answ Nil tam recte dictum quod non possit male interpretando depravarier, as the Dr. doth here. 'It is true I did in the second part of this Review Sect. 26 p. 319, 320. say (and gave reasons of it) that the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.12, 13. did dot forbid leaving each other, but resolve only the lawfulness of living together, but this did not intimate as if the believer were simply free to abide or not abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow willing to live with her, that when the unbeliever is willing to abide the believing wife may also depart if she rather choose, but this, that notwithstanding the continuance of the unbelief of the husband, the wife might live with him, it was not unlawful. So that I asserted not a liberty of le • ving him upon any cause, but a liberty of continuing with him, notwithstanding that reason • and therefore the Dr. did ill to paraphrase v. 12. be ought not to put her away, v. 1 • . let her by no means separate from him. And I gave some reason from v. 15. where the permitting to depart is a matter of liberty, as the word [ is not in bondage ) shows, and yet the word is as much imperative as v. 1 • , 13. And I might have added, that v. 18. let him not be uncircumcised, let him not be circumcised, are there expressions of liberty, not of duty (as the reason v. 19. shows) and yet are as imperative as the forms used v. 12, 13. [ See before of this, p. 624, 625, 626.] 'It is true, to be circumcised might be forbidden elsewhere, as Gal. 5.2, 3. and might be then unlawful, and so it might be forbidden in other texts for the beliver to leave husband except in case of fornication, but in these texts liberty only is expressed, in the one of living together notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party, in the other continuing in that state of circumcision or uncircumcision, as they were in when they were first called to the faith of Christ. And this I think the Dr. should prefer as the most suitable to his own exposition, since the frequent conversion of the infidel by the believer, v. 14. is no fit reason to make it an unlawful thing for her to depart, but only it may be some motive of her will to continue, as the Dr. makes it. And I conceive v. 17, 20, 24. are to be so expounded, since it is clear that to be a servant, or unmarried are some of the callings there mentioned, as v. 21, 27, 28. show, but if it were a command of duty meant, v. 17, 20, 24. the servant must remain a servant contrary to v. 21. and the unmarried not marry, contrary to v 28. And v. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seek not a wife, being as prohibitive a form as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 12, 13. an unmarried man should be forbidden to woe a woman, contrary to v. 28. which exempts marriage from sin. So that indeed all these imperative speeches v. 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27. are to be expounded as resolutions of liberty, and so precepts of indulgence, not absolute prohibitions or injunctions of what may in no case be done, or must be done as precepts of empire. And it is as when a person scrupling whether she may be married to a Priest wooing her is resolved thus, let her not forsake him, she is not commanded to marry him, but resolved she may; so it is in this case. Which being rightly understood, there is nothing opposite in my speech to Christ's speeches Matth 5. or 19. about not putting away except in case of fornication, nor the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.10. Nor need I trouble myself whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be the other questions, v. 1, 6, 8, 10. though I think it should have been then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor whether it be to be applied to v. 15. as the Dr. would, though it be in my apprehension very unlikely.

Secondly, saith the Dr. In this rendering, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is englished (not by is or hath been sanctified, but • by [is as if he were sanctified] which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not, truly (in any respect) sanctified, and then sure this will be a strange construction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the unbeliever (is not sanctified but) is as if he were sanctified, when yet literally it must be rendered the unbeliever hath been, or (to gratify Mr. T.) is or continues to be sanctified: For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation, he is sanctified, by he is not? For so assuredly he is not, if he only be as if he were.

Answ. According to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered or englished [ is or hath been sanctified ] but is expounded [is as if he were sanctified] as 1 Cor. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered or englished [ were baptized ] yet by Grotius expounded annot. 1 Cor. 10.2. baptizali sunt, id est, quasi baptizati sunt. Which me thinks should be no strange construction to Dr. Hammond, who by his answer to Dr. Owen ch. 5. §. 1, 2. seems to be acquainted with Grotius his annotations and other writings, and to account of him as a very pious, learned judicious man. In this exposition of Grotius there is as much an interpretation of an affirmative by interp • sing a negation as in mine; the like I may say of other passages in the New Testament, as when it is said Heb. 11.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dead or killed of Abraham then alive, Matth. 12.49. he that doth the will of his father in heaven is Christ's mother, who never bare him in the womb, Matth. 12.5. they profane, who did holy service, Matth. 19.12. they made themselves Eunuchs, who were not gelded.

The Dr. adds. With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given, the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer, i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbelief, and this sense enforced by the interrogation, v. 16. For what knowest thou, O woman, whether thou shalt save the man, &c. And by S. Peters aphorism of daily observation 1 Pet. 3.1. the husband that obeys not the word, i. e. the unbeliever, may probably be gained by the conversation of the wife, and then let him impartially pass judgment, which is the fairest and easiest rendering.

Answ. Content: If he will but take notice of this one thing (besides many more) that the unbelieving husband, mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14. is said to be sanctified even then when he was an unbeliever. Which is proved from the text. 1. The unbelieving huusband, and wife, v. 14. are the same with the unbelieving husband and wife mentioned v. 12, 13. for the expression v. 14. is rela • ive to v. 12, 13. otherwise it were impertinent to resolve the question, and the particle [ for v. 14.] showing it to be a reason of the determination v. 12, 13. plainly proves it to be meant of the same persons who continued unbelievers. 2. From v. 15. where the resolution of the doubt is continued, But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart ; which is not to be expounded of him that was an unbeliever but is not, but of him who is when he departs, which is confirmed in that he is opposed to a brother or sister, who if he were converted should be a brother. 3. From v. 16. where still the unbeliever mentioned v. 12, 13, 14, 15. is supposed to remain an unbeliever, else why should his saving be made doubtful and contingent? And if the Dr. stand to his own conceit, as if v. 16. exactly agreed with v. 14. it must be so construed by himself. 4. His own Tertullian who saith ex sanctificato alterutro sexu, not utraque, and Jerome, and all other that add fidelem, v. 14. and all the interpreters I know, that do make the sanctifying to be v. 14. in disparity of religion, do agree in this, that the unbeliever v. 14. is meant of one that continues an unbeliever, otherwise he should not be distinguished from the believer, who was also an unbeliever formerly. Which if but observed, I dare put it to any Reader of ordinary capacity to judge between us, whether the Doctors sense be not so far from being the fairest and easiest, that it is indeed a foul one, such as doth imply a contradiction to the Apostles words, the Dr. supposing the unbeliever v. 14. once such but not so then, the Apostle supposing him to continue so, the Dr. expounding it thus; He that was once an unbeliever, another then the unbeliever meant v. 12, 13. hath been sanctified by the believing wife, that is converted; and the Apostle, He that is still an unbeliever, the same mentioned v. 12, 13. is sanctified; and whether mine [The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow: For though he be an unbeliever, yet in or to his wife, he is as if he were sanctified; it's all one in respect of lawful [omitted by the Dr.) conjugal use as if he were sanctified] be not the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense, that is to be given of those words 1 Cor. 7.14.

The Dr. goes on thus;

Answ. I did aver more then the Dr. sets down, that the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for [ to ] may with good congruity and Grammatical analogy be affixt to it, 1 Cor. 7.14. and I used these words left out by the Dr. whereas he saith (meaning the Dr) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on him or against him, and that this is an ordinary acception, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; I grant that it is an ordinary acception to use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but not in the sense he here conceives, to wit, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes on or against a person. Now the Doctors instance is but in one verse, and therefore shows not the ordinary acception, and then whereas I expected an instance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it notes on or against a person, he brings an instance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on a tree, and this is not of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 against, which had been more for his purpose, but for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, though in the sense of [ on him ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rather answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Yet the Dr. brings no authority but his own for this his conceit of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for on, Luk. 23.31. I add; that though the Latin and English translators I have yet looked into, do render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luk. 23.31. by in not on, super or contrà (which are the Drs. notions) yet I find Diodati in his Italian translation reading, all legno verde all legno secco, which I take to be as much [ to ] as if it were expressed by ligno viridi, and ligno sicco or arido, without a preposition, and if so, the Dr. hath brought a text which further confirms my conceit against himself. In which I am the more confident, because when an object patient, or a subject suffering is expressed with the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is either never or very rarely said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as in Luk. 1.25, 49, 68. & 2.48. & 6.11, 23, 26, 27, 31. & 8.39. & 18.41. & 20.15. Acts 4.16. & 9.13. Luk. 1.38. & 14.12. & 19.9. Acts 2.43. & 7.40. & 20.3. & 22.6, 17. omitting other writers. Which is an argument to me, that Luk. 23.31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant, and that it is best transiated, to the dry, to the green, and so the Dr. hath given an instance for my notion, not for his own.

He saith further. And then for S. Marks using (in the parallel place) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] that proves not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was rendundant in S. Matthew, or that it was a bare sign of the Dative case, it being free to S. Mark to use any other expression, different from S. Matthew so he retained the sense, as it is clear in this place he doth, doing injuries to him, being all one in effect with upon or against him, though the phrases are not the same, which no way infers that when the change of the phrase changes the sense, it were lawful so to vary it, as in the place we have in hand ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 'tis on both sides supposed to do.

Answ. The Dr. omits these words of mine [However if he could, yet me thinks it should satisfy, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes no more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ and is a sign of the Dative case, because Mark who seems to have abbreviated Matthew, so expresseth it, and the common use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whe • it notes dealings of man to man whether good or bad, is usually expressed by the Dative case, as Matth. 7.12. & 18.12 & 20.32. & 21.36, 40. & 25.40, 45.] to which the Dr. makes no answer, and that which he saith here, doth confirm my notion. For if it were free to Mark to use any other expression different from Matthew, so he retained the sense, and yet he doth not use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but put only the Dative case to express the same; that Matthew did it appears that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are to the same sense and phrase, to express injuries done to John the Baptist, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Matthew is redundant, and nothing expressed by it but what is expressed in Mark in the Dative case without it. What the Dr. means when he saith ['tis on both sides supposed ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) changes the sense, and so it is unlawful to vary it] I do not understand, our present question is not whether it be lawful to change a phrase when the sense is not changed, and unlawful when it is: but whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matth. 17.12. be redundant and a sign of the Dative case: this is yet unanswerably proved to be by this, that Mark. 9.13. the same phrase and matter is expressed without it, and there it notes only the Dative case, and that is the usual manner of expression without 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be taken as redundant, and a sign of the Dative case only, Matth. 17.12.

The Dr. goes on, A second instance which he conceivs cannot be eluded, is Col. 1.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which was preached to every creature, and this he proves to be the only rendering ; 1. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to preach, is commonly with a Dative case of the object, and though 1 Tim. 3.16. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet our translators and the Vulgar, and Beza read it, unto the Gentiles, as if there it noted only a dative case; and if it were among the Gentipes there, yet here Col. 1.2 • . it cannot be so, because the object is in the singular number, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it is for among, is joined still with a noun of the plural. And 2. that which, saith he, puts this out of all doubt, is, that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mark 16.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But to all this the answer is ready, by observing the exact notation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the whole creation (as we render it Rom. 8.22.) as that signifies the whole, but especially the Gentile world, and accordingly is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 28. and farther explained by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the whole world, to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go, when they were thus to preach the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to this whole creation. Now of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this notion it is clear, that though it be in the singular number, yet that hath the power of the plural, as the word [world] and the like, which everybody knows is a noun of multitude, and so is creation, when it is thus taken for the whole created world, meaning the world of men, the nations or people of the world. And then there can be no doubt but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is most exactly thus to be rendered, preached in, or among the whole creation, as Gal. 1.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 preach in the nations, or among the Gentiles, and so 1 Tim. 3.16. also, though the sense being no way altered by rendering it unto the whole creation, or every creature, and the Gentiles, it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendered, which yet must not prescribe for other places where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendering as in this case, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is observable, where therefore the literal rendering being retained, we are not reasonably to conclude anymore from it, then that literal reading will afford us. As for the parallel phrase Mark. 16. that doutless can prove nothing ; 1. Because the places are not nor can be thought parallel. 2. Because if they were (as of Matth. 28. and Mark 16. hath been granted) yet the parallel lying only in the sense, and that being all one whether they preached to or among the Gentiles, this no way concludes that the phrases are the same, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one redundant, which is the only thing, for the proving of which this parallel is produced, but of that I have formerly spoken.

Answ. Had the Dr. shown any one interpreter that ever rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Col. 1.23. by inter omnem creaturam, among every creature, or that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it signifies inter or among or either of these prepositions, is put in Latin or English before a noun of multitude in the singular number, he had said more then I yet deem he can, or I think any other Grammarian, nor do I take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be a noun of multitude, there may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though there were but one individual, though I grant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes many creatures, nor do I conceive it good sense to render it in every creature, since the term [ creature ] doth note persons not place, and to be preached in every creature, would imply such a sense as will not suit with the matter, which is conceived by many interpreters, to note the accomplishment of what Christ appointed Mark 16.15. which leaving out the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the common use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to preach being with a Dative case of the object, I did infer that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant and a note of the Dative case, as Pasor before me in his Lexicon of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of which he saith, saepe ex Hebraismo redundat Col. 1.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , predicati omni creaturae. Sure if it were most exactly rendered, as the Dr. saith, preached in or among the whole creation, it is marvel none hit on this afore the Dr. as they have done Gal. 3.16. 1 Tim. 3.16. Whether Col. 1.23. and Mar. 16.15. be parallel in the manner I make them, is to be referred to the Readers judgment, when he shall compare them together. Sure I find all these, Beza, Camerarius, Piscator, Zonchius, Grotius, Davenant, Trapp, the new Annotations, Elton, referring to and explaining one by the other, and the Dr. confessing the sense the same, every Grammarian that understands Greek may plainly see the phrase to be the same save that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is added Col. 1. • 3. and therefore from all these I infer as most probable, and to me certain, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant, that it's only the sign of the dative case of the object, that it is most truly rendered as our Translators and many more rendered, to every creature, that is, as Gorram expounds it, universis hominibus, to all, or all sorts of men. As for the Drs. cautions about prescribing and concluding, they are impertinent to the present thing concerning Col. 1.23. whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be redundant the sign of the Dative case there. Whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 7.14. he to be rendered [ to ] whether the sense will bear it, whether it make any other change in the sense then is fit, or anymore be concluded, then is deducible is before and after to be discussed. Hitherto it appears not but that I said right, Matth. 17.12. Col. 1.23. cannot be eluded.

The Dr. goes on,

Answ. 1. That the persons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 men, are governed by the proposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not rightly said by the Dr. First, Because the placing of it next after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shows it is governed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 given. Secondly, Because if [ men ] were not governed of [ given ] the participle [given] were superfluous. For he sense would be the same, and the speech were as good language if it were left out, and the reading only thus; neither is there another name under heaven among men, whereby we must be saved. • . That name whereby we must be saved ] should be put for [ means of salvation ] and not a person distinctly is both besides the usual acception of the term [ name ] and the drift of the words, which show that by [ name ] is meant [ person ] and makes the speech false; For the preaching of the Gospel by Prophets, and Apostles, were means of salvation afforded by God, and continued among men, besides Christ and his preaching. 3. That this gift was dispenc'd in form of human flesh, that Christ was become man, and to be f • und and seen among men, shows not that he was given among men, but to be among men, his giving was from above, as he often saith, that he came down from heaven, Joh. 6.38, 41, 50, 51, 58.33. given from heaven, v. 32. Joh. 8.23. ye are from beneath, I am from above. Joh. 3.31. He that cometh from above is above all, he that cometh from heaven is above all ; which is contrary to what Peter (as the Dr. expounds him) speaks here, that he was a name under heaven given among men. And the other reason, because the benefit of this gift is a common donative, and distributed among men, though it perverts the sense, putting for [ the name ] which signifies the person [ the benefit ] and confounding the person whereby we must be saved with the benefit, which is no other then salvation, yet it makes for my sense. For what is it to be a common donative, distributed among men, but to be given to men. So that in the issue, the Dr. notwithstanding his struggling is not able to avoid it, but that it serves my purpose of proving 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redundant, and a sign of the Dative case. What the Dr. saith to what I add out of Beza annot. on Acts 4.12. the Dr. might have remembered (if he ever read it) that in my Examen. part. 1. §. 4. I did take notice that Irenaeus was a Greek and wrote in Greek, but now only we have his works in Latin except some few fragments, and Beza so great a learned man, as had few equals, especially in the Greek language, it is likely knew so too; and therefore the Dr. might have omitted that intimation, as if we were forgetful thereof. And it had been fair if the Dr. had taken notice, that Beza alleged first the old interpreter, as reading [ datum hominibus, given to men ] and Irenaeus (meaning his translator, who is commonly cited as Irenaeus ] after him, and that I added Camerarius, which the Dr. saith nothing to, but hath a snatch at Beza's alleging Acts 7.44. which I rest not on, since it may be read [ with or among ] as well as [ to ] which is agreeable with our l • st translation, Our Fathers had the Tabernacle of witness. But I follow the Dr. in his debates, which it is indeed pity the Reader or the Dr. should be exercised with, being fit for better undertakings then these, which he is detained with upon his own motion, as one that is cedere nescius to a plain truth, not in obedience to me who never enjoined him this exercise.

He saith,

Answ. I could not well have spared the expression, having temptation for it from Dr. Hammonds mis-interpreting the Apostles speech, so as to make it according to the Drs. sense, though not according to the Apostles, an inept tautology; which however strange, yet was no undecent expression, there being nothing that reflects on the Apostle but on the Dr. tending to show the absurdity of his interpretation, not of the Apostles words. From which the Dr. doth not relieve himself by his answer here. For the later phrase doth not express the same more clearly, there is neither a copulative conjunction nor dis • junctive, expressed or implied, nor any other particle which may show the later phrase to be exegitical of the former, but the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth plainly show that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Evangelizing or preaching the Gospel, to be m • ntioned as the end or consequent of the revelation, and therefore not the same act. Besides the preaching the Gospel by a man is nowhere termed the revealing of Christ by him to others, being known to him before, but the making known to the person, and revelation is still made God's, Christ's, or his spirits act, and hath a Dative case of the person who is the object to whom the thing is revealed added to it, as Matth. 11.25, 27. & 16.17. Luk. 10.21, 22. John 12.38. 1 Cor. 2.10. & 14 30. Eph. 3.5. Phil. 3.15. 1 Pet. 1.12. and this must needs be the meaning, the words before being, whereas before he was zealous of the Law against the Christian profession, when it pleased God who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his son in him ; or as Beza annot. in locum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est mihi, to me, which plainly shows that this revelation was to him when he was called, which is called the revelation of Jesus Christ to him, v. 12. and made the proof of his calling to be an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, v. 1. and the reason why he preached without conferring with the Apostles And thus doth Perkins come. on Gal. 1.16. rightly explain it, to reveal his son in me or to me, and to express the manner or form of his calling or conversion, and expounds it thus, to teach me the doctrine of the redemption of mankind by Jesus Christ, and the words to preach Christ among the Gentiles the end of his vocation. As for that which the Dr. desires me now to take notice of, I do, though I think it needless, since the tautology I conceived to follow on the Drs. exposition, is not in the object but in the act, revealing his son by the Apostle, being no other then his preaching, which makes the speech nugatory, it pleased God to preach his son by me, that I might preach. As for the place of 2 Pet. 1.5. since the Dr. makes no more answer I need make no more reply, and I still aver that all the places which I brought out of the N. T. have the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for to, as a sign of the Da • ive case.

To the places out of the Greek of the Old Testament, he tells me, that three only places in the whole Old T. would never infer that so it must be in the New (which I grant) and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it wust be here (which is also granted, except a necessity of a more fair, easy, and congruous sense then any other rendering) these three will be of no avail to me. But this is not yielded. For the two first, Deut. 28.60. & 2 Kings 5.25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vulg. adhaerebit tibi & semini tuo, being used constantly in the N. T. with a Dative Luk. 10.11. and 15.15. Acts 5.13. & 8.29. & 9.26. & 10.28. & 17.34. Rom. 12.9. 1 Cor. 6.16, 17, &c. it is a strong presumption that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant, and only the sign of the Dative case. And the other place Psal. 68.18. compared with Eph. 4.8. hath some force, it being probable that the Apostle expressed what the LXX meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But it was not of this last only, but of all together, I said I took them to be more then enough to refute the Drs. speech, that the notion, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to, which is a sign of the Dative case, is never found once to belong to it in the N. T. nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it.

SECT. XCIV. It is shown that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16. for his sense of the fore-part of v. 14. Nor will his sense of Holy for Baptized, agree with the Apostles argument, though his sense of the forepart of the v. were granted.

THe Dr. adds,

Ans. The Dr. seems to be much crest-fa • n, who having said his exposition appeared most irrefragably by v. 16. wherein he said the fore-part of v. 14. was further explained. When four plain reasons were urged against this, he replies to none, but only calls them intricacies, and toils, and saith, my exceptions depend on this, that v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 14. whereas my reasons prove it to be neither an explanation nor an application of the argument formerly proposed v. 14. but another argument, not to prove the lawfulness of the believers continuance with the believer, as v. 14. but either as a motive to bring them to what he had concluded lawful, or to enforce what he had said v. 15. And for what the Dr. saith, that v. 16. the argument formerly proposed, v. 14. is more signally brought home to them, it is not true even according to the Drs. own paraphrase. For the Drs. paraphrase of v. 14. as if therein a frequ • ncy of the conversion of unbelievers yoke fellows by the believer, were well known as matter of ordinary observation, and so hopeful in the case of the present doubters, brings home the argument more signally then a mention o • it as possible, doubtfully expressed as a contingent that might be or not be. But I am willing the Reader should hear us both and then judge. I for my part do still conceive the Drs paraphrase of the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.11. to be far from the meaning of the text, the reason of the Apostle being by it made a Rhetorical argument to enforce the cohabitation as an advantage, which is used to make it lawful, and urged from a contingent thing which no whit cleared the doubt, but the reason might be retorted against him, and all ascribed to the yoke fellow as a believer, when the term believer is quite omitted, and that ascribed to the believer which is still elsewhere ascribed to the spirit of God, and that expressed as done often and as of ordinary observation, which is expressed in the singular number, and made by the Apostle as doubtful and uncertain. And if these be intricacies and toils the Dr. hath had little compassion on me and his reader, who when he might so easily, would not spend a little more time to help me out of them, though spread by himself.

The Dr. proceeds Sect. 4.

Answ. Since the Dr. hath disclaimed my good words, and approbation of his ingenuity, ch. 1. sect. 1. of this his defense, I shall forbear to commend his ingenuity, but cannot choose but take notice of his shift he makes to avoid the force of my reasons, by bearing the Reader in hand that I made a shift not to understand him, that I substitute another way of arguing in his name instead of it, that I combat with a shadow of my own creating, no part of my impression lighting upon that which alone he professeth to be his meaning in it, and therefore must not now be so impertinent as to lose time in the pursuit of the particulars proposed by me. This is a pretty art to pretend a reason why he need not answer what he cannot; like his, who when he could not make a good account, devised how he might make none at all. The Dr. saith I have substituted another way of arguing in his name instead of that he hath set down. Now sure this intimates that this he sets down was a way of arguing, and calls hi • explications he sets down the argument of the Apostle thus explained in his paraphrase in the later way more plainly. But in neither do I find any arguing ascribed to the Apostle in the later part of his word▪ 1 Cor. 7.14. but in the former a mere d • claration upon what reason Christians children are (as the Dr. conceives the Apostle mean • ) admitted to baptism; in the later, an addition of a paraphrase on the first part of 1 Cor. 7 14. with his advise according to v. 12, 13. and his paraphrase confirmed by v. 16. Nor doth the Dr. at all explain those words, Else were your children unclean, though those were the words I chiefly insisted on to show the absurdity his framing the Apostles reasoning brought his words to, as the Reader may plainly perceive by my words in the 2d part of my Review, sect. 26. p. 330, 331. But to show the Drs. collusion in this thing, the Reader may observe 1. that neith • r in his paraphrase in his 4th. qu §. 31. (though he make it §. 32. the importance of the Apostles words, and force of his arguing ) nor here, doth the Dr. set down the true force of the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 else, which in his Letter, qu. 4. §. 33. (to which my answer was made, p 330, 331, 332. with which the Dr. here cavils) he terms an argumentative style. For the expressions [ upon this score, on this one consideration, upon this ground ] are not exclusive terms, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 else is, which implies not only that the thing is so upon that one consideration, but also that without it it should be otherwise; nor doth the Dr. seem to put them as answering to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 else were, but to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but now. 2. That (as I said before) the Dr▪ doth in neither of these paraphrases set down anything as answering to [ else were your children unclean ] nor in his Letter, qu 4 §. 3 • ▪ except these words are put to answer them [ yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism, ] which me thinks he should not do, since [ your children ] is in all his paraphrases [ Christians children, believers children ] and therefore I am loath to think him so much overseen▪ as that he should put [ the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism ] for [ your children were unclean, ] 3. If he should, he should in that paraphrase much pervert the Apostles meaning, by putting that which answers to [ else were your children unclean ] contrary to the Apostles order, after that which answers to [ but now are they holy; ] of which disorder, tending to pervert the Apostles meaning, his plainer later paraphrase here is guilty, putting first that which he conceives answerable to [ but now are they holy, ] and then that which answers to [ the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, ] and then that which answers to [ v. 13. let her not leave him, ] and then the 16th. v. which sure is such a disorder as is very faulty, so deforming the Apostles argument, as that its like the leaving out of an arm or eye, the placing of the hand where the eye should be in the painting of a man, whereby he is made a monster. 4. Whereas the Dr. Defense of Baptism, p. 66. denies that he made the future hopes any part of the sense of [hath been sanctified,] in all these paraphrases he sets down nothing but the future hopes, which are no part of the sense by his own confession, but as he imagines, the rational importance, the score, ground, or consideration of admitting children to Baptism. And not only so, but adds more then he makes the rational importance of the term [ hath been sanctified ] in his paraphrase, as that by their living in the family with Christian parents, they probably will (and ought) to be brought up in the faith, and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents, reasonably presumes they will. None of which he doth so much as pretend to be the rational importance of [ hath been sanctified, ] but adds them of his own; and with like fancying might have added, the Church doth reasonably presume they will be Teachers, Officers in the Church, Martyrs, and what else they could wish them to be I refer it to any sober ingenious Scholar to judge, whether such kind of paraphrasing, especially when an argument is drawn from it, as the chief, if not only pi • lar of the cause, be tolerable.

On the other side, that the Dr. did make the Apostles arguing otherwise, when he refuted the answer to his argument hence, in his Letter, qu. 4. §. 82. appears by his words there, p. 257. (which I cited Review par. 2. pag. 322. and were those whence I gathered the Drs. framing the Apostles argument) when he said, The invalidity of this answer will be discerned First by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place, for the co • habiting of the believing wife with the unbelieving husband, &c. because the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified by the believing wife, or else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: that must needs be this, unless there were some hope that the co-habiting of a believer, should be a means to bring an unbeliever to the faith, 'twould certainly follow, that their children were unclean; now putting to it that which he in his paraphrases §. 31. of his 4 th. qu. in his Letter, where he expresseth [hath been sanctified] thus, The unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer, and [unclean] by [not admitted to Baptism,] and [holy] by [admitted to Baptism,] and [your children by [the young children of Christians whereof was an unbeliever;] and I appeal to any that shall compare my words in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 26. p. 331. where I make this the Apostles arguing as the Dr. expounds it, [ If some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been converted by the faith, diligence, and conversation of the believing party that then was, then the children of you who are believers, but begotten or brought forth by one that yet is an unbeliever, had not been admitted to Christian Baptism in infancy: but now, that is, upon this score, that some former unbelieving yoke-fellows have been brought to the faith of Christ by the faith, conversation, and diligence of the believer, they have been admitted to Baptism, ] with the Drs. premised arguings and paraphrase in his Letter, qu. 4. §. 31, 82. and here, whether I have not rightly set down the Apostles argument as the Dr. expounds him, and the Dr. hath not changed here his frame of the Apostles argument to hide the deformity of it, and whether there be any truth in it that I have not understood his paraphrase, that I have substituted another way of arguing in his name instead of it, or have combated with the shadow of my own creating ; and whether these propositions [ the children of a believing yoke fellow who is joined to an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian Baptism, if some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been brought to the faith. The children of a believer by an unbelieving yoke fellow have been admitted to Christian Baptism, by reason that it hath been usual that other believers have brought the unbeliever to the faith ] are not included in the Apostles argument according to the tenor of his reasoning conceived by the Dr. and whether there be any show of connection in the consequence of the Apostle as the Dr. expounds it, and whether he hath not shifted instead of answering, and imputed fiction to me that he might hide his own collusion.

SECT. XCV. Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled.

THe Dr. next pretends to vindicate his reasons for his interpretation from my exceptions.

Answ. That there is no force to avoid my exception in this reply, may appear. 1. That he saith nothing to what I said p. 333. of the 2d. part of the Review, that the term [holy seed] Ezr. 9.2. hath a far different notion, as I show in this Review Antipaed. par. 1. sect. 13, 25. from what the Dr. imagines. 2. Nor doth he here, or anywhere else prove infants to be visible professors. 3. Nor doth he prove Baptism to be the lowest degree of visible profession. 4. Nor doth the Dr. prove or can prove, that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14. must be meant of a relative holiness, of setting apart to God in the Christian visible Church, short of real saving holiness. The opinion of matrimonial holiness I assert, with many more, is not yet refuted. They who after Tertullian interpret it of real saving holiness intentional, as Rom. 11.26. the Jews uncalled are holy, designati sanctitati ac per hoc etiam saluti, conceive they have as good proof for it as the Dr. for his. 5. Baptism is not proved to be the lowest degree imaginable of relative holiness in the Christian Church, nor the lowest degree of visible profession. For 1. there is a lower degree by freedom from Idol pollutions, such as Tertullian mentions c. 39. de animá. 2. There is a degree of holiness by vow or prayer, such as Hannah devoted Samuel by, 1 Sam. 1.11. which Josephus Antiq. l. 5. c. 11. terms consecrating or sanctifying to God, as the Greek version terms Numb. 6.2, 3. the separating of the Nazarite by vow a sanctifying, and the Apostle prayer in the use of food a sanctifying it, 1 Tim. 4.5. 3. There is a lower degree of visible profession in the catechumeni not yet baptized then Baptism is. 4. There is a lower degree of sanctification of them, according to Augustine, l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remis. c. 26. cited before by the Dr. here, p. 63, 64. when • e said, Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi & orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari, whence the Dr. himself saith there, that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands, of which we sometimes read in the Ancients, as hath elsewhere been shown. 6. Nor is it proved that a person may not have the higher degree of holiness in the Cnurch without Baptism. Sure a person may be converted, regenerated afore Baptism, and so holy. And it is yet a question, whether all the Apostles and Prophets in the Church were baptized, though I doubt not they were, and that regularly they should be; yet the very questioning it shows the argument not to hold irrefragably, that he that is not baptized hath no part of relative holiness in the Church of God, or that all superior degrees of Apostle, Prophet, &c. in the Christian Church are founded in that. Lastly, it is apparent that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14. is not Baptism, in that it is from the birth, and so afore Baptism, and from the parent not from the Minister, may be though the child be never baptized, is derived from the lawfulness of marriage society, not from the belief of one or both parents, and therefore not Baptism, as the Dr. (so far as I know) without any example ancient or modern makes it.

He adds, My second follows from the notation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acts 10.14. for those that must not be received into the Church, as on the other side God's cleansing is God's reputing him fit to be partaker of this privilege, whereby it appears how fitly, receiving and not receiving to baptism] are expressed by [holy and unclean.] To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion, viz. the fitness of the expression, All his exception is against my premise, the notion of unclean, Act. 10. which, saith he, signifies there not only one out of the Church, but also one that a Jew might not go into or eat with. To this I reply that my conclusion being granted, I may safely part with that, which inferred it, as when I am arrived at my journeys end I have no further need or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither: Let it be remembered, that [holy and unclean] fitly express those that are received or not received to baptism, and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words, by concluding from this text, that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to Baptism; And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place (as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have) then I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion. As for the use of the phrase