Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

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. (Book 91)

I Proceed to review the proofs from the Latin Fathers for infant Bap∣tism.

Mr. Cr. brings up Tertullian in the fron••, whom he reckons at the end of the second Century, others at the beginning of the third, a∣bout 70. or less years after John the Apostle, in which short tract of time, the Apostolical practise of infant Baptism could neither bee clouded, nor forgotten. Neither would he have commended his pri∣vate opinion as more profitable, that the Baptism of some infants for some respects should ••e deferred, but have called it down, as an in∣novation, if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams. That infant Baptism was in practise in Tertullians days, it appears by this question lib. de bapt. c. ••8. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? Why does innocent age (meaning children in their in∣fancy) make hast for remission of sins? meaning Baptism; which is a clear case, whatsoever Semi-Socinian Grotius say to the contrary. That Tertullian was for infant Baptism himself appears, that in his Book de Animà cap. 39. he presses it, when the child is in danger of death, and gives his reason lib. de bapt. cap. 12. Praescribitur nemini fine Baptismo competere salutem, it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism.

Answ. 1. That Tertullian might not be mistaken, or that the pra∣ctise of infant Baptism could not be clouded or forgotten, is said by Mr. Cragge inconsiderately; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 afore Tertullians 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 Christs age, with sundry others. 2. That Tertullian would have called it down as an in∣novation, if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans ap∣prehension 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 hee disswaded it or did call it down as an innovation, except in case of danger of death, and that by sundry reasons; which if hee had ta∣ken ken infant Baptism to bee from the Apostles, hee would not have done. 4. The allowing of it in that case arose (as Mr. Craggs quota∣tions shew) from the errour of the necessity of it to salvation. But Dr. Hammond saith further.

Tertullian a man of great learning, and a diligent observer and re∣corder of the customs and practises of the most ancient Church, lib. de animâ c. 39. affirms it from the Apostle, ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari; that when either parent is sanctified or believer, i. e. baptized, the children that are born from them are holy, and this, tam ex seminis praerogativâ, quàm ex institutionis disciplinâ, both by praerogative of their seed, and by the discipline of the institution, i. e. (as hath been shewed) by Baptism; adding from the same Apo∣stle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.14. that his meaning was that the children of Believers should be understood to be designati sanctita∣tis ac per hoc salutis, and evidencing what he means thereby, by the following words, of Christs definition Joh 3. unless a man be born of water and of the spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God, i. e. non erit sanctus, shall not be holy; where Bap••ism is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity. And more hee adds in the beginning of the next Chapter to the same purpose. And so he is a comp••tent witness for the beginning of that third age.

And a little before,

In the middle of the first Century St. Paul delive∣red these words; Now are your children holy, i. e. your children new born (as appears by the context and Tertullian) are sanctified as that signifies baptized, in the stile of the New Testament and the An∣cient Church.

And ch. 3 sect. 1. St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14. speaking of the Believers children, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but now are they holy, i. e. it is the present practise of the Church (that Apostolical Church in St. Pauls time) to admit to Baptism the infant children of parents, of whom one is Christian, though not of others. That this is the mean∣ing of [holy] is there made evident, as by other arguments, so by this, that the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect call Bap∣tism sanctification, Eum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctificandum, in Cyprian, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to bee sanctified when they have no feeling of it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him be sanctifi∣ed from the infancy, i. e. baptized then in Gregory Nazianzen. To which testimonies, and the rest which is there produced of the agree∣ment of the Jewish stile (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sanctifications for baptisms, to which agrees Macarius saying of the Jewish Baptism, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it san∣ctifies the flesh, hom. 47. p. 509.) because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein, I shall now add more, one very ancient before any of these (within less then an 100. years after the death of St. John) Tertullian de animâ c. 39. where speaking of infants and saying ex sanctifica••o alterutro sexu sanctos procreari; that when ei∣ther the father or mother is sanctified (i. e. received as a believer by Baptism in the Church, the children are holy, &c (clear evidences of the notion of the word) this he there proves by these very words of this Apostle, caeterum, inquit, immundi nascuntur, else (so caeterum in Tertullians stile is known to be put for alioqui, or the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) were your children unclean; adding instead of these other words [but now are they holy] quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis & per hoc

etiam salutis, intelligi volens fidelium filios, hereby willing that wee should understand that the children of Believers are the designed or the sealed of holiness (in the sense, I conceive wherein they that are baptized, are by the ancients frequently said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be sea∣led) and thereby of salvation also: And all this, saith he, thus urged by the Apostle, ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censue∣rat, patrocinacerentur, that this hope might be a pledge to engage the believing wife or husband not to part from the unbeliever. And hee yet further adds (still to the confirming of this interpretation) Alio∣qui meminerat Dominicae definitionis, nisi qui nascatur ex aqua & spi∣ritu, non intro••bit in regnum Dei, i. e. non erit sanctus. Otherwise (or if this argument of the Apostle had not been sufficient) he would have mentioned the definition of Christ, that unless one be born of water and the spirit (i. e. baptized) he shall not enter into the ••ingdome of God, i. e. shall not be holy; shewing still of what holiness he under∣stands the Apostles speech, that which the child of the believer is made partaker of by Baptism; concludi••g, Ita omnis anima usque eo in A∣dam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Every soul is so long inrolled in Adam, till it bee anew in Christ, and is so long unclean till it be thus anew inrolled; which as it supposeth every child of Adam to bee impure, till it bee thus by Baptism made a child of Gods, a memb••r of Christ, so it gives a full account of that uncleanness, and that holiness of which the Apostle speaks; the former the state of a child of Adam unbaptized, the later of him that by Baptism is initiated into Christ. And p. 81. hee saith, he found this passage of Tertullian ch. 39. de animá perfectly to accord to his interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14.

For which reason (though I at first intended onely here to examine the passage of Tertullian c. 39. de animâ) I conceive needfull to examine what Dr. Hammond hath said in his Defence against me, ch. 3, 4. about both places, and I doubt not but that it will be made appear by me, that he hath not avoided by his De∣fence the exceptions I brought against his interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14. nor interpreted the Apostle right, nor Tertullian, nor that they do, as he speaks, perfectly accord, to which I now address my self.

1. He omits the making good of his paraphrase of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.12, 13, 14. except onely those words [else were your children unclean, but now they are holy] supposing it unnecessary if the interpreta∣tion of the last words appear to be this [but now are infant children parta∣kers of the priviledge of Baptism] which I acknowledge were true, if he could make good this interpretation without making good the para∣phrase 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, sith 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 Defence.

One main thing on which the hinge of his paraphrase and interpre∣tation turnes, 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 suf∣ficient, he gives for not answering them more fully, when he assures me it were easie fully to answer them p. ••5. but does not, especially in this point on which the controversie between us depends, and therefore not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Dr. terms it. I think the Dr. hath made a more im∣moderate 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 〉〈 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 san∣ctification, and Cyprian and Nazianzen are cited.

To which I answer, 1. The word of the Apostle is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the ad∣jective [holy] which notes a state of discrimination from the unclean, not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sanctified] a participle connoting the action of the san∣ctifier, 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 Gre∣gory 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 Baptisme 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 mee to distinguish, not to confound baptism and sanctification; and when Na∣zianzen in the place quoted useth this phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 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 imagin 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 hee doth in others, the impertinency of his allegation would have appeared. As for the Jewish stile of sanctifications for Baptisms▪ it will be to be considered after. Ma∣carius 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 baptised are by the ancients frequently said to be sealed and p. 92. designati sanctitatis, sure must signifie 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 [ho∣ly] for holiness by baptism, nor that Tertullian doth mean that which the Dr. would have him, nor do the Apostle and Tertullian perfectly ac∣cord Twice in that Chapter doth Tertullian use the term [holy] once [ho∣liness] once [sanctified.] The fi••st passage is thus. Hinc enim & Apo∣stolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tàm ex seminis praerogativa, quàm ex institutionis disciplina. From hence the Apostle al∣so 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 mo∣ther 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 bap∣tised in the ancients language. Pag. 61. [holy] appears to bee this [but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of Baptism.] But that Tertullian mean by [sanctified, baptised] 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 hee made Baptism a means of that sanctification, but he doth not call (as the Dr. saith) baptism sanctification, but the whole fact of Gods grace, as hee saith, Dei gratia illud sanctificat quod invenit, by teaching and inlight∣ning 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 bee meant either of conversion to the faith or baptism, for then he should be a believer when hee is said to bee sanctified, so that it is plain neither Tertullians expression concurs with the D••ctors notion, not do the Dr. and Tertullian agree with Paul. The other words sanctos procreari, sith 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 bene∣fit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever. But herein neither doth Tertullian or the Dr. accord with Paul, for hee 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 onely of the time of in∣fancy. 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 shewing 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 disci∣plina religionis, to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion, meaning e∣vidently being baptised. Where the Dr. by the way doth ill render tingi by sprinkled, no Grammarian doth so render it, nor doth Tertullian so mean it, as in the place may be observed. But to the thing. This can∣not 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 religionis. As I think it is one thing to be sprinkled or intercep∣ted with the violence of the sea, as Peter was when against his will he was in the sea, ano••her thing to be baptised with the discipline of religion, that is, out of a willing yeilding to baptism by the learning of religion, that is, knowledge and profession of faith which religion prompts to, mean∣ing plainly not the doctrine or command of Christ, but the learning or discipline of his own heart, in the sense that Tertullian useth after, disci∣plina verecundiae & modestiae. And that sense which I give the Scope leads to, which is to shew neither the Apostles being dashed with the waves when the ship was almost covered, nor Peters being almost drow∣ned, was Christian baptism, because it was not out of a voluntary dispo∣sition from that discipline of religion which doth dispose to it, but the violence of the sea. 2. Tertullian could not mean as the Dr. would, sith there is no such institution of Christ either expressed by the Evan∣gelists, or by Tertullian. The Evangelists express no title to baptism, but by the persons own faith or discipleship who is to be baptised, as is proved Review part. 2 sect. 5.

And Tertullian in his Book of Baptism a little after the words cited by the Dr. c. 12. expresseth the institution of Baptism thus; Lex enim tingendi imposita est & forma praescriptae, i••e (inquit) docete nationes, tin∣gentos eas in nomen patri•• & filii & spiritus sancti. Huic legi collata defi∣nitio 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. imagins, he could not have said, and di∣rects according to the institution▪ Let them come when they grow up, when they learn, when they are taught wherefore they come, let them hee made Christians when they can know Christ; and af••er prescribes, How they should go to baptism, with prayer, fasting, kneeling, confessing of sins;

and in his Book of Repentance, cals Baptism the sealing of repentance, no where is any such institution of infants Baptism from the faith of one parent; and therefore I conclude, ex institutionis disciplina, is not meant as Dr. Hammond conceives.

On the other side I conceive that he means by [sanctos procreari] real holiness future, and by ex institutionis disciplina, learning of the do∣ctrine or institution of Christ. That the holiness is real saving holi∣ness, is gathered first from the joyning together, designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis, which plainly shews, that the holiness meant is that by which is salvation. 2. This is confirmed, in that it is made the effect of being born by water and the spirit. 3. Shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven, is expounded by sanctus, holy. 4. It is opposed to that uncleanness which they had in Adam, and it is expressed to bee in Christ, which must needs bee a real saving holiness. 5. If it bee that which is by baptism, then it is not baptism it self, as the Dr. expounds it, but a consequent on it, which is no other then saving holiness. 6. This is proved from the expression of designatos sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis; this is confessed by the Dr. to express the same with procreari sanctos ex in∣stitutionis disciplina, but designatos sanctitatis hath the sense of designed to be holy, that is, a believer by education, and so saved. I will set down the words of a Letter of my learned and much honoured friend and quon∣dam scholler Dr. Wilkins, Warden of Wadham Colledge in Oxford, who at my request imployed a friend to enquire into the sense of this passage of Tertullian, and thus wrote to me: As for that phrase, Designatos san∣ctitatis & 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 reli∣gious education, which is likewise signified by that other expression ex insti∣tuionis 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 reso∣lution designed or intended to be made holy by the disciplin of Christian institution, and so to be saved, or to enter into the Kingdome of heaven, by faith in Christ. 7. This sense is confirmed by the words [hujus spei pignora, the pledges of this hope] which shew that the holiness and salva∣tion meant in the words before, was a thing not then existent at the chil∣drens birth, but intended and hoped for at age, upon endeavours u∣sed by the believing parent. 8. This interpretation of designatos sanctitatis, or sanctitati, is confirmed by the expressions of Hie∣rome, 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 in∣fants were as it were in expectation of being believers, and baptized, quod veluti ambiunt & expectant baptismum, as Erasmus in his note on Hierom, Epist. 153. to Paulinus, or designed, that is intended to be holy by the parents, that is to be bred up to profess the faith, and so to be baptized.

To this saith Dr. Hammond.

1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierom refers to, but some other in his Books de Monogamia, that one book which we now have under that title affording us no such discourse on that subject as S. Hierom mentions.

Answ. 1. It is more probable that this is the place Hierom meant, the expressions so agreeing and the matter, and that Hierom 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 other∣wise, the words cited by Hierom being to the same purpose will fitly ex∣plain the other.

2dly. (saith Dr. Hammond) All that S. Hierom cites out of that (not this) place of Tertullian is very reconcilable with what Tertullian saith in this place, and with his opinion that the infants of Christians were baptized; for, sai••h he, they were quasi candidati fidei, as it were candidates of faith. Candidates were they that stood for any Office, qui candidâ sumptâ veste consulatum, praturam, &c. postulabant, who putting on white garments sued for any Office; and so candidates of faith, they that sue for this condition in the Church of God, that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 believers, to which by baptism they are assumed, and accor∣dingly were to be brought to the font, like such candidates, in white garments as they that were to be sanctified; i. e. baptized, among the Jews Exod. 16.10. were also to wash their cloathes or put on clean garments.

Answ. 'Tis 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 bapti∣zed, but candidatos notes onely a future thing in expectation, and can∣didatos fidei answering to designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati shews 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 intenti∣on and expectation onely, and a real saving faith though future, is meant by Tertullian in both expressions, which is not avoided by the Doctors answer.

Again (saith the Dr.) when he saith of them that they were holy as the vessels of the Temple were holy, though they had no sense, this is a clear laying of a ground, whereby children may be deemed capable of this relative holiness, which is to be had by baptism, though as yet they are not capable (for want of understanding) of inherent holi∣ness.

Answ. 'Tis true Hierom expresseth another way of holiness which in∣fants might have without understanding, but that this should be by bap∣tism he doth not intimate. But if he did, yet he doth not make it the meaning of Tertullians candidatos fidei, and therefore serves not his turn to prove that by holiness Tertullian meant baptism. Yea, this very thing is against it, sith 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.

Lastly (saith the Dr.) when he mentions it as an idiom of Scrip∣ture to call them holy, who are clensed, purified, expiated, speaking of those legal lustrations or purifications, this gives an account of St. Pauls using the word in the Christian Church for the Christian lustra∣tion, purification, expiation, i. e. for baptism.

Answ. 1. It gives but a lame account till it be proved St. Paul useth holy for baptized. 2. Though Hierom 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.

And by the way it appears by St. Hierom, that he useth promiscuously sancti and sanctificati, and so that gives us authority to interpret [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the end of the verse, in the same sense in which [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is used in the beginning for those that are brought and received to Baptism. All which are far enough from serving any of Mr. T. his interests, and might have inclined him to have omitted that testimony of St. Hieroms, if he had more maturely considered of it.

Answ. How this testimony serves my turn upon more mature consi∣deration of it▪ is shewed. 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, sith fire may be said to be hot, but not heated▪ and God may be said to be holy, but not sancti∣fied. But the Dr. f••rge••s himself when he would have sanctified and ho∣ly, 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.

Nay 3. I must add, that Mr. T. his ren∣dring of candidati and designati sanctitatis and candidati fidei by being in designation of being believers and baptized, intended to be holy by the parents, to be bred up to the faith and so baptized; is a most groundless inconvenient interpretation. For if by holiness and faith be meant inherent holiness and faith, then Baptism it self is the cere∣mony of consecrating and designing them to this, and so precedent to that holiness (not subsequent to it as Mr. T. sets it) and accordingly in the Church writings the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 believers, is never bestowed on any, though of mature age and knowledge; till after they be bapti∣zed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illuminate and believers being all one, promiscuously used for those that have received baptism, in opposition

to catechumeni those that have not yet attained it: But if holiness and faith be the relative holiness then infants being as capable of that as vessels in the Temple, they might be presently designed and conse∣crated to that, and not first bred up in the faith, before they were par∣takers of it.

Answ. That the interpretation I give is neither groundless nor in∣convenient, is manifest by the phrase it self, designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati; the Doctors interpretation is altogether groundless and in∣convenient; For he renders p. 59. designed by sealed, but he shews 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 & com∣mendatur: The term [designed] notes plainly the intention of the parent, and this is also plain from the next words [of this hope] which shews 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 shew, that designatos sanctitatis notes the intention of the parents with endeavours to produce faith, and so to bring them to Baptism. Which is the more evident if it be read [designatos sanctitati] for that case plainly intimates a tenden∣cy to it. As for designatos sanctitatis, which the Dr. that he may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serve his own purpose (which he elsewhere causlesly imputes to me) turns [sealed of holiness] I crave leave to tell the Dr. that in my appehension it makes Tertullian speak non-sense; and that it cannot be the meaning that it should note the consecrating by baptism, it appears in that it should have been then sanctitate, or per sanctitatem. Besides, they are said to be designatos salutis as well as sanctitatis and I hope the Dr. will not render it sealed of salvation as if it noted the ceremony of consecrating, Salvation in no Writer being put for for Baptism: And however, here it's a distinct thing from sanctity, which the Dr. makes Baptism. So that I think I may safely infer, that Tertullian means by [designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati rather] not Baptism, but the intenti∣on of the parents (for of their act he speaks in opposition to the Gen∣tile parents designing their children to Devils; or as the terms are vow∣ing, deputing to them, making them candidatos) to breed them up in the faith, and so to bring them to Baptism and Salvation, which his words in his Book de Baptismo, c. 18. shew he approved as best, except necessity through danger of death imminent and apparent urged the hastening of it in little ones; regularly he would have faith first, and baptism after, as the words in his Book of Baptism, and Repentance forecited shew. And whereas the Dr. saith▪ in the Church writings the word believers is never bestowed on any though of mature age and knowledge till after they be bap∣tized,

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 quo∣ted, Ita{que} omnes credentes tingibantur, Lavacrum illud est obsignatio fidei; and this is agreeable to Christs speech, Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, to which perhaps Tertullian alluded when he said designatos sanctitati, which Grotius follows, Annot. ad 1 Cor. 7.14. or condidatos fidei ac per hoc etiam saluti, or salutis. The relative holi∣ness which vessels in the Temple were capable of, is far from Tertullians meaning: Certainly Tertullians phrase of designed to holiness is so far from proving infant baptism, that it proves the contrary, sith he is not said to be designatus or candidatus who hath an Office or thing in posses∣sion, but he who is chosen to it or seeks for it, and so hath it onely in in∣tention or expectation. As designatus saluti is not actually saved, so nei∣ther designatus sanctitati actually baptized.

He adds. The children of believers, I willingly grant, are presumed to be by them intended to be bred up to the faith; but if that intention of theirs bring forth no present effect, if they do not bring them thus early and enter them into the Church by Baptism, why should that bare intention of the parents give them the stile of holy or sanctified, or how should these infant children, which may die before they come t•• those years, receive any present priviledge or benefit by that which is thus far removed from them?

Answ. The Drs. words answer this, p. 92. when he saith, Whosoever is born from either parent Christian, hath one priviledge by nature, by his ve∣ry 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 I∣dolatrous 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 praerogati∣vâ is a mistake, I must answer by viewing of the proofs of his assertion: First, saith he, the holiness was not onely by prerogative of birth, but ex in∣stitutionis disciplinâ. This is sure a strange proof, It is not so, because it is not onely so. 'Tis 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 in∣stitutionis disciplinâ, and that I never denied the second could not be mista∣ken in affirming the first.

Answ. The words of the Dr. in his 4th. quaere gave occasion to think he conceived the children of believers to be termed holy by Tertullian, that is baptized either onely or chiefly by prerogative of birth as that which gave them title to baptism. But it seems he means that they had title to it, also by the discipline of institution. But p. 92. he expounds the prerogative of birth onely by their freedome from Idolarous polluti∣on; Now sure that gave not title to baptism: An Idolaters child if born without those pollutions had not title to baptism, he must be born according to his own exposition of the Apostles and Tertullians words of one believer: & therfore he must needs be mistaken in affirming the first, and he must needs miss Tertullians meaning if by holy be meant baptized,

and says they are baptized tàm ex seminis praerogativâ if that give no ti∣tle to it. The Dr. expounds ex institutionis disciplinâ thus, by the Do∣ctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ, by which Baptism is allowed to chil∣dren born of either parent Christian. I have shewed before how short his proof is of this sense. For present, Tertullians words, according to this exposition have an inept tautology; For it is all one as to say, they are baptized as well by prerogative of birth as by prerogative of birth, the prerogative of birth by which they are baptized being all one with their priviledge of being born of a believer, which is 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 preroga∣ti••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 priviledges (as the Dr. makes it) but one priviledge, to wit, holiness, which the Dr. makes to be baptism, is ascri∣bed to them by a double means, freedome from heathenish pollutions, and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism: Whereas freedome 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 Tertullians words following, de Anima, c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled 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 entring into the Kingdome of Heaven, and the enrol∣rolling 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 Chrysostomes 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 pro∣ceed 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 onely [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 non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle, and so renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their children, by their infant children.

Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. No•• is there any thing said to make it in any sort pro∣bable, that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle, in which is

neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor that hee should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth, but onely useth a description of young age, which is not to my remem∣brance expressed by the other word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any where.

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 onely 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 Apo∣stles meaning (but is denied by me) ••hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14. sanctifi∣cation or baptism of the children, a benefit of the believing parents cohabit∣ing with the unbeliever.

I said [holy] for [admitted to baptism] is a sense of the word no where 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 followes, and saith.

I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect, who in his in∣scriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches, calls all those to whom he writes, i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy, Rom. 1.7. and sanctified and holy, 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.1. Eph. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.1. among whom no doubt there were many, who were no otherwise holy or sanctified, then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile.

Answ. True: But do••h hee term any infant so in those places? or give them those titles barely from Baptism? doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism? The Drs. allegati∣ons have not yet altered my minde, but I think as I did his interpreta∣tion new, strange and absurd.

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

Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be, which the Apostle said to be in the children o•• believers, yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism, and the beginning or remission of sins

To this the Dr. answers,

Tis true he saith it belongs not to that question, whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ, and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism, pro∣fits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven. And the mean∣ing is such sanctification, except it be that of baptism, cannot avail to remission of sins.

Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechu∣meni, mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers, who being term∣ed holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. should seem not to need Baptism, which Augustin an∣swers, 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification, but not determi∣ning which is there meant. 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctifica∣tion be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers (not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni) it belongs not to that ••uestion of Bap∣tism (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 men∣tioned 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 onely of baptism of in∣fants of believers, by vertue 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.