natural seed many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors not visible Church-members and may have still yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham yet not of every particular child of his but of the nation till Christs comming As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential some not some ordinary some extraordinary parts of the covenant But these are new distinctions with which I meet not elsewhere nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary nor what extraordinary what essential parts of the covenant what not That Covenant being but once made in my conceit therefore had all the promises of the same sort whether ordinary or extraordinary and a covenant being an aggregate of promises contains the promises as the matter and the making together as the form which are the essential parts of the Covenant there 's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part or rather all the promises together are the matter and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises And therfore his speech is not easie to be understood I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham may claim the promise of Justification and other saving blessings But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity or other domestique promises made to Abraham neither the natural posterity of Abraham nor the truest believing Gentile can lay a just claim to them but that notwithstanding that promise God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile or Jew Infidels his people his visible church and to settle his worship with them Mr. Geree writes thus and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed was not personal and peculiar to Abraham but propagated to his seed may hence appear because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews which is here promised to Abraham Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Answ. The promise to Abraham according to Mr. Gs. exposition was That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privilege of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Sure this is not the same in effect with that Deut. 30.6 which is nothing of external privileges of a Church but of circumcising their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they might live which can be true only of the elect Besides it is promised to them at their return from captivity and upon their returning to the Lord and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day they and their children with all their heart and all their soul v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of meer reputed believers even in their infancy Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words The text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant-state but in their adult Deut. 30. For first verse 2. the condition of the promise is expresly required not only of the parent but of the children themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts which are required of the parents viz. to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of the heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act ver 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving Mr. G. yet adds And thus much that place Act. 2.39 doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism to shew that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer and his seed Answ. That Acts 2.39 neither shews that children of believers are comprehended universally and necessarily with their parents nor contributes ought to infant-baptism is shewed in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding any thing said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed The rest of that section of Mr. Geree is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant and seal for infant-baptism But most go another way by laying down conclusions and framing hypotheses and I proceed to take a view of their writings SECT XVII Mr. Cottons The Assemblies and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the methode of the future progress in the Review expressed MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue ch 3. goes this way and expresseth himself in four things That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace to him and his seed Gen. â—7 9 10. 3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to believers and our seed 4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith chap 25. art 2. assert That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion and cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezekiel 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 and 17.7 of these one of the Texts to wit Gen. 3.15 I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism to my remembrance except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men or by excellency of Christ or of true believers which are all the senses I conceive yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religion as such and not as of humane kinde should be meant by the seed of the woman or that the bruising of the
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
in the covenant Gen. 17. which I have refuted The Gentile proselytes were to be circumcised because of the command though it were not known that each or any proselyte or his seed had interest in the Covenant As for Mr. Gs. reason of his obsevation it should seem by it he meant otherwise than he expressed to wit Circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because of the temporal promises which I grant and yet hold the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. a mixt Covenant and that persons were to be circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Mr. G. goâ—s on To the other part of my exception against the connexion between the seal and covenant as they speak that many were not to be circumcised to whom all or most of the promises of the Covenant did belong as the females comming from Abraham he saith For females we answer That God under that administration was pleased in reference to some things pointed at by the seal to appoint a sign of which women were not capable so were they particularly excluded from being sealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that administration To which I reply 1. That women are not capable of circumcision is contradicted by those that say that at this day in some parts of the world women are circumcised Aethiopes Christiani mares octavo ab ortu die circumcidunt feminis etiam aliquid amputatur ut Abrahami et aliorum sanctorum patrum exemplo ardentius in similis sanctitatis studium incitentur Quarto deinde a circumcisione die mares octavo autem foeminae salutaribus aquis expiantur Eucharistiam â—o die infantes initiati in mica panis assumunt Osorius lib. 9. rerum ab Emmanuele gest Zuinger theat vit Hum. vol. 27. l 3. tit bapt pag. 4172. Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. l. 4. c. 4. Anno Christi 1187. Jacobitae baptismo ciriumcisione utuntur circumcidentes masculos femellas Hornbeck Append. ad disp de bap ve thes 8. Solebant Aethiopes cum baptismo etiam circumcidere baptizatum mas an femina esset circumcidebatur Doctor Field of the Church 3. book chap. 1. Speaking of the Jacobites in Syria Sixtly they use circumcision even of both Sexes and of the Habassines They are also circumcised both male and female The same hath Heylin in his Geography describing Syria and Ethiopia and before him if my memory deceive me not Brerewood in his Enquiry of Religions So that it is but a just of Mr. Blake that women could no more be circumcised than barb'd if these authors be of any credit But were it true that women were not circumcised because uncapable yet would God doubtless have appointed such a sign as they were capable of if it were true that all that were in covenant must be signed But if it be true which Mr. G. confesseth That the females though in covenant were particularly excluded from being sealed with the sacrament of initiation under that administration then the connexion between the seal initial and the covenant is not proved from circumcision And as for that he saies That in reference to some things pointed at by the seal God under that administration was pleased to appoint a sign of which women were not capable it is a plain confession that God appointed circumcision for an end not common to believers at all times or to such as were in the covenant of grace but proper to the posterity of Abraham and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reason of circumcision yet it follows not all must be baptized barely from the covenant of grace because they were circumcised by reason of interest in it sith this was not true and as Mr. Geree confesseth Circumcision was appointed in reference to some things proper to that time But he hopes to salve the matter thus So actually they were not circumcised yet were they reputed as circumcised as appears both by the place alleged by Mr. M. Exod. 12.48 and where the house of Israel is said to be circumcised and also by that of Samsons parents being displeased that he should take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.3 For unless the Israelitish women were reputedly circumcised in the males circumcision could make no difference between wife and wife yea our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised To which I answer To be reputed as circumcised may be understood thus they were mentioned as circumcised and this sense is false for then it should be an errour sith they were not circumcised nor is in the text Exod. 12.48 any thing to that purpose for the speech no uncircumcised person shall eat the passeover is to be limitted by the matter of them that ought to be circumcised and that Judge 14.3 of taking a wife of or from the Philistines uncircumcised as if thereby were intimated that an Israelitess woman was reputed as circumcised or that our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised if women were not reputed as uncircumcised proves it not For the terms ciecumcised and uncircumcised are spoken of the people who are said to be circumcised from the chief part not from all parts I remember not where the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised but to be uncircumcised in heart Jeremy 9.26 yet were there such a place it must be understood of all that were to be circumcised Or else the meaning is they were reputed as circumcised that is they were admitted to the passeover if their males were circumcised notwithstanding they were not in their proper persons circumcised which sense is true But then it serves not the turn to avoid the force of the instance brought to shew there is not a necessary connexion between interest in the covenant and the persons right to the initial Seal in his own person which Mr. G must prove to make good his Major For he would have infant-females actually baptized because in covenant and his proof is They that were in covenant were circumcised which must be meant of all in covenant and of actual circumcision in their own persons or else it can prove but a particular of some and their virtual baptism to wit female infants But Mr. G. thinks to prevent this objection And whereas you object that you may as well say that children are virtually baptized in their parents I deny it because you have not the like proof for the one as we have for the other Besides women that are said to be virtually and reputatively circumcised in the males were not actually to be circumcised at all they were excluded which you do not nor cannot say of infants when they are grown up you confess they may and ought to be baptized Answ. That which I said was only by way of inference upon Paedobaptists suppositions if virtual circumcision were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Paedobaptists who would from the covenant prove a right
promise that the seed of Abraham should possess the gates of their enemies though his exposition be granted I see not what advantage it gives him for proof of infant Baptism and therefore let it pass onely I take notice that when p. 43. he makes the multiplying of the seed of Abraham and the conquest of the world to be a spiritual work to be effected by the sword of the spirit the word of God it follows that it is to be done by preachers rather then by parents and consequently not in that way Mr. C. imagines but in the way which Christ took by sending his Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature What he saith p. 45. of the meaning of Gen. 9.26 hath been shewed before to be uncertain and to be proved false by the History of the Church in that in Affrica the posterity of Cham were in the Church of Christ as well as Shems and Japhets posterity and how Abrahams seed shall fill the world at last and rule over it is so doubtfull as that I conceive no certainty can be thence deduced The conceit of the four Kings Gen. 14. as if their people became afterwards the four Monarchies is such a fancy as a waking man that knows the distance between Rome Greece and Canaan and the voyage they must take by sea and other circumstances which the story Gen. 14. and other Histories suggest will take onely for a dream Mr. Cs. gloss p. 50. on the words of Christ Mark 10.15 Who soever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little child that is as a child receiveth it shall not enter therein whether he mean iâ— of the visible Church or Kingdome of glory it cannot be true For let the way of entring the Kingdome of God be by birth or Baptism or any other way yet a true believer by faith and profession may enter into the Kingdome of God in a way different from that a little child receives it in who hath no understanding of Christ And though both be passive in the first work on their souls yet believers of age are not meerly pâ—ssive as little children who have no understanding at all of Christ. But for the true meaning of Christ I need say no more but refer the Reader to Christs words Matth. 18.4 whence the meaning appears to be that no person not endued with that qualification of self-humbling of which a little child is a fit embleme Psal. 131.2 shall become an inheritour of glory Nor is there any proof made by Mr. C. of his dictate that because Christ would that little children also should be members of his Kingdome therefore hath he made it one branch of the Gospel of this Kingdome that the families of the righteous shall be blessed His reason he gives p. 51. is no reason for God might have gone further then ordinarily to cast elect children upon elect parents even to have done so universally and perpetually and yet we might no more have been sons of God by natural generation and as much by nature born children of wrath as now we are conceived Though God had not so far as Mr. C. imagines confined his choice to families kindreds and nations his elect had not been destitute of means of education sith God could have provided Catechists Preachers and others to that end in other families kindreds and naâ—ions Sure in some ages of the Church there was so little provision made to that end in families kindreds and nations that it appears that almost all the means of education was from Monasteries in Scotland and Ireland by the Histories that remain as may be seen by Seldens Epistle before the Histories collected by Twisden Ushers relation of the Irish Religion and elsewhere If it were the most natural and ready way to multiply the spiritual seed for the increase of Gods Kingdome by making believers a blessing to families and nations as Mr. C. saith p. 52. sure God by sending Apostles and not using Kings and Masters of families for that end omitted the readiest and most natural way and I see not why it should be judged the best way to propagate the Gospel to gather Churches out of Parishes and set Pastors over them or to send itinerant preachers but to reduce all Churches to family and national Churches and to make Kings and Masters of families Elders and Rulers over them Nor do I find that either God so casts the lot of his Saints together as Mr. C. imagines or that by that means the gifts of Gods people are improved and light increased but by raising up holy Teachers and Pastors and associating of the Saints from their several dwellings into a well ordered assembly If as Mr. C. saith p. 55. the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites not by common rules of righteousness among men but by special revelation and command from God then either they did it not by the promise Gen. 22.17 or that promise did not assure them of the possession of Canaan by common rules of justice as Mr. C. conceives That the people of God in the times of the N. T. may not make war against Antichrist or Babylon and their party as an Anathema but upon a natural and civil account for the just liberties opposed and invaded by them may be well doubted considering sundry passages which are Rev. 17.16 17. 18.6 24. That the dominion which the Saints shall at last obtain shall need no force either to get or maintain it but it shall naturally fall upon them as from other causes so also by reason of theâ—r number according to the law of nature and common rules of righteousness is not proved from Isa. 2.3 and how much it may tend to denying the lawfulness of Christians fighting in wars especially if the chief or onely cause be to preserve the Godly from oppressions in Religion is to be considâ—red And that power is naturally devolved upon the Saints because of their numbers as p. 60. is intimated seems to me an unsafe speech as resting on this position That power is naturally devolved on the greatest number It is enough that I have onely by the way noted these things that what men preach and print may be better considered I pass on to the examining of Mr. Cs. application SECT LXXIX Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise nor was Abraham thence termed Father of Believers THe first thing Mr. C. observes is that in the promise to Abraham there 's an addition made to the former promise to Adam Gen. 3.15 which I grant but not such an addition as Mr. C. conceivs The next is that to this promise of making believers blessings to families and nations God made an addition of the seal of Circumcision and the application of this seal to infants is part of the seâ—l thereby signifying and confirming that promise of such blessing So Gen. 17.10 14. Had not the application of it to the infant been part of the token of the Covenant the childs
his flesh and bloud they could not have life As for the other place Dr. Hammond ciâ—es in Chrysostoms 40th Homily on Genesis that Baptism is lawfull in the first age I yeeld that Chrysostome did in that age allow infant Baptism but I think the Dr. cannot shew that he held it was to bee done out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death or that the practise of baptizing them out of that case was ordinary It is most evident by many proofs that both then and some agâ—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 wee have of â—â—iquity both in the Greek and Latin Church that the Christian Church hath been in possession of the priviledge 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 mee that if it were so manifest as you speak you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not othâ—rs To this Mr. M. or his fâ—iend replies that I add three arguments to shew that Infant Baptism was not known in the Greek Church but therein he abuseth me for I addâ—d them not to that end but to shew 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 â—uthors named by me spake against it Answ 1. The question of the Hieracites was raised in Epipâ—anius his time which did lead to speak of infants Baptism and yeâ— Epiphanius allegeth not inâ—ants Baptism against them though it had been for his purpose 2. Sure Eusebius that writes the Ecâ—lesiastical story and such as wrote the history of the Church had occasion to mention it is â—hey do the Bâ—ptism of persons of age he use of the Loâ—ds Supper the meetings of Christians the orders of the Church the ordinations oâ— Bishops and other things and would it iâ— were so manâ—fâ—st as Mr. M. said it was â—3 It may be they spake not against it because there was â—o question about it Buâ— it is lâ—kely there was no question about it because there was in the first ages no practise of it or very obscure For as soon as it began Tertullian put in some excâ—ptions against it and after him Nazianzen 4. If the Fathers afore Poâ—â—gius arose did not speak clearly of original sin then it is likely the paâ—â—ages in Origen on Levit. Rom. Luk. were nor his sith they speak clearly of the traduction of original sin and that speech of Vâ—ssius Hist Pel. l 2 â—artâ— th 6. p. 153. is right For who can at this day discern what passages were the brats of Origen or his paraphrasts Hee adds 1. If any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him Answ. 1. Though Ignatius Epistles be very doubtfull 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 pâ—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 falsly 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 thâ—ugh it mention Origen whom Dr. Homes imagins Justin Martyr might hear of though he died by his confession anno 169. and Origen waâ— not born till about 156. as the passages in his Animado on my Exercit. p 111 112 127. compared do shew Besides the allegation of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as Dionysius the Areopogites the questions ad â—ntiochum as Athanaâ—â—us his shew that neither this Authour nor other Paeâ—obaptists are ashamed to allege bastard writings which say any thing for infant Baptism Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus he tels me Defence p. 19. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith which is not true why sure he had none but greâ—t infants to be his Schollers I conceive he means pâ—ofessed Pagan infidels But I tâ—ink this not true sith in his writings he directs Christians and opposeth heretiques if you who pretend to bee acquainted familiarly which is very false with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'l 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 bee 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 Athanasâ—us he speaks thus What say you to that passage in Athanasius Where he is shewing how wee are buried with Christ in â—aptism and rise again he sayes the dipping of the infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day Athan. dicta interpretatio script q 94. is not that testimony plain Answ. It is But whâ—se is it Is not that Book one of those suppositiâ—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 â—is friend pag. 20 21. cite two testimonies onâ— out of quaest 2 and another quaest 114 and saith the woâ—ds are safe and sound builâ— on a â—osâ—el ground owned by all the reformed Churches which make infants of believers baptised to enter into the Kingdome of heaven excluding the unbaptized which hitherto hath bâ—â—n termed Popery Nor is hee excused â—rom abusing Readers with these bastard writings by saying the words following may be erroneous and yet written by Athanasiuâ— when the words following are part of the answer which is erroneous and they are so connex that they must bee the same Authors As for the words How do you prove what you allege out of Tertullian and