sons) baptized; for infants are born in a state of corruption and guilt (which is called, born of the flesh); but in baptism, born again by the Spirit to a state of grace, and favour, and blessing. Unless Mr. Bernard will deny that the Spirit of God, beside his office of converting the heart in the adult, does also in the case of baptized infants apply to them the pardon of original sin, the favour of being received into the Christian covenant, consigning to them such grace as shall assist them as they come to years, &c. ; which I shewed, in this very chapter, on which we are treating, that the Antipædobaptists themselves do allow to be done in the case of all infants, baptized or not, which, dying in infancy, are saved; and no Christian, I think, will venture to say That any infant can go to Heaven without this application of the merits of Christ to him.

Therefore, that which Mr. Bernard says next [" The authority of the fathers of the church, is of no force against an explication founded upon what goes before, and what follows, in the context, and upon the rules of the best critics"] raises no objection against this explication of the fathers, which is agreeable to the words, both of the text and context. On the contrary, I am glad to hear him say this; for if no such privilege be to be allowed to the fathers, it will follow a fortiori, that much less is the authority of one man, Calvin (though he be for the general a good expositor) of force against an explication of this text, which is both natural in itself, and was ever accounted so by all Christians, without exception, for 14 or 1500 years, and is accounted so still by most Christians; and I think, the disdain with which all Christians do receive that explication of the Quakers, whereby they evade the force of such texts as concern the other sacrament, and do by the words bread, wine, eating, drinking, &c. force themselves to mean some other mystical thing, should make one have the less regard to Calvin's way of interpreting this text, which is so very like it, who will have no material water to be meant in this text, as they no material bread in the other; for the apostle's words, The bread which we

break, is the communion of the body of Christ, &c. do not more plainly express the external, as well as internal, part of that sacrament, than our Saviour's words, born of water and of the Spirit, do of this; especially if they be compared with other like texts, as Tit. iii. 5, The washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, &c. To say that these do not mean baptism, is as great a paradox as to say that the other do not mean the Lord's Supper; and at this rate of altering words, or expounding away the plain sense of them, any text of Scripture whatever may be eluded.

Mr. Bernard grants, however, that "our Saviour does in these words make an allusion to baptism; to that baptism with water which had been in use among the Jews, and which John Baptist administered to the Jews themselves."

But, surely, our Saviour's affirming in so solemn a manner, Verily, verily, &c. that without it, none shall enter into the kingdom of God, should be taken for more than an allusion.

He adds, that" Jesus Christ did mean, nevertheless, the proper regeneration, which consists in the conversion

of the heart.'

The question here between him and us is, Whether no regeneration, which is not accompanied with present actual conversion of the heart, can be called proper regeneration? I think it may be solved thus: - As the command of circumcision, which was given in general (both to infants and to such adult persons as had not yet received it) carried with it an injunction of present actual circumcision of the heart to the adult receiver of it, but not to the infant receiver, and yet was proper. circumcision to both of them,-so baptism carries along with it a present actual conversion of heart in the adult receiver, but not in the infant receiver; and yet is proper regeneration to both of them. If Calvin and some late writers will give the name of proper or veritable only to that to which they (without the consent of antiquity or the greatest part of Christians) have appropriated the word, it is but a dispute of words..:

At page 575, he asks "Whether I, who would have men have so great respect for the fathers, can shew any plain place of Scripture which may support that opinion concerning a middle state (in which unbaptized infants will be) which I had shewn to be held by some of them ?"

Now I never pretended to that, nor to give any deter mination at all to that question; but shewed it to be a thing in which half the church was of one opinion (viz. the Greek Church) and half of the other. Only I gave a reason from what our Saviour says (Luke xii. 48) that if they do miss of Heaven, and be under some degree of condemnation, it is to be hoped that it will be (as St. Austin says) a very gentle one.

-

At page 580, Mr. Bernard is more angry with me. I had said (part 2, chap. vi) that some modern Calvinists would establish a rule (which I there shewed to be contrary to the practice of the Christians) in the baptizing of children, that none are to be baptized but the children of parents actually godly and religious; and that Bishop Stillingfleet had fully shewn the absurdity and inconsistency of this opinion; and how they can never, in many cases that may be put, come to a resolution what children they may baptize, and what not; for which I quoted his Unreasonableness of Separation, part 3, sect. 36.

Mr. Bernard says "He will not stand to recite that part of the chapter, because it will be difficult to do it without angering [choking] me, who do set out as absurd the doctrine of some whom I call Calvinists; and that he would not be exposed to the temptation of returning injury for injury [or reproach]: that he believes I do not understand their tenet: that they do not refuse baptism to all the children, even of infidels. They give it to all such as the parents do abandon, or whose education they will leave to Christians: that in Holland they baptize infants found in the streets, though there may be among them some born of Jewish or Heathen parents."

If Mr. Bernard had read the discourse of Bishop Stillingfleet which I there cite, he would have seen that the bishop there speaks only of some Separatists in our nation who do make that one part of their quarrel with our church, the giving baptism to the children of ungodly parents (which yet our church does not without sufficient sponsions); and that he does not meddle with the practice of any foreign churches. Neither did I mean any thing of what I said there in reference to them; but only to those who trouble our people here by their unchristian schisins and cavils; seeking about for any handle to draw the people from our communion, and using this for one; for which, as it seems, the foreign churches give them no occasion or encouragement; for if those churches which Mr. Bernard speaks of, do as he says, I do not see but that they do as the antients did, and as the Church of England does; for neither they nor we would baptize any children of infidels, but such as some Christian had the power or possession of, and did promise for their Christian education or instruction; so that things being rightly understood, here was no occasion of choking either him, or me, or the bishop, if living.

Page 585. Whereas I had noted (or rather had cited Mr. Russen as noting) the way of the English Antipædobaptists receiving the sacrament (which he affirms to be) sitting at a common table, and handing the elements one to another, as shewing, outwardly at least, less devotion than most other Christians shew, Mr. Bernard says "It is certain this is the most ancient manner of receiving that sacrament; for it was so that Jesus Christ celebrated it with his apostles." should have taken notice, that it was not at a common table; but in an vrepov, such as learned men have proved that the Jews and ancient Christians did set apart for holy uses. Nor did the apostles hand it to one another; but Christ gave it to them.

He

. He says, "As this way of receiving is generally enough used in Holland, Mr. Wall certainly will not blame me for my reflection," I am easy, provided he

will not blame me for applying the words of Christ (John iii. 5) to baptism, which the Church of England (as well as the ancient church) does, in her office for baptism, so apply; nor for saying That an infant, when baptized, is regenerate; which she says in the same office; nor for my reflection on his saying "That it is not the sacrament of baptism which makes us Christians;" for she does, in the Catechism (besides what I cited before) say," That we being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, are hereby [by baptism] made the children of grace ;" and one of the Thirty-nine Articles of our church is, That "by it, as by an instrument, they that receive it rightly are grafted into the church ;" and so say all the ancient Christians whom I cited, particularly St. Chrysostom: Ουδεὶς δὲ υἱὸς Βαπτίσματος ἂν κληθέτη χωρὶς.

He says farther, that " he does not know what the Churches of Holland have done to me; but it appears by some places of my book, that I am not very much their friend." This is said with respect to a passage a little before in the same chapter, viz. part 2, ch. viii.

And forasmuch as others, beside Mr. Bernard, have animadverted on that passage, I will set it down here at large, as it was in the first edition, which Mr. Bernard had (for in the second it is somewhat shortened) that I may know the sentiments of the rest of my friends how far I was blameable in it. I had spoke of the Menonites, or Minnists, in Holland, how apt they are to divide from one another; and then added,

"The worst is, that not only the Minnists, but the Holland people generally have the humour to run into divisions and schisms in religion upon almost any difference of opinion. There is not the like of them again in the world for this temper; whereas the great aim and interest of religion is unity and communion in the worship of God, notwithstanding different sentiments in points not fundamental; and schisms and parties are forbidden, as courses that will certainly ruin it. There is no sin that these people think to be a less sin than schism is. They are generally of a temper that is com