Second Reply to Baxter, Part 1 · Chapter 2 · Section 2
SECT. II. The Donatists witness, justifyed.
The next witness he contradicts, is that of the Donatists, The Donatists witness justified.(and which he doth with great contempt, ignominy and reproach); concerning whose denying Infants Baptism, I have first, from antiquity produced Austins writings, (there being little else to be found concerning them but what is reported by their greatest enemies, as I have observed) viz. In those his Arguments for Infants Baptism, in that his book of Baptism against the D…natists, as also to Vincentius Victor a leading man amongst them.
Secondly, from the concurrent testimony of several modern authors, viz. Walden, Vicecomes, Fuller, Frank, Twisk, especially Spanhemius, who so positively affirms from Austins writings, and from the decree of the Milevitan Council, that they did positively deny Infants Baptism.
To which Mr. Baxter opposeth himself with bitter rage, affirming, that I have belyed Austin, belyed Vincentius Victor, and denies that the Modern Authors have spoken any thing to such purpose, whose words are these, p. 241. viz. Mr. Bagshaw is quite overdone in the quality of untruths: Reader, either this man had seen and read the bock of Austin mentioned by him, or he had not: if not, doth he use Gods Church, and the Souls of poor Ignorant people w…th any tendern…ss of Conscience, sobriety, or humanity, to talk at this rate, of books that he never saw or read, which are so common amongst us to be seen? If he understands not Latine, how unfit is he to give us the History of these Antiquities, and how audacious t talk thus of what he knoweth not? If he understand it, what cruelty is it to the Church, to venture on such untruths to save him the labour of opening and reading the books he talks of? But if he hath read them, then I can scarce match him again amongst all the falsefyers that I know of in the w…rld. I dare not be so uncharitable to him, as to think that ever he read them.
To which I say fir…t, As to that unhandsom insinuation and vile reflection upon that worthy confessor deceased, whom he could not be content so to abuse living, and immediatly also after his death, but mu…t still thus unworthily trample upon his ashes; I doubt not but since he thus ranks us together, and makes me so much to outdo him, that the discovery of the measure he metes out to me herein, may be some vindication of that eminent Worthy also, he so often in his book vilifies, whose memory will live and be of precious savour amongst the just, whilst others will rot and perish.
But to the matter of my own reproach: in the first place, to put Mr. Baxter out of doubt, he must know, that before I put down these Quotations out of Austin, I did read them, and have yet so much Latine left after 30. years discontinuance from the University, as to understand (as I conceive) what I read therein, and therefore I shall put it to the tryall whether I be such a falsifyer as is not to be matched in the world: And if the great Jansenius who read Austins works 30. times over, did so mistake him, as Mr. B. in his late Catholick Theology tells us, it may not be so wondred at, if I should mistake him also.
That Austin did in his book of Baptism against the Donatists write diverse Arguments for Infants Baptism, from supposed Antiquity before; universal consent, (as he says) of the Church then, as well as by Arguments from the Scriptures, particularly from the Analogy that Baptism might have with circumcision, to save the Infants: and from John. 3.5. o be baptized or born of water for salvation, Mr. Baxter cannot deny, and therefore I shall not need to produce the words; but upon what grounds he denies it to be properly urged, we shall discourse afterwards.
And that I read also what Austin wrote to Vincentius Victor, in the quotation mentioned. Lib. 3. de anima Ch. 13.14. concerning his denying Infants Baptism (as the denying of Infants Baptism went in those days) viz. that Children might be saved without it, though Mr. Baxter saith, there is not a word of truth in it; there being no such matter in that Chapter or the whole book: le… the following words of Austin vindicate me Tom. 7. p. 1284. Tu autem, & originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteri, & tamen eos sine lavacro Regenerationis absolvis & in paradisum mittis, & postea etiam Regnum coelorum intrare: But thou who acknowledges that Children are guilty of Original sin (which it seems the Donatists did) yet without Baptism absolves them and permits them to go into paradise, and afterwards into the kingdom of Heaven: Haec multum aperteque perversa & fidei catholicae adversa, &c. Which manifestly appears to be perverse and against the Catholick faith: And therefore in another place tells him that he thereby did eontemn what is said, Joh. 3.5. He that is not born of water and the spirit shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, writing also his whole book to Renatus against him for this Doctrine.
And therefore it is that Walden in so many places (who charges Wickliff with the same doctrine) doth so accuse him by several quotations out of Austin, and particulary Tom. 2. Ch. 101. fol. 104. Audax Vincentius concedit parvulos trahere primaevum delictum; sed, si non Sacramentaliter Baptizantur, intraturos in regnum Coelorum &c. Audacious Vincent, acknowledgeth, that Infants are guilty of Original sin, but, though not Sacramentally baptized, to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whom he Judges and condemns for the same 20. times in the said Book.
And therefore it is, that Vicecomes in the Catalogue of those that denyed Infants Baptism [Baptismum parvulorum qui negarunt,] ranks Vincentius victor the Donatist, apud St. August. Vincentium victorem de Anima, l. 3. ch. 14.
And that his brethren the Donatists were one with him herein, Dr Fredrick Spanhaemius, no friend (as is well known) to the Anabaptists, doth in his book which in English is intituled, Englands Warning, ch. 4. p. 48. speaking of the erroneous opinions of the Anabaptists, sayth, That with the Donatists, Eunomians, and other Hereticks they do condemn childrens Baptism. And quotes Austin contra Donatistas, and the 2d. Canon of the Council of Milevitan to make it good: and that with the Catharists and Donatists they will not have the Lords Supper administred but to pure ones.
Besides the concurring Testimony of so many other Authors, viz. Bullenger, Fuller, Twisk, Franke, &c.
Therefore you see I am neither so gross a forger, nor so notorious a falsifyer, as Mr Baxter would render me, having faithfully given you my Authorities for the same; valeant quantum valere possunt, Let them signify what they will:
Obj. But 'tis urged as the grand objection against this, That suppose the Donatists did with Vincentius Victor affirm, that Infants that were not sacramentally baptized might be saved, what is that to their denying Infants Baptism, the thing affirmed from it? For who almost amongst the Protestants that own Infants Baptism, but do affirm the same thing? must it therefore be fathered upon them that they deny it also?
Answer. It is true, that many of our Protestants may and do affirm now, that children may be saved who die unbaptized, and yet not be denyers, but may be, and are, owners and practisers of Infants Baptism: but this is no reason that they who so affirmed formerly, might and did so also: Because Infants Baptism was held then upon clear other grounds, and to other ends than now.
Upon what ground, Infants Baptism was formerly asserted and practised.The principal and chief ground upon which it was asserted and imposed in Austins time, was, To save the Infant, and that without it an Infant could not be saved, and that whoever denyed Infants salvation by it, were therefore as denyers of Infants Baptism to be Anathematized; and the chief scripture urged for the same was, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water (which was Baptismal water as they concluded) he should not enter into the kingdome of Heaven. In proof whereof I could give you diverse quotations out of Austin, but let one suffice for all; in his book de fide ad Petrum. ch. 27. Firmissime tene & null… tenus dubites, non solum homines jam ratione utentes verum etiam parvulos qui▪ sive in utris matrum vivere incipiant & ibi moriuntur sive jam de matribus nati sine sacramento sancti baptismatis quod datur in nomine patris, & filii & spiritus sancti, de hoc seculo transeunt, ignis aeterni sempiterno supplicio puniendos quia: etsi peccatum propriae actionis nullum habuerint, originalis peccati damnationem carnali conceptione & nativitate traxerunt: & siquem contrarium his dogmatizare cognoveris tanquam pestem fuge & tanquam haereticum abjice & inimicum fidei Christianae, at{que} ex omnibus Catholicis Anathematizandum. Firmly do thou hold, and by no means doubt, that not only men that are come to the use of reason, but also children whether beginning to live in their mothers womb, and there dying, or, being newly born of their Mothers, dye without the holy Sacrament of Baptism, which is given In the name of the father son and holy spirit, do go into everlasting fire, eternally to be punished; because though they have no actual sin of their own, yet they have the guilt of Original sin, through the carnal conception in their nativity: and if thou knowest any to teach contrary hereto, shun him as the Plague, and reject him as a Heretick and, as an enemy to the Christian faith, let him be excommunicated by all Catholick Christians. And in pursuance of this doctrine, there were several Canons in several Councils made, to Anathematize any that should deny Baptism to little ones for their salvation, which you may reade in the Treat. of Baptism, p. 106. 107. We shall only mention that 2d. Canon, of the 2d. Milevitan Councel, which Spanhemius observes was made purposely against the Donatists, who granted, that children had Original sin, but affirmed they might be saved without Baptism.*Concil. Affri. Anno Christ. 424. ex collectio Regia. Item placuit, ut si quis dicit ideo dixisse Dominum, In domo patris mei mansiones multae, sane ut intelligatur, quia in Regno coelorum erit aliquis medius aut ullus alicubi locus ubi beati vivant parvuli, qui sine baptismo ex hac vita migrarunt, sine quo in Regno coelorum, quod est vita aeterna, intrare, non possunt, Anathema sit. Nam cum dominus dicit, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu sancto non intrabit in Regnum coelorum: quis Catholicus dubitet participem fore diaboli evm qui cohaeres esse non meruit Christi? qui enim dextra caret sinistram procul dubio partem incurret. And in the 5th. General Councell of Carthage, it was decreed in these words, We will, that whoever denie that little Children by Baptism are freed from perdition and Eternally saved, that they be accursed. And that these Canons respected the Donatists is clear, because they owned Children had original sin, but said, they might be saved without Baptism: but the Pelagians denyed them to have Original sin, but said, they might be baptized to enter into the kingdome of Heaven: as saith Austin, Tom. 7. Ep. ad Bonifac: p. 878. Parvulis videlicet Baptismum necessarium, non propter remissionem peccatorum sed tantummodo propter regnum Coelorum. So that you see whoever affirmed, that Children might be saved without Baptism, denyed the principal ground for the which they were to be baptized in those days.
The Fathers denied faederal right to be a ground to baptize Infan…s upon.For we read of no such thing as a faederal holiness to intitle them to salvation or qualify them for Baptism, which hath be…n since set a foot from Gen. 17.7.
Circumcision being denyed by the fathers to be a seal of the righteousness of faith to any but to Abraham the father of all: It being only a signe as they said to the Jewes that they were Abrahams seed, but not a seal of the righteousness of faith, as all the Jewes also were not the fathers of many nations: as Chrysostom and Theophylact. Treat. of Baptism p. 171.
Obj. But do not the fathers reason from Circumcision for Infants Baptism, as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Austin, &c? and doth it not betray the Anabaptists ignorance, as saith Mr. Wills to deny that the Ancients founded the practice upon Scripture-Arguments?
Ans. It is true, they do reason for Infants-Baptism from the analogy that it ought to hold with Circumcision, but how? not as the Protestants argue from the Covenant, but from a mistaken apprehension, concluding that as Circumcision was appointed to take away Originall sin, so saith Cyprians Epistle. Ambros. de Abraham. c. 11. &c. and to save them also, as saith Austin. Tom. 7. lib. 4. c. 24. contra Donatistas.
That therefore Baptism was appointed to that very end for Infants, to take away Originall guilt, and to save them, and to that end it must therefore be applyed to all, both the Children of the bad as well as of the good, if they brought them to it: because the Children of wicked Ammon and Manasseh were to be circumcised as well as those of Hezekiah and Josiah, and that reprobate Esau and Ishmael, being circumcised as well as elect Isaac and Jacob; That Baptism should be administred without any respect to faederal holinesse: and therefore saith Austin in his book de Peccat. Merit. l. 1. c. 28. Infants are therefore to be baptized for the remission of sins, that in Regeneration they may be cleansed from that filth they had contracted in generation: Upon which words of Austin, Bishop Davenant in his Ep. p. 12. saith, Neque hic Electorum aut non Electorum discrimen ullum admittitur, &c. Neither did they admit of the distinction of the Elect or not Elect, as to the partaking of the benefit of Baptism, mentioning to that purpose a clause out of one of the Synodical Epistles, That Esau himself was freed from Originall sin in his receiving the Sacrament of Circumcision. Esau, accepto sacramento, reatu peccati Originalis caruit.
Federall holinesse not owned by the Fathers as a ground to baptize Infants upon.The great Argument now for faederal holiness from the 1 Cor. 7.14. to qualify for Baptism, is not owned by the Ancients. Jerom saith, Because of Gods appointment, mariage is holy. Ambrose, that the Children are holy because they are born of lawfull marriage.
Austin in lib. 3. c. 15. de Bapt. parvulorum: Illud sine dubitatione tenendum est; quaecunque illa sanctificatio est, &c. It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that sanctification was, it was n…t of power to make Christians, or remit sins, &c. for nothing could do that but the Act of Baptism as to Children: and in his book de verb. Apost. c. 24. The question being, whether the Children of the Baptized Christians were holy, he saith, not, because as the Circumcised beget only the uncircumcised, so neither did the Baptized beget Baptized ones, or holy or regenerate ones, for the terms were equivalent, and the reason he gives, is this, Quia nemo renatus antequam natus, None is new born before he is born. And gives two illustrations to prove it, viz. 1. that the purest wheat, that is most purged from chaff and husk, yet being sowd, brings forth grain that has chaff and husk; and the best grapes that are sown bring forth wilde grapes.
Neither did the Ancients esteem the children of the faithful Church-members or disciples,The Ancients esteemed no Children to be disciples so as to intitle them to Baptism. or believers, by which they had right to Baptism as Mr Baxter, and many others affirm, for Austin in his 66. Epistle to Dard. saith, that those that go to make Infants Disciples, do not only lose their pains, but expose themselves to laughter.
And that they are not otherwise believers than by Baptism, wherein they have life given them, and are related to Christ. Lib. de Bap. parv. c. 30. Qui habet filium habet vitam, qui non habet filium non habet vitam: non igitur solum Regnum caelorum sed nec vitam, parvuli habebunt si filium non habebunt; quem nisi per Baptismum ejus habere non possunt; He that hath the son hath life, he that hath not the son hath not life. And therfore children neither have the kingdom of heaven nor life if they have not the Son, whom if they partake not of Baptism, nither can they have.
And therefore in his book de fide ad Pet. c. 40. That children who cannot by themselves believe nor are not capable to testify repentance for their Original sin; by the Sacrament of faith and repentance, which is holy Baptism, they have both for their Salvation.
And in another place though they have neither reason, capacity or understanding of themselves, yet our holy Mother the Church lends them ears, feet, and tongues, whereby they profess faith, confess, and renounce the Devil. And to that end Walden. Tom. 1. de Sacram. Fol. 107. That there is to be three Sureties; one for each person in the Trinity to undertake for the childe.
Tradition the principal Authority for Infants Baptism amongst the Ancients.Yet when they have said all they can from old Testament-analogy and Scripture-allusion, Austin in his 10th. Book de Gen. c. 23. sayth, That Infants Baptism is not otherwise to be believed but as it was an Apostolical Tradition. Nec omninò credenda est, nisi Apostolica esset, Traditio. Which notwithstanding many of our Protestant Paedobaptists disown, pretending rather scripture-Authority for the same. Thus you see upon what different grounds the Fathers and those in latter times have asserted Infants Baptism, not only upon different Scriptures but to different ends; and therefore you see hereby the reason why that which went for denying Infants Baptism formerly, may now well consist with the practising of it by the new grounds since taken up.
But you'l say, When was it that these old Arguments were given up of baptizing children for their salvation, to take away original sin, to regenerate them, and to make them members of Christ, ex opere operato, by the deed done? And when did the new Arguments upon Faederal right from Gen. 17.7. 1 Cor. 7.14. and the seede of believers Infants Church membership and discipleship, as the seed of believers, giving them right to Baptism, come in?
To which I say, I have already given you some account in the Treat. of Baptism p. 159. viz. That the first writer of note that gives us any of these new Arguments, as Mr Tombes that great searcher into this controversy informs us, was Zwinglius about 120. years since; and that he went a new way, his own words in the beginning of his book of Baptism imports, which are these, viz. Tom. 2.57. Illud mihi ingenue circa libri initium dicendum est: fere omnes eos quotquot ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus, de Baptismo scribere instituerunt, non in paucis (quod pace omnium hominum dictum esse velim) à scopo aberravisse, that is, In the beginning of my book (sayth he) I must ingenuously profess, that almost all those that have undertaken to write of Baptism even from the very times of the Apostles have (which I desire may be spoken with the favour of all) not in a few things erred from the scope (or true scripture-sence): who doth therefore in his said book manage the Arguments of Infants Baptism from Faederal right; for when the unsoundness and rottenness of that ancient ground did appear to those Reformers that turned from other parts of Popery, they being loath to part with this Tradition, endeavoured to build it upon this new foundation; for when it was discovered that Infants might be saved without Baptism, and that they were not damned if they dyed without it; and that the Sacrament did not give grace by the bare work done, nor took not away Originall sin, nor that Gossips were any appointment of Christ; It was high time to lay a new Foundation for it, or else it would have fallen: therefore is this new way of Covenant-holyness found out, which is not above 150 years since, for Zwinglius wrote his book of Baptism about 1525.
And that this is the new way appeareth, because the Papists as it is well known kept Austins way all along, and so continue to do to this very day, and to that degree that they (as Austin and those Councils served the Donatists) have served those that go this new way, who deny Infants to be baptized for salvation.
The Lollards pleaded Infants Covenant holyness against their Baptism.Neither do we finde amongst the Waldenses, Lollards, or Wickliffists the great impugners of popery, one word to favour this new way of faederal Covenant-holyness to baptize Infants upon, in any of their Ancient writings or confessions, but the contrary, as we have and shall further make appear. And particularly we finde in them, as Walden. Tom. 3. fol. 118. that the Lollards and Wickliffists, both in Scotland and England, were so far from bringing this new Argument from covenant-holiness for Infants-baptism that they improved it to the quite contrary, pleading that therefore they should not be baptized, his words are these: Quod faetus à fidelibus propagatus non sit sacramentaliter Baptizandus imo parvulis dixerunt inutiliter baptisma conferri. And that they were holy, they produced that text, 1 Cor. 7.14. (though mistakenly) to prove it.
And which very tenet we finde held by those Lollards also taken at Colchester and burnt after at Norwich, Anno. 1428. who asserted that the Children of baptized believers needed not to be baptized; and that if they dyed without Baptism, they might be saved. Fox, Martyr vol. 1. p. 867. 868. And further Walden tells us that the Wickliffists did in his day reason with them, that, if Children might be baptized by the faith of others, they might also be saved by the faith of others; and therefore it was needless to baptize them for Salvation. Walden. Tom. 2. fol. And that the Novatians were the same with the Donatists, I no ways doubt, from the reasons before expressed, and to which I shall add what I meet with in Gabriel Prateolus, de vit. sect. concerning the Novatians, p. 123. viz. That they affirmed, that Infants did not stand in need of Baptism, Infantes non egere Baptismo.
To the clearing of which, I have been the larger, not only to make this point of the Donatists more manifest, but, more fully to evidence, what we have to say, respecting our other Witnesses in this particular.
Object. But Mr B. tells us, that Austins Arguments in his Book against the Donatists for Infants Baptism, mentioned by me, are rather so many Arguments they held it, than that they denyed it; because he therein urgeth Arguments from the tenet of the Ʋniversal Church, & every Christian for it.
Answ. To which I say: that, if this be Mr. Baxters chiefest ground (as indeed it is) why he concludes me such a notorious falsifyer, I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether it be not very hard measure to be so severely dealt with, upon no better demonstration than upon his single apprehension, and no better proved; and I appeal to Mr. Baxter, whether, if I should deal so with him, I should not render my self both immodest and unchristian therein.
But to his proof: I am the most notorious falsifier in the world. Because I affirm Austin contended against the Donatists, for denying Infants Baptism in those Arguments in the 4th. Book. 24 Chapter. whereas therein (as he saith) Austin affirms the quite contrary, viz. that the Donatists did own it, and the reason is, because he affirms, that none of the universal Church disowned it then or at any other time, nor that any Christian disowned it. But the Donatists he consents to be of the universal Church, and Christians also, therefore this serves only to prove that they did not deny it.
Now it is either true or false what Austin affirms, that all the universal Church, then, and before also, did own Infants Baptism, and that he also owned the Donatists to be members of the Church, and Christians also: if not, that Mr Baxter argues weakly, and his undue reflections return upon himself.
To the first, that some of the universal Church in the ages before Austin, did disown, and not practise Infants-Baptism, is evident from undeniable Authority. Was not Tertullian of the universal Church or a Christian, who judged it so unwarrantable and irrational as Dr Barlow tells us? and all those in the 2d, and 3d, and 4th. Age that baptized only the adult, neither of the universal Church nor Christians? then, What will Mr Baxter say to his own assertion before mentioned? where he tells us, that Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, who lived in the. 2d. and 3d. Cent. do all of them affirm, that in the primitive times, none were baptized without an express Covenant, wherein they renounced the world, flesh, and devil; and engaged themselves to Christ and profest to obey him; and, if there were no other but sueh, surely some in those dayes must deny Infants Baptism; confirmed also by so many Authorityes given in the Treat. of Baptism, from p. 55. to. p. 65. and p. 102. And, What will Mr Baxter say to that other assertion that he gives us, viz. That Christians had liberty in those first ages to let their Children stay till age before they baptized them? And that Austin himself and many Children of Christian Parents were baptized at age? And was that because they owned or disowned their baptizing in Infancy? He knows who had need of a good memory.
Were the Parents of Gregory Nazianzen, though his father a Bishop at his birth, and Basil also, neither members of the universal Church, nor Christians, &c? We might mention divers others, but let these suffice to prove Austin rash, and Mr Baxter forgetfull; to say no more.
And that some Christians did not own it in Austins dayes, is very clear: otherwise; what means all his Arguments he writes in 20. of his books to prove it? and that book he particularly writes upon that poynt, de Baptismo Parvulorum, and the great heat and rigour he useth therein? And all the decrees of Councels for it, and many of them procured by his means; were they only to convince heathens? Mr Marshal in his sermon tells us p. 5. that some in those times did question Infants Baptism, as Austin grants in his sermon, de verbis Apostolorum. But, were none of those, Christians or members of the Church? It may be, in Austin's account they were not; because his censures are so heavy, that they should be excommunicated, Anathematized, and shun'd as the Plague, as you have heard.
But, saith Mr Baxter, he own'd the Donatists to be members of the Church, and Christians: And own'd their Baptism to be valid. It is true in many places he seemeth so to speak.
But, what he truly thought of their membership, Christianity and Baptism you'l better judg, when you hear him speak.
First to their Church state: it was so good that as Mr Baxter grants. p. 245. Austin questioned whether salvation was among them; and by his Ep. to Bonif…ce, the soldier, instigates him to provoke the Emperour to cut them off, or banish them. Which he did effectually as Mr Baxter grants p. 244. who procured that bloody decree from Honorius.
And how well he approved of their Baptism he expresseth in his book, de Baptismo cont. Don. Quod sit autem perniciosius, utram omnino non Baptizari aut Rebaptizari, judicare difficile est. Which is most pernicious, either not at all to baptize, or to Rebaptize, is very hard to judge: so that their Baptism was as good as no Baptism, and which, in his own account, rendred them next to heathens: and Tom. 2. Col. 91. Baptismus apud haereticos datus, ad vitam aeternam non sufficit; That, Baptism given amongst the hereticks, doth not profit to life eternal. So that, if he did own their Baptism, it was no other then the Baptism of hereticks, and not so good as the Baptism of an old woman, or of an heathen; who in case of necessity or danger of death, did baptize, pronouncing the words of Baptism which they approved of, to salvation.
So that, Austin's thus reasoning with the Donatists, those Anabaptists then, doth no more prove them approvers of Infants Baptism, than, if Mr. Baxter should use the same words with the Anabaptists now (whom, he saith, he owns to be members of the Universal Church, and good Christians too, which is more than Austin did) will prove, in another age, that Mr. Baxter did thereby demonstrate they own'd Infants Baptism; though only guilty, with the Donatists, of rebaptization and sinfull seperation.
Another of his Arguments why the Donatists were not against Infants Baptism is; Because, he saith, they were for Episcopacy; and had ordained-Bishops amongst them, pag. 243.251. But, what is that to the purpose? are not the Anabaptists for Episcopacy? and have not they ordained-Bishops, or Elders, amongst them now? But, it is true they have no Lord-Bishops, nor Diocesan-Bishops amongst them: And no more, had they then that I can finde.
And then, after all, concludes with a scoffing Jeer, as though his former Injuries had not been enough, p. 252. viz. And now if John Becold will say, they were of his side, we must believe him. But how well such Sareasms become one that would be thought so mortifyed and grave a Divine; and who is, as he tells us, in the constant sense of his being upon the brink of Eternity, and who hath with no better Arguments opposed his Antagonist; is recommended to the Judgment of the unbiased Reader. &c.