I think the sense better expressed, than as Mr. Wall has rendered the passage. It appears from the whole, that Grotius cited these passages very properly; and they prove at least that ignorance and want of desire were a good reason against baptizing such as were not able to make and declare their choice and both these commentators, expressing this so amply, have made it probable, that such children at that time were not, or however, according to them, needed not be baptized, especially if there was no apparent danger of their dying. Any one who shall read over their comments with an unbiassed mind, will see the writers were as much for the liberty and indifference of pædobaptism, as either of the Gregorys and Tertullian is supposed to have been; otherwise their arguing is unaccountably absurd. But I cannot tell how to think two such men, and according to their interpretation the whole council too, should make use of what Mr. Wall calls such leaden-headed logic. I own, Balsamon, or perhaps somebody else, has subjoined, at the end of his comment, some words which allow children may be brought to baptism by sponsors: the place is a little obscure, and I cannot be positive of the perfect sense of it; but it does not seem at all to do our author the service he is willing to believe it does. KaTaTiOevTai, in the latter clause, should not be translated so readily by promise; for the profession required at baptism is expressed every where else in these citations by ὁμολογία and ὁμολογεῖν. But let this be as it will ; if Balsamon does here countenance infant-baptism, it is no more than what I have shewn Grotius did too: and therefore these words should not be urged against him, since they are consistent enough with the liberty and indifference he pleads for. Mr. Wall endeavours to strengthen his supposition, from the dispute between St. Austin and Pelagius. But this will do him no service, if you consider their dispute was not, whether infants should be baptized or no, but for what end they were baptized: and he should not have said, they do ⚫ declare that they never read or heard of any Christians that were against infant-baptism;' but, which had been truer, that Pelagius did not contradict St. Austin, when he declared he never heard of any that denied baptism was given for remission ' of sins,' as perhaps I may have occasion to shew hereafter. I beg leave now to apply what is said above more closely to my design; by remarking, that a man who is so free with persons in such reputation, will take a much greater liberty, it is to be suspected, with the poor despised antipædobaptists; and I desire therefore you will be pleased to read him with diffidence and circumspection. Nor indeed has he by abundance acted the part of a credible historian towards us; though he makes a show of treating us with extraordinary tenderness and respect. But it is all assumed and hollow, and may be easily seen through; and he conveys his aspersions the more securely by it, and with less suspicion stabs our reputation. He carefully affects to style us antipædobaptists quite through his book, because forsooth he would avoid casting any reflections on us; but he could not forbear discovering how uneasy he is at the restraint he laid on himself: 6 and so, after he has painted anabaptism in no very pleasing colours, he as carefully lets you know, sir, we deserve that reproachful name, though, since we disown it, he has not given it us. I remember three several places, where he is so incautious as to confess he is in a very willing humour to believe and suppose any thing, though upon no ground, so it does but favour his design: so when he finds Bilius had said, 'persons came later to baptism in the primitive times than nowadays,' which is most directly to deny infant-baptism was practised in the primitive church; Mr. Wall is so hard put to it, he can only relieve himself by resolving to believe, if one were to look over Bilius' writings, one should find that this was 'not his settled opinion.' He has the same dexterity in other places, where he says, All I believe this 'learned man would say (for I have not the book),' &c., and so, for ought I know, do all the rest of the 'eastern,' &c., a sign he is powerfully inclined to fancy what he pleases should be true. How often he uses this notable expedient, is not readily discovered; but it is very reasonably inferred, from these open confessions, he employs it where he is not so kind as to give us warning. 6 He builds on this sort of arguments, when he would reproach us with something he has no other evidence for; as may be seen by several passages in his account of the present state of the antipadobaptists in England:' and of a piece with it is his so easily receiving and officiously reporting every uncertain rumour that had reached his ears. If he has but heard that any one, or a few persons at y Part ii. page 99. [144.] z Part ii. p. 20. [29.] most, who called themselves, or were called by others, anabaptists, have ever maintained or practised such things, as may enrage people against us, and expose us to the scorn and fury of the less thinking bigoted part of those from whom we dissent, he does not forget it. Thus he insinuates a, that we countenance, at least, and have among us, some who deny the human nature of our Lord Christ. This at best is spitefully enough represented but I protest, for my part, I do not know there is so much as a single man in our body who dares impiously deny so great a fundamental of the Christian faith. We are sure such an one can be no Christian; and if there be any such, we disown them all, and their pernicious heresy, which we are firmly persuaded aims at no less than the utter destruction of Christianity itself. As invidious is his relating the scandalous story about Mr. Hicks: which, were it as true as it is false, has been equalled and outdone by some of our author's communion and therefore notwithstanding this, we may still be reckoned as loyal to the government as themselves. But since he is forced to confess that no more than 'two persons only appeared to have been guilty,' he ought in honour, and in respect to the oaths of those of his own party, to have left the scandal in the obscurity it deserves, &c. I am, - LETTER II. THE private opinions of a few not justly inserted in the history of the whole body-There are probably ill men among us, as well as among others-Some of our author's invidious insinuations-Our adversaries, instead of railing, should endeavour to convince us from revelation, or reason, or antiquity-If their reflections were true, our reputation cannot suffer much-We are not guilty of the hated opinions Mr. Wall loads us with Our separation easy to be justified-Mr. Wall has not sufficiently shewn wherein the sin of schism consistsHe only explains it in general by division, separation, &c.— The true notion of schism-It may either be lawful or unlawful-Who are schismatics-Not they who go out from a communion they were before joined with, but those who unnecessarily give or take the occasion; or continue separate without a just cause-It being lawful in some cases, and unlawful in others to separate, it is examined what will justify a separation Mr. Wall's distinction between fundamentals and non-fundamentals, though good in itself, is insufficient, unless he had determined what are fundamentals and what are not A rule to know these-Christ alone can determine what is necessary; and what he has not expressly made so, is not so-It is useful to distinguish between things necessary to salvation, and things only necessary to the constitution of a true gospel-church-This distinction well-grounded, because the qualifications of a Christian and a Church are very different-An error in what is essential to the constitution of a church only, a sufficient warrant to separate from a community in such error-Which is also confirmed from some of Mr. Wall's own words-Agreement in the fundamentals of religion not a sufficient reason against separation, as Mr. Wall would urge it-Turned against himself—Therefore his arguments tend to nothing so much as confusion-Though it should be allowed, that we ought to submit all things purely indifferent to the determinations of our superiors; this would make but very little, if at all, in Mr. Wall's favour-It does not follow that persons, who think they ought not to renounce communion for smaller matters, must therefore constantly conform in those things, and neglect what they think is better -If the ceremonies are not of so much consequence, as to |