t is manifest it must be understood of the infant uncapable children and none else T is true that Mr. T. also excepteth against the paraphrasing of holy by admitted to baptisme affirming this to be a sense of the word no where else found But this I hope I have cleared already both from the usage of the word among the Jewish and first Christian writers and might farther do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions 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. 1.17 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy 1 Cor. 1.2 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy 2 Cor. 1.1 and 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 style But I shall need adde no more of that to what hath been already so largely said And the parts of my interpretation being thus cleared that their children were their babes or infants and their being holy their being baptized t is sure I cannot be concerned in his conclusion that he never read or heard any exposition antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any I hope now he will alter his mind and acknowledge that it was his own fault that this interpretation seemed so new and strange to him As for the one place of S. Augustine produced by him it should be l. 2. de Pecc Mer. remiss c. 26. to the seeming prejudice of this interpretation Ac per hoc illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omnino non pertinet it will easily be reconciled to it if we but mark what question it is that there he speaks of even that which he had then in hand viz. whether baptisme were necessary to remission of sinnes and entring the kingdome of heaven That this was the question in hand appeareth by the words immediately precedent which are these sanctificatio Catechumenâ— si non fuerit baptizatâ—â— non ei valet ad inâ—randum regnum coelorum aut ad peccatorum remissionem The sanctification of a Catechumenus what that is he had mentioned before Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands of which we sometimes read in the antients as hath elsewhere been shewed profits him not for the entring the kingdome of heaven or obteining remission of sins unless he be baptized And therefore that sanctification of whatsoever kind it is viz. if it be without baptisme belongs not saith he to the question then in hand concerning baptisme and the original and pardon of sin Here then I suppose is Saint Augustines meaning The adversaries with whom he disputes the Pelagians to maintain the no necessity of baptizing infants for the remission of sinnes made use of that text and concluded from it the sanctitie of the Christian infant birth before and without baptisme To this he answers without any strict examination of the importance of that text that whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speakes of except it be that of baptisme it cannot avail to the remission of sinnes c. Some improper kind of sanctification saith he he may confesse secundum quendam modum in him that is not yet baptized but that without baptisme non valet ad intrandum is not of force for entring into the kingdome of heaven and therefore whatsoever sanctification that is viz. Whatsoever without baptisme it belongs not to his question then before him and so the Apostles words can have no force against him This I suppose then to be in brief S. Augustines meaning in that place that t is not the holinesse of the Christian infants birth but of their baptisme which stands them in stead toward the kingdome of heaven And then that as it is no evidence on my side that he interpreted that place to the Cor. as I interpret it so it affirmes nothing to the contrary but leaves it in medio having his advantages other wayes against the disputers However for the substance his accord with us is evident and his conclusion firme both in that place and l. 3. de Pecc mer. Remiss c. 12. Illud sine dubitatione tenendum quaecunque illa sanctificatio sit non valere ad Christianos faciendos atque ad dimittenda peccata nisi Christiana atque Ecclesiasticâ institutione Sacramentis â—ffici 〈◊〉 fideleâ— It is to be held without doubting that whatsoever that sanctification be it availes not to the making them Christians and to the obteining remission of sins unlesse by Christian and Ecclesiastical institution and by the Sacraments they be made faithfull This is all that I can seasonably return for the vindicating of my paraphrase It would be too immoderate an excursion to take notice of all his pretended objections to the former part of it which concerns the cohabiting of the believer with the unbeliever which I assure Mr. T. were easy fully to answer and shew his mistakes in each particular if the matter of our present dispute did require or would well bear a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that length or if I thought it in the least degree usefull to the reader that I should farther explain the grounds of my paraphrase then as they are already laid before him Sect. 31. c. Yet because the reasons which I there tendred for the paraphrase taken from the notations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to but by the wife and by the plain consequents what knowest thou ô wife whether thou shalt save thy husband are by Mr. T. examined with an endeavour to confute them and so to overthrow the whole paraphrase it may perhaps be thought usefull that I should take a view of those his indeavors and therefore that I shall now proceed to do and shall there meet with by the way what was most material in his former exceptions against my paraphrase Sect. 2. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified defended S. Hieromes testimonie Enallages must not be made use of without necessity No advantage from it here Feigned instances of Enallage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FIrst then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kind of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an
CHAP. IV. An answer to Mr. Tombes's view of my Conclusion and therein the sense of Antiquity in this Question Sect. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. infant children The Jewes practice Their notion of holy Baptisme a priviledge of believers children yet is communicated to others whose guardians are believers The several sorts of holyness all vainly mentioned by Mr. T. His denyals of the Conclusion The place in Tertullian vindicated S. Hieromes answer to Paulinus Institutionis disciplina in Tertullian Candidati Damoniorum A 3d denyal of the Conclusion The use of baptisme to regenerate c. No prejudice to the founding it in the Jewish practice His art of diversion to put off answering of testimonies The way of Testimonies insisted on AFter this examination of my paraphrase of this text to the Corinthians he proceeds to the conclusion which I deduce from thence which is no other then my premisses viz. my confirmation of that interpretation had regularly inferred that the infants of Christian parents were by the Apostles received to baptisme But to this he will object also not onely by referring to his former performances in validating the premisses to which I shall not need to now advert having refuted his answers as they were produced but by denying the consequence in case my interpretation were granted and that upon these accounts 1. Because it is not clear that your children are your infants the Corinthians having for ought yet hath been shewed other children besides infants and the Jewes baptizing proselytes children females under 12. and males under 13. years old not according to their will but of the Father or Court 2. Because if the Apostle should by holy mean a priviledge whereupon they were baptized he should conceive otherwise then the Jewes did who conceived all unclean whom they baptized till by baptisme they cleansed them and made them holy 3. Because there is no priviledge attributed by the Apostle to the Christians infants which would not belong to the infants of heathen or if there were yet it might not be baptisme To the first of these I have incidentally answered already by making it evident not that the Corinthians had no other children beside infants I have no want of such ridiculous evasions but that the children which are there spoken of were infant children as appeared both by the express words of Tertullian and the Author of Answers ad Antiochum and the agreeableness of Nazianzen's expressions by the general doctrine of the Fathers in this matter and by the inconveniences which were consequent to the interpreting it of any other but infant children meaning by them such as are either strictly infants new born or such as are proportionable to these having not arrived to maturity of understanding and capacity of professing personally for themselves For this I must refer the reader to that place And for the practice of the Jewes which I acknowledge to be as is here suggested not to baptize any proselytes children by their own wills or professions till they be the female at the full age of 12. the male of 13. years sure it makes nothing against me for they that thus baptized the proselytes children all under that age by the profession of others did also baptize their infant children in the same manner and all that I pretend from that place is that the believers infants were admitted to baptisme if infants they were not doubting but if they were of greater years they were baptized also if before they were fit to profess for themselves then by their parents or the Churches but if fit to answer for themselves then by their own profession To the 2d I say that by holy the Apostle means the priviledge of admission to baptisme because in baptisme they were received into the Church and so made relatively holy And the very same was the Jewes notion of holyness when they called baptismes Sanctifications and conceived those that were unclean to be made holy by that means This holyness is the terme of the motion in both their usages of the word To the 3d 1. I suppose it evident by my interpretation that the holyness which belonged to the believers children was a priviledge and that not common to the unbelievers children unless they were by the charity of the Church or some member thereof having power and assuming to make use of that power to bring them up in the knowledge of their baptismal vow brought to baptisme and then those supplied the place of the parents and the children equally received the same benefit by that charity as if their own parents had done it for them and there being no reason here offered to the contrarie but a reference to another place which I have not commodity to consult or examine there is nothing that exacts any farther reply from me The same will satisfie the latter part of this last suggestion for to prove that if there were a priviledge yet it might not be baptisme he produceth this reason that baptisme according to the fathers opinion and practice belonged to unbelievers children also if they were brought which being willingly granted so the matter cleared that the children of believers were to be admitted to baptisme when the very unbelievers children if brought assumed for by others which were not their parents were to be admitted It certainly followes not from thence that the believers children were not admitted or that their admission was not a priviledge of believers children For so still it was though by parity of reason and by the charity of the Church it was communicated to some others viz. those that were brought by friends or guardians though not by parents for so still this priviledge belonged not to those unbelievers children who lived in their parents power were not thus undertaken for by believers The short is baptisme was a priviledge of the believers infants undertaken for by their parents and by analogie communicated to those who were undertaken for by others whose charitie and pietie supplyed the place of believing parents but was not communicated simply or indifferently to all children of unbelievers and herein the priviledge consisted As for the other imagined priviledge which he names belonging to infants If it be that of real actual inward holyness I discern not Mr. T. hath any kindnesse to it nor can he without destroying his own hypotheses and therefore it matters not what others imagine If it be federal external holynesse that I suppose to be the same with baptismal holynesse baptisme being the entrance into that Covenant And for holynesse in hope and expectation 1. that cannot denote actually holy as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here notes unlesse by holy we mean in the relative sense consecration or designation to holynesse and then it is all one with baptisme again the solemnity of that consecration Before he leaves the survey of my conclusion he will again resume what he had said without all degree of truth in the
of the antient Christian writers no nor any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practice But certainly this is of no force for 1. So long as none of all these deny it to be so derived and when the matter it self speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jewes there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion that Christs institution of baptisme was founded in the Jewish practice of baptizing their natives and their proselytes and that their custome being to baptize infant children Christs institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant childrens baptisme was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian What he addes from several antient testimonies shortly pointed at that they shew that the Fathers took the baptisme of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice but in the conceit they had that baptisme did regenerate give grace and save and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdome hath nothing of weight in it For 1. Their conceiting that baptisme had this force from Christs institution no way prejudges Christs founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice T is as if he should thus argue the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be usefull for the confirming of our faith therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jewes They conceived imposition of hands to conferre a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custome of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands The foundation of the institution is one thing and the benefits of it being instituted is another and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing 2dly Their very opinion that baptisme did regenerate and was necessary to enter into the kingdome as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again v. 3. and that of water v. 5. by baptisme he cannot enter into the kingdome of God so was that speech of Christ taken from the customary doctrine of the Jewes among whom baptisme was said to regenerate and to enter into the Church as that was the portal to the kingdome of God and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition Art thou a Ruler a Master in Israel and knowest not these things and therefore again those perswasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcileable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptisme Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Jewes and so might as well found the baptisme of Christian infants there the Jewes baptisme as hath appeared belonging to such hath formerly been evidenced from Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so from others also What he now addes of womens baptizing among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us of private baptisme of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous of the sureties answering in the childs behalf and expressing their desire to be baptized into the faith recited of the custome of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsontide of sprinkling or powring water on the face of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed antiently before they were baptized is all amast together if it might be to make up one accumulative argument but is utterly insufficient to do so All that he concludes from the mention of all these is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alledged from the Fathers to prove that Infant baptisme was an Apostolical tradition His words are these upon the mentioning of those particulars And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptisme brought by the Doctor because having said so much Here indeed by his therefore I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelesly and unseasonably viz. by way of diversion as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers But I must not thus farre complie with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this the doctrine of the antient Church in this matter For. 1. baptisme being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion and 2. The forme wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels and so 3. The Apostles practice being our onely guide for the resolving such difficulties as these whether infants were admittable or no to baptisme the foundation thereof among the Jewes visibly belonging to infants but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christs institution it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age 1600 years after those times to discern Christs institution in this matter but by the words or actions of or some kind of intimation from the Apostles how they understood Christs institution Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally speaking to another matter and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough and defines for the baptizing of infants in those dayes But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words how fair and easy soever there is but one possible method remaining in this as in all other questions of fact as evidently this is whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptisme or no viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter who by succession and tradition the one from the other had the Apostles practice the interpreter of their sense of Christs institution conveyed and handed down unto them and are to us their late posterity the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact and so are in all reason to decide the controversie and give a final conclusion to the debate between us This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere I professe to have laid the most weight upon it according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies and consequently must still insist upon it and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexteritie and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence I shall again resume it and give him a competent series of testimonies some formerly mentioned and now put more into forme of evidence and others added to them so
to an Oracle for instruction for the future life I pretended not to conclude infant baptisme from thence nor any more then this that baptisme being the entring of a disciple and not praerequiring actual instruction but consisting in coming to Christ and his Church to receive it for the future 't is certain that by this account children are capable of baptisme because they may by the care of their parents be thus brought early to Christ and entred into his school by them before they themselves have faculties either to desire or know what is done to them the proportion holding in this betwixt infants and other scholars that are entred by their parents in any school before they know one letter in the book or have actual willingness to acquire any knowledge And this is there illustrated by the example Philip Joh. 1.44 and of the Jews Ex. 19.8 which have again been mentioned and are clear evidences that those may be received into discipleship which have not yet had precedent instruction Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words Let putting to school be as early as the Doctor will imagine yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher and so none is Christ's disciple in the Scripture language till he know Jesus to be Christ and take him for his Lord which infants being not capable of they are not disciples nor to be baptized according to Christ's appointment To this I answer 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to School by the care of their parents was designed to shew no more then this that they may be delivered up to be scholars who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn nor have actual willingnesse to acquire knowledge and consequently that entrance into discipleship referres onely to subsequent supposes not any precedent instruction And this is competently evidenced by that example though it were supposed of the child that goes to school that he knowes his teacher this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher being none of the documents which he comes to school to learn but the good letters that are profest and taught in the school nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school or put to an instructer and so cannot be deemed to know the Master before assuetude hath acquainted him with him should not yet be said with as full propriety of speech to come to school as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither 2dly It is as true that children that are brought to School do not always know their Masters before their entrance no not by the most superficiall knowledge Many are brought to publick Schools who never so much as saw their Masters till they are by their parents delivered up into their power and discipline If this be not plain enough then change the similitude from the Schoolmaster to the parent or guardian or the very nurse every one of these are to feed and nourish and as he shall be capable to instruct the child and so doth Christ in a Spirituall sense whosoever is intrusted by being brought to him in baptisme And we know God and Nature doth thus bring a child to the parent to the nourse or Guardian when the child knows none of these nor understands any more of all these transactions then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there And so still this evidenceth the vanity of this answer concerning the childs knowing his teacher But then 3dly This so imperfect superficial knowledge of the teacher is in no wise worth considering in this matter For I shall demand doth such very imperfect knowledge of Christ as a Schoolboy hath of his teacher the first hour he comes into the School qualifie him for discipleship to Christ or no If it do then his countrymen and kinsmen before he revealed himself to be the Messiah and the Pharisees which believed not his miracles were sufficiently qualified and then t is evident that those might be admitted to discipleship which were not believers and so all Mr. T. his hypotheses are destroyed and then infants may be discipled and baptized though they be not believers As for that which he here interposes the knowing Jesus to be Christ and taking him for his Lord this bears no proportion with the childs bare knowing of his master but is farre above it equal to his making it his own choice to have this Master rather then any other and promising exact obedience to him which is much more then is to be found in most young scholars or indeed in any that are brought by their parents or guardians who alone are the persons who bear proportion with the infants brought by others to baptisme So that this reasoning of his is soon salved by distinguishing of disciples that they are either such as come or such as are brought to School proselytes of their own choice or children under the care of others of the former sort there are none but such as have some rude imperfect knowledge of Christ upon which they make this choice and without it would not probably be expected to make it But for children which as minors in their guardians hands have no will of their own there is no necessity they should have knowledge to move their will they may very reasonably be acted by the will of others and by their charity be made partakers of those priviledges which are communicated from Christ in his Church to all true members thereof and to that end be discipled and baptized entred by this ceremonie into the Church of God where instruction is to be had as soon as they are capable of it and in the mean while partake of those other advantages of which their condition is capable Sect. 4. The difference of a disciple and proselyte examined Christian as well as Jewish proselytes Priviledges of proselytisme Disciples of the Pharisees The Holy Ghost's not using the word proselyte of Christians concludes nothing Jehovah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants qualified for baptisme As for entring into Covenant Deut. 29. Gods oath Infants adjured Creples capable of Christ's cures TO my 27. and 28. §§ his answer is brief that what I say is not right And for proof though he begins with a For 1. and so by his forme of branching promises more reasons then one yet that first hath never a Secondly to follow or back it and so t is all resolved into that one viz. that it is not true that a disciple and a proselyte are perfectly all one To this therefore I must advert and consider what nice difference he can spring betwixt a disciple and a proselyte whereupon to found satisfaction for conscience why infants may be proselytes and as such come unto Christ and yet cannot be made disciples or received in baptisme to discipleship And his reason is because a proselyte
later of him that by baptisme is initiated and matriculated into Christ And to this agrees perfectly that of Origen of the same age a very few years after Tertullian speaking of the Apostles from whom saith he the Church received by tradition that infants should be baptized Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent They to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries or Sacraments were committed knew that there are in all the connatural pollutions of sin which ought to be washt away by water and the spirit giving us to understand what uncleanness and holyness it is that children are capable of the uncleanness of their birth from Adam and the cleanness or sanctity of Christian baptisme So Athanasius Quaest ad Antioch 114. or whosoever it is under the name of that antient Father where the salvation of the baptized infants is concluded by him upon force of those two texts Suffer little children to come unto me and now are your children holy whereto he there sets parallel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the baptized infants of believers as the plain paraphrase of the Apostles words To these I farther adde another passage of Cyprian together with the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him in their Epistle to Fidus where speaking of the baptisme of infants and expressely forbidding that any such should be hindred or kept from it he brings for proof of it the words of S. Peter that the Lord had said unto him that he should count none common or unclean where it appears what was that Holy Fathers notion of common or unclean such as might be refused baptisme and consequently they which are not such but on the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clean or holy and such saith Paul here are the believers children are to be admitted thither Upon which words of S. Cyprian S. Augustine speaking saith he made no new decree but kept most firme the faith of the Church mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis coepiscopis censuit and he and his fellow Bishops resolved that a child might duely be baptized as soon as born So S. Chrysostome in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that were to be baptized speaking of the several titles of baptisme applies unto it that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 6.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ye are washed but ye are sanctified and again of those that were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture pronounces them not onely made clean but just and holy also So Gregorie Nyssene in like manner Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. speaking of him that deferres baptisme to old age saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he is sanctified indeed i. e. baptized but brings in no profit to God And Comm in Is l. 1. Or. 1. speaking of baptisme again and the sufficiency to wash away sin he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But they are once sanctified i. e. baptized But I need no more such like suffrages This I have both there §§ 34 35 36 37. and here thus largely deduced because in this one matter all the difficulty consists and if it be once granted that this is the meaning of Now are your children holy then here is an evidence undenyable of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants and consequently an irrefragable testimonie of their sense of Christs institution including not excluding infants And so this is a short and clear way of preventing all Mr. T. his indevours and pains so largely taken to invalidate my conclusion from this place of the Apostle and I need not now be farther sollicitous for my paraphrase on all those 3. verses wherein he would fain find out some excesses and defects some insertions and omissions If such there were as I doubt not to evidence there are none it would be little for his advantage as long as the interpretation of the last words but now are they i. e. your children holy appears to be this but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of baptisme for this one part of that verse concludes all that I pretend or he oppugneth And this I hope is now cleared to be no singular interpretation of mine but that which beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rational importance of the Context concluding it the style of Scripture and the uniforme attestation of the antientest writers assign to it so that there can be no reason for doubting in it Yet because this is one of the exuberancies objected to my paraphrase and the onely one which I can without impertinence take notice of that the term young children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which saith he is not restrained to infancie I shall briefely remove this exception 1. By the authority of Tertullian just now produced who interpreted it of their infant children as appeared both by the express words sanctos procreari and the caeterum immundi nascerentur and by the occasion of that discourse in that place which was the immunda nativitas ethnicorum the unclean birth of heathens children and the unlawfulnesse of baptizing them unlesse one of the parents were Christian To which may be added also Nazianzens phrase forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sanctified from infancie for so sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child before or soon after birth saith Hesychius and Aristophanes the Grammarian cited by Eustathius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child new born which in all probability referres to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children 2dly T is as manifest by the general doctrine of the Fathers when they speak of the faith of parents profiting their children meaning alwaies their infant children brought to baptisme by the faith of their parents before they are personally capable of having faith themselves 3dly By the inconveniences which must follow in case it be interpreted of any other but infant children For suposing them come to years of understanding and capacity they shall then either be supposed to have received the faith or to remain in infidelity If they have received the faith then be baptized t is evident that this benefit comes not to them upon any consideration of the faith of the parent but upon their own personal profession and consequently that these cannot be spoken of by the Apostle in that place where he makes the sanctification or baptisme of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever and as Tertullian saith patropinium a plea to move the beleever not to depart But if they have lived to years and not received the faith t is then certain that they may not be baptized at all And so
Christians children are admitted to baptisme viz. because by their living in the familie with the Christian parent they probably will and ought to be brought up in the faith and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents reasonably presumes they will and so admits them to baptisme This argument of the Apostles thus explained in my paraphrase or if he yet will have it more plainly thus The Church upon confidence that the believers children will be brought up in the faith receives them to baptisme when they are infants And upon the same grounds of hope that your abiding with the unbelieving husband may in time convert him as by experience it hath oft been found I advise you not to depart from him if he will live with you For what knowest thou whether thou shalt save thy husband c. Mr. T. hath made a shift not to understand and substituted another way of arguing in my name in stead of it p. 331. And having done so I must leave him to combate with the shadow of his own creating no part of his impression lighting upon that which alone I professe to be my meaning in it which I leave him or the reader to see in the particulars proposed by him but must not now be so impertinent as to lose time in the pursuit of them But the reasons produced for my thus interpreting he next proceeds to examine and I must take care to vindicate them My first reason is because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy noting a relative holynesse a setting apart to God and the lowest degree of that imaginable being the initiating into the Church by baptisme this must in reason be here noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy as all visible professors Ezr. 9.2 are the holy seed and in the Epistles of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy To this he answers that it being all granted confirmes not the Doctors exposition because t is no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmativè and because infants are not visible professors But sure when the species is such that he that hath not that hath not any part of the genus the argument will thus hold very irrefragably Suppose that of the Deacon to be the lowest order of officers of the Church and that without which there is no ascending to any higher degree in the ministerie will not then the argument hold He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him therefore sure he is a Deacon Thus sure it is in this matter the relative holyness belongs to no person that is not baptized baptisme is the lowest degree of it and all superior degrees of Apostle Prophet c. in the Christian Church are founded in that therefore if the infant children be holy the infant children are baptized So again Baptisme is the lowest degree of visible profession therefore if these that are said to be holy are visible professors then sure they are baptized And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason My 2d followes from the notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 10.14 for those that must not be received into the Church as on the other side God's cleansing is God's reputing him fit to be partaker of this priviledge whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptisme are exprest by holy and unclean To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion viz. the fitnesse of the expression All his exception is against my prâ—misse the notion of unclean Act. 10. which saith he signifies there not onely one out of the Church but also one that a Jew might not go in to or eate with To this I reply that my conclusion being granted I may safely part with that which inferred it as when I am arrived at my journeys end I have no farther need or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither Let it be remembred that holy and unclean fitly expresse those that are received or not received to baptisme and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words by concluding from this text that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to baptisme And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have then I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion As for the use of the phrase Act. 10. though now I need not contend yet I may adde that the notion of not entring to and eating with containing under it this other of not baptizing for sure he might not baptize those to whom he might not enter and the baptizing Cornelius and not onely entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that places signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by baptisme and the holyness on the contrary reception to that priviledge My 3d reason being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie for washing any part of the body and on occasion of that mentioning a conjecture that the use of holyness for baptisme might perhaps intimate that the primitive baptisme were not always immersions but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficient he hath a reply to each of these To the former that if this reason were good then the husbands being sanctified by the wife must signifie his being baptized or washed by her to the latter that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the baptisme of the Jewes and Christians to be immersion of the whole body that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary and that I can hardly believe my self in it To these I answer first to the former 1. That I that affirme sanctifications among the Jewes to signifie washings do also know that it hath other significations and that that signification is in each text to be chosen which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation Consequently that the wive's baptizing the husband being a thing absurd and utterly unheard of in the Church of God whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages this sense may not reasonably be affixt to it whereas the baptizing of infants by the antients affirmed to be received from the Apostles it is most reasonable to understand the words of this though not of the other and so to apply the observation as it is visible I did to the latter not former part of that verse And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of by and expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman of the perswasion that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptisme and not of her mysterie in baptizing we may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbelieving husband hath been
THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS REVIEVVED and DEFENDED from the Exceptions OF Mr. TOMBES In his three last CHAPTERS of his Book Intituled ANTIPEDOBAPTISME By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy lane 1655. THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS Reviewed and Defended The Introduction HAving by Gods help past through many stadia in these agones and therein paid some degree of obedience to the precept of Christ Mat. 5.41 and withall to S. Peters directions of rendring an account of the Faith which is in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to him that most unnecessarily requires it There is yet remaining one matter of discourse wherein some seeming ingagement lyes upon me occasioned by the Resolution of the 4th Quaere concerning Infant Baptisme For to this Mr. Jo Tombes hath offered some answers in the three last Chapters of his Book intitled Antipaedobaptism What I have thought meet to return to these might I supposed have been not unfitly annexed by way of appendage to that of Festivals the treatises of Festivals and Infant Baptisme being so neerly conjoyned in the first draught or monogramme that the defence of them which may in some degree passe for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought incongruity to be contrived into the same table also But the length of this Answer hath disswaded that and the desire that the Reader may have no taskes imposed on him but by his own choice hath advised the publishing this by it self with some hope that this may conclude his trouble and that this new year may not bring me so many occasions of such contests as the last hath done CHAP. I. Of Baptisme among the Jewes Sect. I. Probations more and less perfect The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptisme As also of Christ's reception of children Childrens coming and believing Mat. 18. Children sinners THe foundation of Mr. Tombes's returns to me he is pleased to lay in some words which he hath recited out of § 23. of my Resolution of the 4th Quaere where I say that there is no need of laying much weight on this or any the like more imperfect wayes of probation the whole fabrick being sufficiently supported and built on this basis the customary baptismes among the Jewes and that discernible to be so if we consider it first negatively then positively To this he begins his Reply with these words I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect wayes of proving Infant Baptisme viz. the example of circumcision Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold Act. 16.33 Christs reception of little children Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.16 and doubt not to shew his own to be no better then those he relinquisheth To this introduction of his I shall make some Reply in a generall reflexion on the Treatise which he undertakes to answer and begin with disclaiming his good words and approbation of my ingenuity assuring him that he is wholly mistaken in these his first lines and that I do in no wise relinquish those wayes of probation by him taken notice of nor shall so far despise the authority and aides of the ancient Church writers who have made use of them as wholly to neglect the force and virtue of them And I thought it had been to him visible that I have made my advantage of every one of them § 20 21 22. though I do verily think the foundation of this practice is more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptisme which belonged to all both Jews and proselytes children females as well as males whereas circumcision belonging to males onely was in that and some other respects a less perfect basis of it Meanwhile for the clearing of this whole matter it must be remembred that probations are of two sorts either less or more perfect those I call less perfect which though they have full force in them as far as they are used yet are not of so large an extent as to conclude the whole matter in debate which others that are more perfect may be able to do I shall apply this to the matter before us The instituting of the Sacrament of circumcision among the Jewes and the express command of God that the children of eight daies old should by this rite be received into Covenant is an irrefragable evidence that those may be capable of receiving a Sacrament who have not attained to years of understanding the nature of it that children may be received into Covenant with God though they are not personally able to undertake or performe the condition of it and then that argument will so far be applicable to Paedobaptisme as to evidence the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by this analogie with God's institution among the Jewes and so certainly invalidate all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. Tombes drawn from the incapacity of Infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of Infants it is yet evident to be the appointment of God that every Infant of 8. days old should be circumcised Gen. 17.12 and the threatning of God denounced against them as transgressors in case it be neglected The uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant v. 14. And this the rather because the Apostle compares baptisme of Christians with circumcision Col. 2.11.12 In whom ye are circumcised buried with Christ in baptisme Isidor Pelusiote l. 1. Ep. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews used circumcision in stead of baptisme whereupon S. Epiphanius styles Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great circumcision and S. Augustine to them that require a divine authority whereby to prove the baptisme of Infants renders this of the Jewish circumcision ex quâ veraciter conjiciatur quid valeret in parvulis Sacramentum Baptismi whereby true judgement may be made what force the Sacrament of Baptisme may have in Infants And in like manner Isidore l. 1. Ep. 125. whereupon consideration of the Angel coming to kill Moses because of the childs not being circumcised he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us make haste to baptize our children Yet because what is thus evidenced to be lawfull and agreeable to divine appointment in the old Testament is not thereby presently proved necessary under the New Christ might otherwise have ordained if he had pleased and from his ordinance onely as that was understood by his Apostles and by them delivered to the Church the necessity of our obedience and so of Baptizing Infants is completely deduced therefore it is that I mentioned this as a more imperfect way of probation in respect of the intire conclusion which I undertook to make viz. not onely the lawfulness but the duty and obligation that lies upon us to bring our Infants to Baptisme which by the way was much more then
force against those evidences which I have here produced the best he offers us at any time to prove any thing concerning the Iewish customes And I shall now appeale to the Reader whether Mr. T. could well have been expected to have made more misadventures in so few words Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea The defence of my notion of it Learned mens affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies Christ's baptizing of Iewes as well as Gentiles no argument Christ's vouching Iohns baptisme to be from heaven no argument No more the pretended no intimations of it The no conformity The proselytes children baptized continually not onely at the first conversion The baptisme of a woman with child serving for the child also not argumentative The Canon of Neocaesarea about it NExt he proceeds to consider the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.1 of our Fathers being baptized into Moses as in the cloud so in the Sea Where 1. He tells me that he doth not conceive Mr. Seldens exposition that the sea was some vessell of waters but the red sea And I that am as little of Mr. Seldens mind but expressely interpreted it of the Red sea § 7. and rejected Mr. Seldens interpretation § 8. although I omitted to name the author of it am not he knows concerned in that but have from his rejecting Mr. Seldens authority when t is not for his turn his example for my not thinking my self bound up by it at other times either in that newly past where he vouched his name as his onely proof that the Jewes did not baptize Jewes by nature or in other particulars which I find afterwards vouched from him the truth of which I as little conceive as Mr. T. doth this of the sea not signifying the Red sea which I acknowledge to be unconceiveable But then 2. he doth not think my exposition right neither though I interpret it of the Israelites passing through the Red sea as he acknowledges to do But what is my interpretation why that their being baptized into Moses in the Red sea as also in the cloud signifieth their being initiated into God's covenant under the conduct of Moses as since they are wont to be initiated by baptisme And why doth he dislike this interpretation why because when it is said our fathers were baptized it is not meant were baptized as since proselytes were baptized among the Jews but as Christians were baptized But certainly this is no reason of exception to my interpretation For 1. I compare not this baptisme of out fathers in the sea with the baptisme of proselytes among the Jewes but annex it immediately to the baptizing of the native Jewes § 6. before I proceed § 9. to the baptisme of proselytes And 2. I do not lay the comparison of the Apostle betwixt the baptizing in the sea and the Jewish custome of baptizing but acknowledge it to be betwixt the baptisme of the Fathers under the Law and the baptisme since Christ among Christians All the use I make of the words of the Apostle was to shew that baptisme among the Jewes was a ceremonie of initiating into the covenant and that upon that supposall it was that the Apostle used the phrase of the Israelites that came out of Aegypt and entred into Covenant with him under the conduct of Moses God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings the phrase to signifie reception into the covenant by invironing them with the sea This I thought had been before intelligibly enough set down I hope now he will no longer misunderstand it What he addes out of Mr. S. that after Exo. 19.10 the Jewes did not baptize Jewes but onely proselytes hath already been evidenced at large to have no truth in it the custome of baptisme continuing to all their posterity as well as that of circumcision And whereas this is said to be set down thus out of Maimonides and other Jewish Rabbines the Reader if he will consult the place in Mr. Selden de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. will find there is no such matter That Mr. S. himself so affirmes p. 23 I willingly acknowledge but in a matter of antient storie such as this is neither he nor any else must be believed farther then the testimonies produced by him out of their writers exact especially against express testimonies to the contrary And such he there produceth more then one p. 34. out of Gemara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What did our Fathers truely they entred not into Covenant without circumcision and baptisme and sprinkling of blood and again p. 35. our mothers were baptized and not circumcised and p. 26. out of Victoria Porchetus that our mothers though not as he saith Sara and Rebecca referring the custome to a greater antiquity then that of the time of giving the Law were baptized and not circumcised and p. 38. out of Maimonides that the Israelites entred into covenant by a threefold rite or ceremonie by circumcision baptisme and oblation And again p. 39. What was done to you ye entred into covenant by circumcision baptisme and he sprinkling of the sacrifice and therefore the proselyte the custome of baptizing the proselytes founded in that of baptizing the native Jewes All these clear testimonies are by him produced directly to the proof of my position that the native Jewes indifferently were baptized and not a word in any other parts of the testimonies to give reason to suspect that after that one time of Exo. 19. the Jewes did not baptize What he hath done in his other book de Jure Nat. ac Gent. I need not apprehend and have not commodity to inquire or examine supposing that if there he had undertaken the proof of it he would here where he affirmes it without proofe and against expresse testimonies produced by him have referred according to custome to that place And now what force against any pretension of ours is there in Mr. T. his observation that Christ and his Apostles baptized Jewes as well as Gentiles For 1. so certainly they might and yet derive their baptisme from the custome formerly in use among the Jewes for they we know baptized native Iewes nay 2. so they might though the Iewes had baptized none but proselytes for to that it would bear just proportion that they should baptize both Iewes and Gentiles in case both came in as proselytes to Christ For it were a fallacie a little too grosse to deceive any man of common understanding to argue thus The custome was to baptize proselytes and not natives therefore Christ if he observed that custome was not to baptize native Iewes The answer being so obvious by distinguishing of proselytes that they are either such as come in to the Iewish religion or such as came in to Christ and that Christ was to baptize all that were proselytes to him and that the native Iewes as many as believed on him were such and as believers i. e. as proselytes to Christ not as native
when he shall have considered it The onely way M. T. hath to confirme this of the Iewes not baptizing any infants of proselytes born after their first conversion and baptisme is the resolution of the Jewes that if a woman great with child became a proselyte and were baptized her child needs not baptisme when t is born And this I had cited § 109. out of the Rabbines and so indeed I find it in Maimonides tit Isuri bia c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I cannot think that whether true or false a sufficient proof to inferre the conclusion For the Iewish Doctors might probably thus resolve upon this other ground because the mother and the child in her wombe being esteemed as one person the woman great with child being baptized they might deem the child baptized as well as the woman and not account it needfull to repeat it after the birth which yet by the way it seems they would have done if they had not deemed the childe all one with the mother and consequently they must be supposed to baptize those children which were begotten to the proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptisme And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Councel of Neocaesarea Can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother that bears the childe differs from the childe or is not all one with it and her confession in baptisme is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper or particular to her self and belongs not to the childe in her womb give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the woman that is with childe and is then converted to the faith leave to be baptized when she pleases supposing that the childe which then she carries shall notwithstanding her baptisme then be it self baptized after its birth Which as it is a cleer answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jewes in that point so t is moreover an evidence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own observation or Mr. Seldens testimonies from all which he can produce no other but this which in the sound is so far from affirming what he would have and upon examination is found to conclude the contrary Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice Yet they do not all hold Prayer the Christian sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rule of judging in this matter Baptizing in the name of the Father c. prescribed by Christ So dipping or sprinkling The Pract Cat. misreported Mr. Marshals covenanting THis grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mistake I shall not need to attend his other instances of disparity this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindicated being sufficient to my pretensions and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm that the parallel holds any farther then Christ was pleased it should hold and of that we are to judge by what the Scriptures or ancient Church tells us was the practice of him or his Apostles For 1. the Jewes I doubt not brought in many things of their own devising into this as into other institutions of God's and the latter Jewes more as of the proselytes being so born again in baptisme that lying with his natural sister was no incest and the like And 2. Christ I doubt not changed the Jewish oeconomy in many things as in laying aside circumcision in commissionating his disciples to baptize and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop and those to whom he should commit it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not lawful to baptize without the Bishop saith Ignatius whereas it was not among the Jewes any part of the Priests office any more then circumcision was And so in many other particulars But what prejudice is that to my pretentions who affirm no more of the accordance betwixt the Jewish and Christian practice then eiher by some indications in the Scripture it self or by the Christian Fathers deductions from the Apostles times appears to be meant by Christ and practised by the Apostles and then by the Jewish writers is as evident to have been in use among them And this is all the return I need make to his 14 lesser disparities and all that he hath at large endevoured to infer from them supposing and granting them all to be such But yet it is evident that some of them are not such As when 1. he saith the baptisme of males must be with circumcision and an offering t is clear that though 1. circumcision be laid aside by Christ and 2. when it was used it had nothing to do with baptisme yet as to the adjoyning of offering or sacrifice the parallel still holds the prayers of the Church being the Christian sacrifice and those in the Christian Church solemnly attendant on the administration of baptisme So parallel to the court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not only the whole Church in the presence of whom t is publickly administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselves formerly baptized do represent the Church of which they are members meaning thereby the people of the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24 Chap. as far as I am concerned in it unlesse it be to tell him that the Bishops Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practice of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yield all authority so I find the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bear perfect accoordance therewith in this particular of infant baptisme though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselves and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifie it to any Christian artist to be according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Doctors own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Of this score t is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to adde concerning the forme of baptisme In the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghost In
this one thing saith he which Christ did not prescribe nor did the Apostles that we find so conceive it yet saith the Doctor Christs prescription must be indisspensably used In reply to this I shall not spend much time to evidence this forme to be Christ's prescription If the expresse words at his parting from the world Mat. 28. Go ye therefore and teach or receive to discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be not a prescription of Christs and if the universall doctrine and continuall practice of the whole Church through all times be not testimonie sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it thus and a competent ground of the indispensable tinuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall mind him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Serapion Tom. 1. p. 204. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is not baptized in the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no baptisme perfect it seems but that And if this will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can produce so expresse grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the Vniversal Church of God through all ages or from any one ancient Father for his denying baptisme to infants What in this place he addes farther from me out of the Practicall Catechisme that I confesse that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the Primitive antient custome to be put under water is a strange misreporting of my words I wonder Mr. T. would be guilty of it The words in the Pract. Cat. are visibly these By Christ's appointment whosoever should be thus received into his familie should be received with this ceremonie of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the Primitive anetint custome to be put under water three times or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it where 1. All that Christ's appointment is affixt to is the receiving all that should be received into Christ's familie with this ceremonie of Water 2. For the manner of that reception by water t is set down disjunctively therein to be dipt three times or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it These are evidently my words no way affirming either the dipping or sprinkling one exclusively to the other to be appointed by Christ but onely the ceremonie of water whether it be by dipping in it or sprinkling with it either of which may be signified by the word used from Christ by S. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize yee What ground the Church of Christ hath had to disuse immersion and in stead of putting the whole body under water only to dip the face or sprinkle it with water I shall not now discourse all that I have to do in this place being to vindicate my self that I have no way affirmed the putting under water used by the Primitive Church to be appointed by Christ exclusively to sprinkling and that I hope I have already done by the exact reciting of my words which had been so much misreported by him And so I have done with his 24th Chapter For as to the objection against Mr. M. drawn from his covenanting to performe the worship of God according to Gods word and admiring that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot farther then the Lord hath commanded and yet in point of infant baptisme following the Talmud I that am farre from Mr. M. his perswasions as well as practices am not sure bound to give answer for him Aetatem habet let him answer for himself and when he doth so 't were not amiss he would consider whether Episcopal government stand not on as firme a basis in the Church of God as Infant baptisme is by him vouched to do CHAP. II. Of Christ's words Mat. 28.19 Sect. 1. The Doctors pretended concessions examined Christ's institution of baptisme not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time HIS 25. Chapter is a view of my interpretation of Mat. 28.19 which lyes thus Goe and disciple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples receive into discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name c. teaching them c. thereby evidencing that the making or receiving disciples not supposing any precedent instruction but looking wholly on it as subsequent can no way exclude the Christians infants from baptisme when they are thus brought to the Church to be entred into the School of Christ and undertaken for that they shall learn when they come to years And to this a long proemial answer he hath of many lines which begins thus Though I conceive Dr. H. to ascribe more power to the Canons of the Prelates about the Sacraments then is meet being one who hath written in defence of the Common prayer Book yet by this allegation of Mat. 28.19 he seems tacitely to yield that if the words there include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptisme although he say § 96. I do not believe or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessarily inferre though it do as little deny that infants are to be baptized Before I proceed to that which followes 't is not amiss to view in passing how many incongruities are here amass't together in these few words For whereas my having written in defence of the Common Prayer Book is made use of as an evidence to inferre that I ascribe more to the Canons of Prelates then is meet it is certain 1. that the Common Prayer book stands not by the Canons of the Prelates but by Act of Parliament and consequently if I had been guilty of a confest partiality to the Common Prayer book yet were this no evidence of my ascribing any thing therefore sure not more then is meet or too much to the Canons of Prelates 2dly It never yet appeared that by writing in defence of the Common Prayer book I offended at all therefore surely not about either much less against both the Sacraments 3ly The making my defence of the Common Prayer book written long ago a proof that I oftend now in somewhat else viz. in attributing too much to the Canons of the Bishop is 1 the connecting together things that are most disparate concluding quidlibet ex quolibet and 2dly a plain begging of the question for such certainly it is in respect of him with whom he disputes and so must be till he shall offer proof that I have erred in that defence The same as if he should conclude that he who hath once written the truth were obliged the next time to swerve from it So when he mentions my allegation of Mat. 28.19 the word allegation must signifie that I produce and so allege that text as a proof of my position But this he knows I do not But only suppose the
it shall be redundant and signifie no more then if it were not to be found there As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must certainly be rendred among the Fathers thus the tabernacle of witness was among our Fathers in the wilderness T is pity the reader should be exercised and detained with such debates as these with which yet in obedience to Mr. T. I must farther importune him For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16 and 2 Pet. 1.5 That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith that he was pleased to reveale his own sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when I had rendred that by or through me to others This exposition saith he makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared for certainly there was little temptation for it why I pray might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure say God was pleased through me to reveal his sonne and by way of explication and withall to denote the designation of that Apostle to his peculiar province as the Apostle of the uncircumcision adde that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles Certainly every explication of an obscurer or narrower by a clearer or larger phrase is not inept tantologie but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly have always been full of And yet 2dly the latter part here of his preaching the Gospell to the Gentiles he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles as Peter and John were of the Jewes wheresoever dispersed is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and paraphrasing the former part of it for in that those others had not been defined who they were or limited to the Gentiles This Mr T. adverted not in his objection I desire he will now take notice of it For that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I need adde no more to what I had before said that it is most fully rendred thus unto or over and above your faith superadde virtue or fortitude Two places he saith he had formerly produced out of the old Testament Deut. 28.60 and 2 Kin. 7.27 and now addes one more Psal 68.18 But besides that three onely places in the whole old Testament would never inferre that so it must be in this place of the new there being many more to preponderate for the contrary and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it must be here besides this I say it will be found that these three will be of no availe to him Of the two former the 2d is not there be but 20. vers in that Chapter and therefore no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 27th and for the former we well read it unto thee where the 72. reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ordinary way of acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And lastly for his new sprung testimonie Psal 68.18 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which saith he the Apostle hath Eph 4.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he takes to be more then enough to refute the Doctor t is presently visible that it hath no manner of force in it For though those two places are perfectly parallel as to the matter yet for the expression t is evidently very different in one thou hast received in the other he hath given and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or among men must of all necessity differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to men For how could it be sense to fay thou hast received gifts to men yet so it must be to make good Mr. T. his observation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to or is redundant or the note of a dative case And so he never had a more improper season for his triumphs never lesse cause to tell others of taking ad randum when he himself was so far removed from all appearance of demonstration And so much for the Grammatical notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very unfit to have exercised us thus long but that Mr. T. would have it so and words are the meanes of conveighing realities unto us and mistakes in them though minute may be of substantiall importance My 3d proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt by comparing it with the reason subjoyned For what knowest thou ô wife whether thou shalt save thy husband or how knowest thou ô man whether thou shalt save thy wife he comes next to examine and hath many exceptions against it all which without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to ly Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordinary observation that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and baptisme by the believing wife therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever in case the unbeliever be willing to stay v. 13. for this reason v. 16. because what hath been so oft may very probably be hoped again and consequently upon the premises the believer hath ground to hope that she may in time gain the husband to the faith and that being so fair a reward in her view the saving or rescuing him from infidelitie to Christ may well inforce the counsel of the Apostle not to depart from him as long as without sin she is permitted to stay By which it appeares that this v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally depend but an application of the argument formerly proposed but now more signally brought home to them under the forme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what by this means to reinforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelitie If the reader will but observe what is thus visible he will want no more help to get out of the intricacies and toiles which Mr. T hath here spred for him in this matter which is in it self so manifest as nothing can be added to it if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense The argument à genere ad speciem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How the husband is said to be baptized by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings The proportion betwixt legal holyness and baptisme Difference between relative and real sanctification The testimonies of the antient for and against my interpretation HIS exceptions to the former part of my paraphrase being now ended I must attend what he hath to say against the latter part of it that which concernes our matter in hand more neerly The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for else were your children unclean but now are they holy i. e. upon that score it is that
appearance of obstacle why the receiving of Infants to baptisme should not be resolved the doctrin and practice of the first and purest ages of the Church avouched and testified to be delivered to them by the Apostles of Christ who could not mistake his meaning in the Institution What artifices the Antepaedobaptist can make use of to cast a mist before our eyes in the midst of so much light I can no way divine sure I am that the prejudices which Mr. T. hath in few words indevoured to infuse as that some are counterfeit authors some suspected some misinterpreted that some maintained infant baptisme but in case of danger of death that others which avouched this avouched either Rebaptization or Communion of Infants also are all of them unjust and causeless and have severally and punctually been prevented in one or both of these discourses and so there remains not the least scruple of difficulty that I can foresee in this matter to adde to the bulke of this vindication God assist it with his blessing to the disabusing those that are seduced and regaining them to the waies of Peace The End ERRATA Page Line Read 13 8 then it 17 21 Alphes 20 32 the whiteness 28 ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 32 17 continuing  21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 40 25 of receiving 42 35 in to 44 11 heed to 48 21 of pers 61 13 So Cyrill in  18 they that 64 20 infants 67 15 crediderit 79 36 after infants adde being 80 5 ministry 83 3 then this 84 24 now to 91 2 but if 102 34 to be The CONTENTS of the severall Chapters and Sections contained in this BOOK CHAP. I. OF Baptisme among the Jewes page 2 Sect. 1. Probations more and less perfect The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptisme As also of Christ's reception of children Childrens coming and believing Mat. 18. Children sinners page 2 Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptisme depending on the positive part of probation The several sorts of Anabaptists Tistimonies the onely proof of Institutions page 6 Sect. 3. The Jewes Baptisme of natives as well as Proselytes Testimonies of their writers in proof thereof Baptisme among the heathens taken from the Jewes Among both from Noahs flood The derivation of Christian from Jewish Baptisme how manifested Christs answer to Nicodemus Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the deluge Gr. Nazianzen's and Macarius's testimonies The Fathers meaning in affirming the Christians baptisme to be in stead of Circumcision The Lords Supper founded in the Jewes Postcoenium yet in stead of their Passeover page 8 Sect. 4. The conceipts of Pe Alfunsus and Schickard of the Jewish baptisme Raf Alphes Mr. T. his conclusion not inferred The original of the Jewish Baptisme the onely doubt vindicated Jacob's injunction to his family Sanctifications Exod. 19.10 differ from washing garments page 17 Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea The defence of my notion of it Learned mens affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies Christ's baptizing of Iewes as well as Gentiles no argument Christ's vouching Iohns baptisme to be from heaven no argument No more the pretended no intimations of it The no conformity The proselytes children baptized continually not onely at the first conversion The baptisme of a woman with child serving for the child also not argumentative The Canon of Neocaesarea about it page 23 Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice Yet they do not all hold Prayer the Christian sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rule of judging in this matter Baptizing in the name of the Father c. prescribed by Christ So dipping or sprinkling The Pract. Cat. misreported Mr. Marshals covenanting page 30 CHAP. II. Of Christ's words Mat. 28.19 pag. 34 Sect. 1. The Doctors pretended concessions examined Christs institution of baptisme not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time page 34 Sect. 2. Making disciples all one with receiving into discipleship Baptizing the act of the Baptist Instruction subsequent to discipling The pretended parallel between Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johns discipling by preaching excludes not infants No more the Apostles Mat. 10.5 The notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 13.52 Act. 14.21 Infants both said to come and to believe Instruction subsequent to baptisme page 40 Sect. 3. Discipleship before instruction What knowledge of the Master is required to discipleship Two sorts of disciples Some come others are brought page 50 Sect. 4. The difference of a Disciple and Proselyte examined Christian as well as Jewish proselytes Priviledges of proselytisme Disciples of the Pharisees The Holy Ghost's not using the word Proselyte of Christians concludes nothing Jehovah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants qualified for baptisme As for entring into Covenant Deut. 29. Gods oath Infants adjured Criples capable of Christ's cures page 53 CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter pag. 58 Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12 vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification used to denote baptisme the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture Tertullians testimonie designati Sanctitatis Origen Author Quaest ad Antiochum Cyprian Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there infant children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistles S. Augustines words examined page 58 Sect. 2. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified defended S. Hieromes testimonie Enallages must not be made use of without necessity No advantage from it here Feigned instances of Enallage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 66 Sect. 3. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman defended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latine author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16 1 Pet. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 68. My proof of the interpretation from the context page 69 Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense The argument à genere ad speciem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How the husband is said to be baptized by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings The proportion betwixt legal holyness and baptisme Difference between relative and real sanctification The testimonies of the antient for and against my interpretation page 77 CHAP. IV. An answer to Mr. Tombes's view of my Conclusion and therein the sense of Antiquity in this Question pag. 84 Sect. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. infant children The Jewes practice Their notion of holy Baptisme a priviledge of believers children yet is communicated to others whose guardians are believers The several sorts of holyness all vainly mentioned by Mr. T. His denyals of the Conclusion The place in Tertullian vindicated S. Hieromes answer to Paulinus Institutionis disciplina in Tertullian Candidati Damoniorum A 3d denyal of the Conclusion The use of baptisme to regenerate c. No prejudice to the founding it in the Jewish practice His art of diversion to put off answering of testimonies The way of Testimonies insisted on page 84 Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptisme and the Apostolicalness thereof page 96 Books written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol. 2. The Practical Catechisme with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4º 3. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to Practise by H. Hammond D. D. in 12o. Several Books of Controversies relating to the present times by the same Author in two large volumes in 4 to viz. 1. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Iura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond in 4o. 2. A Vindication of the Dissertations concerning Episcopacy from the Exceptions offered against them by the London Ministers in their Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici in 4o. 3. An Answer to the Animadversions on the Dissertations touching Ignatius Epistles and the Episcopacy in them asserted subscribed by Iohn Owen servant of Jesus Christ in 4o 4. Of Schisme A Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists in 12º 5. A Reply to the Cathol Gent Answer to the most materiall part of the Book of Schisme together with an Account of H. T. His Appendix to his Manuall of Controversies c. 4o. 6. A Letter of Resolution of six Quaeries in 12o. 7. An account of Mr. Cawdreys Triplex Diatrio concerning Superstition Will-worship and Christmass Festivall New THE END * De Bapt. contr Donat l. 4. c. 23. * See G. Cassan in Praes ad Duc. Jul. Cliv ex Nichol. Blusdick de Orig Sect. Anabapt * Tom. 2. p. 426. p. 41. See §. 12. Eâ— ad Smyrn Edit Voss p. 6. l. 6. §. 2. In Rom. l. 5. * Tom. 2. p. 377. D. * Ep. 59. Edit Pam. p. 80. * Ep. 28. ad Hieron * Edit Savil. Tom. 6. p. 854. l. 16. * Ibid. l. 19. * Tom 1. p. 27.31 * Tom. 2.18 C. * In Iliad Basil Ed. p. 944. p. 333. * Ep. Eccl. Smyr ap Euseb l. 4. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Hieron Ep. 29. Apostolicorum temporum vir * Doctrinarum omnium accuratissimus explorator Tertul. advers Valent. * Biblioth lod 1 * Edit Morel p. 233. p. â—19 p. 234. * Ep. 28. ad Hieron l. 3 de Pecâ— mer. Remis c. 6 7 8 9. l. 4. contr duas Ep. Pelag. c. 3. l. 2. contr Julian c. 3. p. 339. * Paris Edit Tom. 1. p. 648. * p. 647 D. * Just as Tertullian de Ani. had observed * p. 643. C. * p. 658. A. * Edit Eton. Tom. 1. p. 328. l. 5. * T. 1. p. 322. l. 11. So again p. 327. l. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉