〈◊〉 with Suidas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad misericordiam propensi such as are very prone to mercy And in Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui non rogatus bona sua largitur citra invidiam Who bestows his goods unaskt without grudging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theocritus saith of Menalcas So that Good is a complex word that hath several meanings it signifieth Courteous or kind merciful or liberal and such is a friend in all respects and for such a friend perhaps some would dare to die as some rare examples tell us or perhaps Good may be taken here as personally good to such a man and such a one is properly a friend Let a man be never so just or righteous there 's none will lay down his life for him but for such a one as hath been good to me as my friend hath been perhaps for such a one I shall dare to die and farther reacheth not the love of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. No man hath Greater love then this that he lay down his life for his friend Joh. c. 15. v. 13. But God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet sinners that is enemies Christ died for us This is the love which exceedeth knowledge Eph. c. 3. v. 19. V. 12 13 14. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In most Interpreters you have in this place an Anantopodoton that is a deficiency in the reddition of the sense a sicut without a sic which ought by all means to be avoided if without violence to the Text it possibly may Nor can I assent to those who to prevent the inconvenience of an Anantopodosis would have the 18 and 19 verses answer to the 12. which seems to me too constrainedly forc't I rather approve their judgments who Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a frequent Metathesis ita quoque so also as the Old Latin Interpreter of Chrysostom the Syriack and Arabick read or etiam ita even so by which version there is no wrong either to the construction or the sense but all is whole taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only in the redditive and not in the copulative sense as it is in the Lords prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut in coelo etiam in terra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in mundum introiit per peccatum mors etiam ita mors in omnes homines pertransiit eo quòd omnes peccaverunt Therefore as by one man sin entred into the world and by sin death even so death passeth upon all men for that all have sinned For until the Law that is before the Law sin was in the world That sin was in the world before the Law seems to be the main thing that the Apostle here laboureth to prove that he might meet with the tacite or implied objection of those who probably did deny that all men were sinners and the enemies of God as he had before affirmed v. 8. and therefore did Sophistically argue that Christ died not for all because sin is the transgression of the Law but they which had no Law could not transgress that which they had not for the Law was from Moses Joh. c. 1. v. 17. To meet therefore with their objection he useth this argument As by one man sin entred into the world and by sin death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this very reason Even so is death passed upon all men for that all have sinned none excepted So that it appears most certainly true that from the fall of Adam to the Law given by Moses for he speaks of no other Law throughout the whole Epistle sin was in the world But it is farther objected that sin is not imputed where there is no Law for the Law worketh wrath c. 4. v. 5. To which he gives no other answer but an implicit one the same in effect which he gave before Immo for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive is to be rendred here Regnavit mors ab Adam c. Yea death reigned from Adam to Moses therefore was sin not only in the world before the Law but also imputed before the Law Their dying was an argument not only that they had sinned but that also their sin was imputed for the wages of sin is death and therefore because death hath passed on all men it s necessarily determined that all have sinned and so become obnoxious to the punishment of death even they who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression for death reigned on very Infants who sinned not actually as Adam did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is the type of man to come to wit of all mankind For Adam did in his person represent all the Race of men which were to spring from his loyns And in this regard and sense Adam seems to me most fitly to be stiled in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The type of man which is to come I acknowledge all Interpreters elder and later understand Christ to be him that was to come but I see no cogency in the Text to bind my Faith to that interpretation but rather arguments to disswade it For truly if we speak in a proper sense Adam cannot be said to be the type of Christ For a type is the express Image or Figure of the thing it represents 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respondet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut sigillo cera the type answereth to the antitype as the wax unto the seal It is absolutely necessary that the type of that which is good be good it self and the type of that which is evil must be evil otherwise it cannot be a type It is the sence of Chrysostom in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 9. v. 23. Neither is there any will say that Adam is a true and proper type of Christ but that he is so only per antithesim or analogiam by opposition of contraries or proportion or by some intricate distinction such as is that of Origen's Juxta genus constare similitudinem juxta speciem repugnantiam esse That there is a similitude as to the Genus a repugnancy as to the species Whereas Adam is properly truly and significantly I may add aptly and appositly to this place said to be the type of his off-spring which was to come from his loins and which he did so virtually represent in his person as that by his sin they all became obnoxious to sin and death And from these words thus expounded is formed as strong an argument for Original sin as from any Text of Scripture Neither do I seem to be altogether without witness I have the Aethiopick Version or Paraphrase for me The words whereof in Latin are these Veruntamen dominata est mors propterea ab Adamo usque ad Mosem tam in
iis qui peccaverunt quem in iis qui non peccaverunt per illud peccatum Adami eo quod unusquisque in similitudine Adami creatus est quia Adamus typus fuit illius qui erat venturus Nevertheless death reigned therefore from Adam to Moses as well in those that sinned as also in those that sinned not by that sin of Adam because that every one is born in the likeness of Adam and because Adam was the type of him that was to come From which words I could make no other construction but that he plainly means that death did reign over all by the sin of Adam for these two causes because every one was born in the likeness of Adam and because Adam was the type of him who was to come Both which reasons seem to me one and the same the one being a reddition or explication only of the other it being all one to say that Adam was a type of his Posterity and that Adam's Posterity was born in his likeness But to say that death reigned over all by the sin of Adam because Adam was the type of Christ is surely an inconsequent argument Whereas to affirm that death reigned over all by the sin of Adam because Adam was a type that represented all his Posterity methinks answers fitly to the place and is very easie for the lowest capacity at first sight to apprehend C. 6. v. 4. Christ is said to be raised from the dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the glory of the Father as it is commonly rendred Beza would have it In gloriam Patris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the glory of the Father The Translation either way is harsh Why may it not be much better rendred by a familiar trajection Per Patrem gloriae By the Father of glory which is significant and apt as he is elsewhere called Dominus gloriae and Deus gloriae The Lord of glory and the God of glory And so is he expresly called Eph. c. 1. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pater gloriae The Father of glory C 7. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death Or as it is in our margin from this body of death And why not O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the death of this body that is thus captivated under the Law of sin which is in its members v. 23. And so the sense without any Metaphor is plain and sutable to the scope of the place There being nothing more familiar then such trajections Examples whereof you may see Heb. c. 7. v. 4. Jam. c. 2. v. 1. c. 3. v. 3. 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 21. 2 Pet. c. 1. v. 19. You have one in the margin of this very place V. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words are to be supplied out of the former whereto they are a perfect answer The Apostles trembling question was Who shall deliver me from the death of this body that is such a slave to sin to which he forthwith answers I thank God he will deliver me through Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be understood as a reddition to the question C. 8. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I cannot see how there can be construction here but by a Metathesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Eo enim quod impotentia legis debilis erat propter carnem Deus filium suum mittens c. For in that the weakness of the Law was impotent because of the flesh God sending his own Son c. C. 9. v. 10 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To reconcile the sense and construction of these words wherein there hath been so much labour you must understand the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Hebraism or Graecism frequent in every Page almost in Holy Writ Whereof see note on Mar. c. 12. v. 40. Promissionis enim verbum hoc est secundum tempus hoc veniam erit Sarae filius non solum vero sed Rebecca ex altero erat gravida ex Isaac patre nostro nondum enim natis c. Dictum est ei major serviet minori For this is the word of promise At this time I will come and Sara shall have a son and not only so but Rebecca also by another was with child by our Father Isaac For the children being not yet born c. It was said unto her The elder shall serve the younger As much as to say that Rebecca was with child also by another word of promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive to be a more proper phrase then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if a man be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb c. 5. v. 20. then is it rightly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rebecca retinuit semen patris nostri Isaac that is concepit she was with child by her Father Isaac So that there was not such necessity for the learned Beza to pronounce so positively Est itaque depravatus hic locus a quopiam Graecae linguae prorsus ignaro This place is depraved by some person ignorant of the Greek tongue When as so easie and frequent a remedy is at hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to this time are the words of the LXX whom Paul it seems did follow and they questionless read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so rendred it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this time for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the time of life accoding as it is Gen. c. 18. v. 10. and 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum or circa tempus vitae At or about the time of life I will return unto thee And I suspect it is not rightly read in the Hebrew it self Gen. c. 17. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at this time which should have been rather written conformably with the other places relating to this story 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of life As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our sense it is abundantly familiar The LXX use it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altero another Gen. c. 43. v. 13. Psal 108. v. 14. You shall find it likewise in the same sence 1 Cor. c. 4. v. 6. and in Dioscor and Greg. Nazian take but the pains to look in Steph. Thes V. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here is no necessity for Anantopodosis the coherence of the place is plain and ready distinguish but the words aright Nay but O man who art thou that repliest against God if God being willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known hath endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction The intervenient words Shall the thing
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritús causa est pulmo But the next cause of the voice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritus the breath and from thence it is that Phavorinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritus elatio dictionis Breath is the bringing forth or the conveyance of the speech which differs not from the very voice For without breath the principal organ of the voice its impossible to utter any sound And that this is the Apostles meaning in this place appears by the whole series of his discourse in this present Chapter For it followeth v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quapropter qui loquitur lingua peregrina precetur ita ut interpretur Wherefore let him that speaketh that is that prayeth in an unknown tongue pray so as he may interpret that is that himself or some body else may interpret so that others may understand as it is v. 27. And of this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may see Budaeus which also must be necessarily taken in the same sense Joh. c. 10. v. 17. Because I lay down my life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as I may take it up again He laid not his life down to the end he might take it up again but in such a manner so as he might take it up again for as it immediately follows He had power to lay it down and he had power to take it up again And thus it follows still in the same phrase and manner of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si enim precer lingua peregrina spiritus meus precatur mens vero mea est infructuosa For if I pray in an unknown tongue my breath that is my voice prayeth but my meaning is of no benefit to others because they understand not what I say What therefore is to be done v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Precabor spiritu precabor etiam cum intellectu I will pray with my breath or voice and I will pray with understanding also that is so as I may be understood of others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Aristophanes and in the Glossary is sensus meaning as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quis est horum verborum sensus What is the meaning of these words And with this key its easie to open the mysteries of this Chapter which otherwise are hard to be understood V. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sive quis loquatur lingua peregrina duabus vel ad maximum tribus scilicet linguis fiat idque singulatim unus interpretetur quod si non sit Interpres sileto Or if a man speak in an unknown tongue let it be in two or three tongues at the most and let one interpret But if there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church It is very probable that there might be divers in the Church who could speak in many tongues but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for orders sake he permitted them to use but two or three tongues at most and that by turns and not confusedly nor without an Interpreter But whereas most interpret those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the persons seems to me by no means to agree with the sense or Syntax For how one man should speak by another man according to the scope of this place is beyond my comprehension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiat is familiarly understood V. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But if any thing be revealed unto another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace that is before that other speak to whom it is revealed as much as to say Let not him to whom any thing is revealed offer to speak till the other who was first speaking hath made an end For ye may all prophecy one after another that all may learn and all be comforted or exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of which words is either the spirits of the Prophets are subordinate to the Prophets that is they are so mutually subordinate one to another that they ought not to confound one another or their hearers by unseasonable speaking two or more together but to keep order in the Churches For God as it follows is not the Author of confusion but of peace in all the Churches of the Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all things be done in order Or thus The spirits of the Prophets whereby any thing is revealed to them are subject to those Prophets to be guided by them to be supprest and uttered when they please so that to prevent confusion in the Church he to whom any thing is revealed ought for a while to suppress his Spirit of revelation till he who was first speaking hath made an end Nor can I by any means think that out of these words there can be any argument raised for the trial of mens spirits or doctrines a sense so generally imposed C. 15. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alioquinquid facient qui Baptizantur pro mortuis si omnino mortui non resurgunt Quid etiam Baptizantur pro mortuis Else what shall they do who are Baptized for dead if the dead rise not at all Why are they then Baptized for dead Here is as it were a gemination of the question to make the matter of it the more observed As if he should say What do men do or mean when they are Baptized or why are men dipped under water as if dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Buried with Christ in Baptism Rom. c. 6. v. 4. Col. c. 2. v. 12. if by rising out of the water which is a type of the Resurrection after death they be not ascertained that Christ is risen from the dead and that they also if they rise from the death of sin to newness of life shall likewise rise again with Christ after death to glory In vain doth the Church use this sign of Baptism if there be not a Resurrection For Baptism is the lively type of the death and Resurrection of Christ and consequently of all the faithful And so hath it been received always by the Ancients whereof you may see in note 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 23. And this doctrine Zonaras calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vim mysterii Religionis Christianae The very life and virtue of Christian Religion plainly affirming that they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loose their labour who are Baptized if they doubt of the Resurrection in that that they demonstrate or set forth by their Baptism that is by their immersion into the water and their emersion out of the same their death and Resurrection but doubt or not believe it in their hearts And who so do what they do they do in vain From whence you may conclude it was the opinion of those times that the act of immersion in the water in which the body is buried for dead or as if it were dead and the emersion again out of the same did lively represent the real death and Resurrection of the body both in Infants
of the Praeposition it being as good if not much better sense to Translate it as the Old Latin doth Per praeputium By his uncircumsion according to the common acception of the word The meaning of the place being this That Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of Faith in uncircumcision that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his uncircumcision he might be the Father of all believers righteousness also being imputed unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be Transposed thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as commonly it is to the obscuring of the Emphasis of the sense Which is surely this His circumcision was the seal of his Faith when he was yet uncircumcised for a sign that by his uncircumcision that is by his Faith when he was yet not circumcised he might become the Father of all believers throughout the world that are not circumcised However this interpretation of Beza's is not only rare but likewise not much suitable to this place Let us therefore with leave inquire whether these very words without altering at all the common reading for neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being all of the Masculine or Neuter gender do or can agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is of the Faeminine as in their sense who would so read they ought to do only varying the points and understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so frequent and taking away the latter Parenthesis may not yield a truer and better sense then they did before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In diebus Noae cum fabricaretur Arca in qua paucae id est Octo animae servatae sunt Per aquam etiam quod est antitypum nos nunc servat Baptisma non depositio sordium carnis sed bonae conscientiae stipulatio in Deum per Resurrectionem Jesu Christi In the days of Noah when the Ark was preparing wherein few that is Eight Souls were saved By water also Baptism which is the Antitype doth now save us Not the doing away the filth of the flesh but the covenant of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ And thus by this Translation the unwonted use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former sense is avoided and the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth fitly answer to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is the trajection harsh at all as some perhaps may object 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By water also Baptism which is the Antitype to the Ark of Noah wherein Eight Souls were saved doth now save us Is there not the same trejection if you read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay it is so far from being insolent as it rather seemeth elegant and pleasing for as Stephanus affirms Demosthenes the great Oratour was wont to use such trajections ad venustatem sermoni conciliandam to gain a grace unto his speech That others also of the Greeks and the Latins also for the same cause did the like as you may see Animad on Act. c. 13. v. 17. And perhaps the very Apostles themselves is not strange at all You have one in this very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another in the same Apostle 2 Ep. c. 1. v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you would see more perplext and involv'd trajections you may consult as I said before Act. c. 13. v. 17. In summ the sense is this Baptism which doth now save us by water and is an Antitype to the Ark of Noah is not the doing away of the filth of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By water but the covenant or promise of a good conscience toward God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so as there is a clear Analogy between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a due proportion between By water and By the Resurrection As if he should have said That the Ark of Noah not the floud was a type of Baptism and Baptism an antitype to the Ark but not because that Baptism was a cleansing of the filth of the flesh by water in which respect it had no resemblance with the Ark but in that it was the stipulation of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Faith whereof and a life proportionable toward God we are now saved as they of old time were in the Ark of Noah For the Ark of Noah and Baptism are both types and figures of the Resurrection So that the proper end of Baptism is not to be understood as if it were a washing away of our sins which is signified by the doing away the filth of the flesh although it necessarily follows and is so often Metonymically taken by the Fathers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly it is the sign of Resurrection from death in sin to newness of life by a true and lively Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ whereof Baptism was a most Emphatick figure as was also the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as it were from the Sepulchre of death to a new life and therefore is of Philo not unfitly termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Captain or Leader of regeneration and so was the Whales belly out of which Jonas rose after a three days burial and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the people of Israel were all Baptised 1 Cor c. 10. v. 2. All which were types and figures of the same thing with Baptism to wit of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ it being reputed an Apostolique constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Demersio in aquâ denotat mortem emersio ex aquâ Resurrectionem Christi simul nostram The demersion in the water signifies the death the emersion out of it the Resurrection of Christ and also of us So as by the leave of Interpreters who are of another Judgment I for my part think that in these words is more Emphatically and expresly set forth what Baptism meaneth both negatively and affirmatively then in any other place of Scripture as if our Apostle did it of purpose to rectifie our Judgments concerning the true notion of Baptism I say negatively and affirmatively Negatively that it is not doing away the filth of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the efficacy of water the outward sign of the inward thing to wit the mystical washing away of sin into which sense very obvious for the near affinity of the use of water we are so prone to run into For it is a cold exposition of them who say that the doing away the filth of the flesh doth signifie the outward act of washing only as if any man could be saved by the outward
c. Zanch. I could add to these an innumerable heap of Testimonies but these I think are enough to prove two irrefragable doctrines First that Baptism is properly and solely the type of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Faith wherein we are assured of the humanity and Godhead of our Saviour the very foundation of our Christian Faith And Secondly of the Resurrection of all true Christians who are Baptized in and live according to that Faith knowing that if they shall rise from the death of sin to newness of life they shall also after death with Christ arise to glory I shall only add the Judgment of an ingenuous and learned man whose Testimony in this matter is not to be suspected or refused His words are these Porro quamvis immersionis Caeremonia olim fuit communior c. Though the Ceremony of immersion was anciently more common as appears by the unanimous discourse of the Fathers when they speak of this matter and doth more lively represent the death burial and Resurrection of the Lord and us which are mystically done in Baptism The which signification of immersion the Fathers do often urge c. From whence St Thomas affirms that the Ceremony or rite of dipping is the most commendable Yet there have been many reasons for which sometimes it was convenient to change this custom of dipping into some other kind of Ceremony near unto it c. From hence therefore the Ceremony of perfusion or pouring on of water as middle between sprinkling and dipping was much in use which custom Bonaventure saith was in his time much observed in the French Churches and some others though he confess the Ceremony of dipping was the more common the more fit and the more secure as St Thomas teacheth However where the custom of perfusion or aspersion sprinkling of or pouring on of the water is now in use it ought not to be altered by private Authority Nay since now it is so generally in practise throughout the Church it ought by no means to be call'd in question Thus far Estius In whose words we have a manifest and ingenious concession that dipping was the Ancient Ceremony which constantly the Fathers taught as more lively representing the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and us that the Schoolmen held the same for the most secure and commendable custom that the custom of perfusion crept in unawares into the Church for what causes he mentions not But because the custom hath been long in use he doth not think it fit it should be called into question whether it be lawful or no. And to this Judgment I willingly subscribe so as the Ministers of Baptism would teach the true and genuine reason of its institution which by the change of the Ceremony is almost lost so that they for the most part teach now a days that Allegorical one of washing occasioned by the now constant custom of perfusion which I will not yet deny may be piously and profitably taught sometimes for the Fathers and the Apostles themselves did sometimes do it Though with leave be it spoken I am still of opinion that it would be more for the honour of the Church and for the peace and security of Religion if the old custom could conveniently be restored which surely it might safely enough in respect of indangering the health of the Infants if Baptism were only to be administred at set times in the year as it was Antiently in the Church Which custom what should hinder to be revived I do not see but the opinion of those who hold Baptism so necessary to Salvation as that without it there 's none to be hoped for and yet in danger of death there might be a liberty allowed for it at other times The case then being thus I beseech you what so visible affinity is there between burial and washing that Christian Baptism should be thought to draw its Original from the lotions or washings of the Jews If it were true that our Baptism did signifie washing or ablution or were it true that the Jews did Anciently admit into their Church either their Own or Proselytes by collation of Baptism which hath been so much urged by Learned men they might be probable arguments that the institution of our Baptism was fetch 't from the Baptismes or washings of the Jews But when the contrary is made so evident concerning the first and there appears no certainty for the second I conceive there is little reason to adhere to this new and uncertain doctrine which the Fathers never heard or dreamed of For that our Baptism is truly a type of burial and Resurrection litteral and mystical and not of washing hath been already sufficiently declared And as for the other argument as it is far off from any cogency in it to force the assent so is it liable to very much question it having so little help of the Authority of Scripture to defend it that I can scarce find any footsteps of it in the Old Testament They would derive its Original from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavit or purgavit to wash or cleanse Exod. c. 19. v. 10. But as I take it the Rabbins use for Baptism the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies dipping or immersion thereby notably shewing that they owe the notion of the word to the Greeks or rather to the Christians For what affinity is there so near between purgation and immersion cleansing and dipping But the thing of it self was so uncertain that the Masters themselves did disagree about it For in the very Text they urge which is cited out of the Talmud Rabbi Eliezer doth expresly contradict Rabbi Joshua who was the first as far as I can learn that ever did assert this kind of Baptism among the Jews For Rabbi Eliezer who was at least coetaneous if not elder to Rabbi Joshua expresly saith Proselytum circumcisum non Baptizatum verum esse Proselytum nam fic legimus de patribus Abrahamo Isaaco Jacobo qui circumcisi erant non Baptizati That a Proselyte circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of our Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were Circumcised and not Baptized On the other side Rabbi Joshua affirms Eum qui Baptizatus est non circumcisus esse Proselytum That he was a Proselyte who was Baptized and not circumcised But to which of these shall I yield my belief To Eliezer who affirms that which the Scripture affirms or to Joshua who affirms that which the Scripture no where mentions T is true the Masters stood all for Rabbi Joshua it was their interest so to do it was for the honour of their Religion that the Christians might be said to borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see learned and judicious persons in these times fetch the foundations of truth from the Rabbins and that to establish a new opinion I cannot but wonder at it Unde
nobis missus est Talmudus c. They are the words of Buxtorfius in his Synag Jud. From whence was the Talmud sent us that we should give it so much credit as to believe that the Law of Moses could or ought to be understood by it And if not the Law of Moses much less the Law of the Gospel to which they were professed enemies The Talmud is called by the same Author Errorum Labyrinthus fabularum Judaicarum fundamentum The Labyrinth of errours and the foundation of Jewish Fables and it was first perfected and acknowledged to be Authentick Five Hundred years after Christ and out of it Maimonides and all the rest did suck their learning Surely therefore there 's little reason to acquiesce in its Authority or Testimony But what was the matter that this old Rabbin should so constantly deny that which was like to advance the honour of his Religion but that his conscience was throughly convinc'd of his assertion I cannot but admire the ingenuity of the man who maintained the light of this truth so firmly against and amidst so many Impostours of his Nation who perhaps thought it a Glorious Triumph to obtrude a counterfit opinion upon the innocent world not yet solicitous of their machinations And that which moves me more Josephus himself not to speak of all the Fathers before the Talmud who was likewise a Jew and of the same age with Rabbi Eliezer who writ also purposely of the customs and Ceremonies of his Nation is totally silent in this matter so that it is an argument to me next to demonstration that two persons of such eminency both Jews and coeval the one should expresly deny the other in all his History make no mention of this Baptism Besides if Baptism in the sense of our days had been in use among the Jews in former times wherefore did the Pharisees say to John the Baptist Joh. c. 1. v. 25. Why then Baptizest thou if thou be not that Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate thereby that there was no use nor practise of Baptism before and that it was a received opinion among them that there was none to be used till Elias or that Prophet came Such a solemn and publick mersation was altogether unusual with the Jews till that time as Grotius saith upon the words aforementioned How then there can be any such affinity between our Baptism and the washings of the Jews that the one should therefore by any pretext or right be said to succeed the other I confess I understand not it is beyond my Faith But they say that Arrian calls the Jew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one that 's dipt but I rather think with his Commentator Ipsum confuse loqui velle potius Christianum Judaeum That he being a Heathen spake confusedly or promiscuously and that he rather meant a Christian Jew as Lubin also upon that of Juvenal Nunc sacri fontis nemus delubra locantur Judaeis will have the Jews there to be meant the Christians Qui edicto Domitiani urbe pulsi sylvas illas habitare cogebantur Who being by Domitians Edict expell'd the City were forc'd to inhabit those woods which were sacred to the Heathenish devotions But to put an end to this discourse I do affirm with Alexander de Halys Tinctio est formalis causa Baptismi That dipping is the formal cause of Baptism There remaineth only to resolve what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Concerning which word I conceive with Beza Grotius Estius and others that in this place it properly signifies stipulatio a covenant or promise As it is interpreted by the Glossaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stipulatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Promitto spondeo stipulor In which sense I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to be taken Sirac c. 33. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homo sensatus credet legi lex ei fidelis sicut sponsio vel stipulatio justorum A man of understanding will trust the Law and the Law will be Faithful unto him as the promise or covenant of the Just T is true It properly signifies rogatio but as rogatio legis among the Latins was used for legis latio and for the Law it self and rogare legem for legem ferre or statuere because it was the custom that the Magistrate when at any time a Law was to be enacted did ask the people Rogaret populum Velitis jubeatis ne Quirites hoc fieri Do you desire or will that this be a Law upon whose answer that they did the Law was publish't and this was called rogatio legis or the enacting of a Law so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Greeks though properly it signifies rogatio for the same reasons taken for stipulatio or a covenant nay we have in our Holy-okes Etymological Dictionary rogare stipulari and surely the Law it self is nothing but a covenant I say for the same reasons for as Pomponius tells us Stipulatio was Verborum conceptio quibus is qui interrogatur dicturum facturumve se quod interrogatus est responderit A conception of words wherewith he that was asked did answer that he would say or do the thing which he was asked and that it took its name from the Interrogator as the worthier person was the opinion of Accursius and other Interpreters of the Law All which doth suit very well in our present case For in Ancient times when the Catechumeni who were to be Baptized were interrogated by the Priest whether they did believe in the Resurrection of the dead and the life to come upon their answer that they did the covenant was accepted and they were by him immediately Baptized in that Faith as you may see in Chrysostom and others the like custom whereunto is still retained in our Church when in time of Baptism to the question of the Minister Wilt thou be Baptized in this Faith the Sponsors or Sureties forthwith answer it is our desire And this I take to be the Apostles meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place I have insisted the longer on these words that I might more evidently shew that the proper end of Baptism is to represent the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and our Faith in it and not properly a sign of washing from the filth of sin which the Apostle seems expresly in these words to deny though many think or at least speak otherwise C. 4. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By a familiar trajection In quo hospitantur blaspemantes non concurrentibus vobis in eandem luxuriae confusionem Wherein they abide continue or rest or lodge themselves blaspheming you not running together with them into the same excess of riot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hospitatur Act. c. 10. v. 6. V. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I suppose in this place to make the construction and the sense