that could not confess the same as also in grown persons though they confessed not with their mouths what they acted in their bodies The sign was still the same Though it be likewise true that those who were grown to the years of discretion when they were Baptized as St Chrysostom tells us did publickly confess that they did believe in the Resurrection of the dead and were Baptized in that Faith adding farther in the same place that for the better explaining of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã was to be understood that they were Baptized for dead bodies adding yet for farther confirmation Thou art therefore Baptized because thou believest the Resurrection of the body that is that it remains not for ever dead And thou by word of mouth confessest the Resurrection of the dead and the Priest as it were in a certain figure or representative doth manifest unto thee by the things themselves what thou dost believe and hast confessed c. In like manner Tertullian Pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tingui mortuum enim corpus ostendimus To be dipt for dead is to be dipt for dead bodies for thereby we shew our bodies to be dead Then which I think there can be nothing spoken plainer And to this opinion agrees Theodoret also upon this place ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He who is Baptized is buried with the Lord that when he hath been partaker with him of death he may with him be also partaker of the Resurrection But if our body die and rise not again why is it then Baptized And this I hold to be the proper exposition on this place and the scope of the Apostles meaning C. 16. v. 3. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And when I shall be with you whomsoever ye shall approve I will send by letter to carry your liberality to Jerusalem In Translating of which words I conceive under favour there are two mistakes in the Engglish Interpreter First in saying whom ye shall approve by your letters when Paul was come unto them and secondly in Translating to bring your liberality to Jerusalem whereas Paul was not at Jerusalem but at Philippi when he wrote this Epistle to the Corinthians Beside that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth properly signifie auferre to carry away ANNOTATIONS On the II. Ep. To The Corinthians Ch. 1. v. 9. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Immo habuimus in nobis or in nos condemnationem mortis Yea we had the sentence of death upon us As if he should say Yea we were so far in despair of life as even the sentence of death was past upon us that we should not trust in our selves but in him who raiseth the dead who delivered us from so great a death ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hesych Phavor and Suid. And to this so great a death its reasonable to suppose he was adjudged by some sentence or conspiracy of the Jews C. 2. v. 12. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Quum venissem autem Troadem ostium mihi apertum esset per Dominum ad Evangelium Christi non habui requiem spiritui meo But when I was come to Troas and there was a door opened to me by the Lord to the Gospel of Christ I had no rest to my spirit not finding my brother Titus there who if present would have eased me of a great part of my burden which lay so heavily upon me being all alone that I had no refreshment to my spirit but taking leave of them I went into Macedonia There is nothing more familiar then the trajection C. 4. v. 4. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. To make a fitting sense and a true construction you must Translate the Praeposition ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã among as commonly it is both in this and the preceding verse and the words that follow by trajection If our Gospel be hid it is hid ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã among those that are lost among whom God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age least the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them that is so shine as that they should see and understand And that this is the proper rendring and meaning of the words I am much induced to believe because the Apostle seems to have a direct eye to that of Isaiah 6.10 Where the Lord bids them go and make the ears of this people heavy and shut their eyes lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted Besides ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is properly an age saeculum and not the world The unbelievers of this age are meant especially the Jews As for the trajection besides that divers of the Ancients did use the same in the exposition of these words it is so familiar in the New Testament that I cannot but wonder that any should scruple at it And yet for better confirmation I shall alledge an Example or two as Joh. 11.54 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He went unto a city called Ephraim Act. 13.1 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now there were certain Prophets and teachers in the Church that was in Antioch and c. 25.22 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And he said to morrow thou shalt hear him Whereas t is literally And he to morrow said thou shalt hear him And there were some in Antioch in the Church that was Prophets and teachers And he went unto Ephraim which is called a City C. 5. v. 1. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Trajectio insignis pro ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã If the earthly house of our Tabernacle were dissolved C. 6. v. 13. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Before ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã you are to understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Then which nothing more familiar Now according to the same compensation I speak to you as my children be ye also inlarged As if he should have said O ye Corinthians our mouth is open to you our heart is inlarged Ye are not streightned in us but ye are streightned in your own bowels towards us ye have not the like affection for us as we have for you As my heart therefore is inlarged toward you so be ye also in like manner mutually inlarged in your bowels towards us C. 8. v. 1. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Moreover we do you to wit or we would have you take notice of the great gift that hath been given by the Churches of Macedonia to the Saints He stirreth up the Corinthians to the like liberal contribution by the example of the Macedonians ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hesych ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Phavor ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a goodly gift as we Translate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the goodly Cedars Psal 80. v. 10. and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the high or great mountains Psal 36. v. 6. See note on c. 10. v. 4. So Beza Translates ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã beneficentiam v.
ãâã ãâã Spiritús causa est pulmo But the next cause of the voice is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã spiritus the breath and from thence it is that Phavorinus saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with Aristophanes and in the Glossary is sensus meaning as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã fiat is familiarly understood V. 30. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vim mysterii Religionis Christianae The very life and virtue of Christian Religion plainly affirming that they do ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
act unless the inward thing be applied by Faith to wit the remission or doing away of sin Affirmatively and positively that it is the stipulation or promise of a good conscience toward God by the virtue of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ And I conceive this sense concerning Baptism to be most consonant and agreeable to the Judgment of the Fathers who if they notwithstanding did apply Baptism to that other notion of washing they did it accidently and by the by because of the Allegorical allusion of the element of water to the bloud of Christ which is said to cleanse us from our sins 1 Joh. c. 1. v. 7. But more surely there is in this word of Baptism according to Athanasius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a deeper mystery then that of washing a mystery known and common to the very Heathen as their frequent lustrations do sufficiently witness But as concerning the Resurrection of the body it was a thing to them unknown and incredible if not altogether imperceptible nay some of the Jews themselves did not believe it It was the speech of one of their great Philosophers Seneca by name Hora illa decretoria non est animo suprema sed corpori The determinate hour of death is not the last to the soul but to the body It was no small matter to reach the immortality of the Soul the top of their knowledge but of the Resurrection of the body Philosophers scarce ever dreamed of Mornaeus tells us of Zoroastres who is of some reported to have held this opinion Quod animae immortales sunt quod corporum Resurrectio universalis futura That Souls are immortal and that there shall be a universal Resurrection of bodies But this but à plerisque profertur many say so but no certainty thereof And Lactantius tells us of Chrysippus who had an imperfect notion of it the summ whereof was this That after death within some period of time ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we should be restored into the same form wherein we now are But who knows whether he meant the same Numerical body or whether by this same form he mean not the Soul as the rest of the Philosophers did or whether he meant not rather the Pythagorean Metempsychosis But this I say was a greater mystery then that Allegorical washing of the Soul by which it s said to be cleansed by the bloud of Christ The notion of Resurrection was far higher the very life and mystery of Christian Religion as Zonaras calls it It is indeed the stupendious mystery of mysteries wherein to believe consists the foundation of eternal happiness That Christ the Mediatour should become ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã God and man to be declared man in that he died and to be declared God in that he rose again from the dead Rom. c. 1. v. 4. This I say again was a mystery beyond all Philosophical Speculation and therefore there was need of some significant type or figure which might make so impenetrable a notion familiar and perceptable to the sense of man to which purpose nothing seemed more fit and easie in the wisdom of God then the burying of our bodies in water by Baptism from whence they receive an immediate Resurrection So that in conclusion we may positively affirm that Baptism is properly and solely a type of the Resurrection And to this truth do give their suffrage The Apostles Fathers Schoolmen allmost all Interpreters Ancient and Modern and even our English Church it self its Judgment being manifest in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer which injoyns the dipping of Infants in Baptism allowing only in some cases the liberty of sprinkling or perfusion The thing of it self is so manifest that there is no need of Testimonies to confirm it but because there be not few who teach otherwise led thereunto by example and vulgar errour it will not be amiss if but to free my self from the imputation of too much confidence out of innumerable Testimonies to cite some few And we first begin from the Apostle Paul ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Know ye not that so many as were Baptised into Jesus Christ were Baptised into his death Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father of Glory even so we also should walk in newness of life c. Rom. c. 6. v. 3 4. c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Being buried with him in Baptism wherein you are also risen with him through Faith of the working of God who hath raised him from the dead Col. c. 2. v. 12. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Else what shall they do who are Baptised for dead bodies if the dead rise not 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 29. As much as if he had said In vain doth the Church use the sign of Baptism if there be no Resurrection You have it abundantly proved also in the Primitive and later Writers For example That believing on his death ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã By his Baptism ye may be made partakers of his Resurrection Ignat. Ep. ad Trall ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Baptism was given to set forth the death of the Lord Ep. ad Philadel in the name of Ignatius The death of Christ Const Apost ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Baptism we perform the signs of his Passion and Resurrection Just Mar. We know one saving Baptism since there is but one death for the world and one Resurrection ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whereof Baptism is the type c. Basil Mag. Hear what St Paul saith They were all Baptised in the cloud and in the sea ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He calleth their passage through the sea Baptism for it was an escape from death c. Basil Seleuc ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã When we go about to Baptize we bid to say I believe in the Resurrection of the dead and in this Faith are we Baptized Chrysost Baptismus Resurrectionis pignus imago Baptism is a pledge and figure of the Resurrection Ambr. Baptismus arrhabo Resurrectionis Baptism is an earnest of the Resurrection Lactant. Aquarum elemento sepelimur We are buried in the element of water Anselm Mersio mortis sepulturae formam gerit Immersion bears the form of death and burial Bernard Laudabilius tutius communius c. Baptism is performed more laudably more safely and more commonly by dipping for by dipping the figure of Christ his burial is represented Tho. Aquin. Ipsum Baptizandi verbum mergere significat c. The word Baptism doth signifie dipping under the water and it is evident the Ancient Church used the Ceremony of dipping Calv. Baptismus Graeca vox est c. Baptism is a Greek word and signifies properly immersion into the water and this signification doth properly agree with our Baptism and hath Analogy to the thing signified for by Baptism we are buried together and as it were drowned with Christ being dead to sin
And this interpretation seems to be more reasonable then that of their's who interpret it of Judas as if St Luke should mean that he was gone to his own or to his proper place to wit as they would have it unto Hell T is true no man can make other judgment But I cannot for all that think the Evangelist had any such meaning in these words I rather with Chrysostom look upon ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. The prudence of the man how he speaks not contumeliously nor insults c. Which plainly argues that he thought not that it was the meaning of St Luke in these words to adjudge Judas into Hell For what could he have said of Judas more contumelious then that he was gone to his own place meaning Hell Neither was it the business of an Historian or Evangelist to interpose his own opinion but rather to leave Judas to the judgment of God it being enough for him to have related matter of fact as he had promised and professed to do in the beginning of his Gospel ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Even as they had delivered things unto us who were eye-witnesses from the beginning c. But who will you say was an eye-witness of Judas his going to or being in Hell C. 2. v. 27. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in Hade neque dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell nor give thy holy one to see corruption The first branch of this verse seems to concern his Soul which was not left in the state of death as other humane Souls I say left in the state of death for it is not one and the same thing to die or to be dead and to be or to remain in the state of death or if you please as it is v. 24. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in vinculis in the bonds of death as Athanasius and Beza interpret the word and so in the Psalmist in the LXX ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are Synonymous or in those receptacles where the Souls of the Godly are reserved till they receive their crown as St Augustin or in the middle of the shadow of death where the Souls of the dead are as Irenaeus or in Hades or in Hell whither we are taught by the Apostles Creed that he descended or went into Where by the way I cannot but observe that our English Hell comes from the Saxon HELAN celare tegere to hide or cover so as it may be said to have the same signification with Hades ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a place that cannot be seen ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã locus sine luce Phavor or else in Paradise with the Soul of the Thief All which several expressions serve but to signifie one and the same thing For I do not see but Paradise may very lawfully be interpreted a receptacle or separated place for departed Souls from the Hebrew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã separavit locus separatus or septum a close such as for pleasure and delight our Parks and Gardens are from which cause this word hath obtained with the Hebrews the meaning of bliss and pleasure And I cannot but think the Greeks borrowed the word from the Hebrews and that neither of them owe it to the Persian For though perchance which yet is by no means certain Nehemiah might borrow it from the Persian who lived in the Persian Court yet Solomon t is certain which used the same word in Ecclesiastes and in Canticles many ages before Nehemiah's time writ in the Hebrew tongue neither is there any reason at all to think that he ever used the Persian dialect Neither is such a termination with the Hebrews so unusual with whom such Anomalous words are frequent that we should so earnestly disown it as their due Neither doth the Rabbins ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies death which is a separation differ from our sense Why should we therefore fly from the Hebrew to the Persian and acknowledge him to be the true owner of the word I confess I value the Authority of Julius Pollux but I shall not swear unto it However in summ I conceive it not unreasonable to say that the Godly who are in the state of death are in Paradise in what ever place secluded and finally to conclude that this first branch of the verse concerns only his Soul as the latter plainly concerns his body which saw no corruption as other human bodies do And in this sense doth Peter expressly explain the words v. 31. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Non relicta est anima ejus in Hade neque caro ejus vidit corruptionem That his Soul was not left in Hell neither did his flesh see corruption Plainly distinguishing between his Soul and Body as if he did it of set purpose to the end that none should think this place concerned the Sepulchre or Grave of Christ alone as some would have that say that Hades signifieth nothing else For Perversissimum est c. as Tertullian saith lib. de Carne Christi It is a most perverse thing that naming the flesh we should understand the Soul or naming the Soul we should understand the flesh The truth of their names is the safety of their properties Neither doth Athanasius speak less plainly to our purpose ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Neither did death prevail to subjugate his human nature so far as to detain it in its bonds neither could corruption by any tyrannical invasion exercise its power to the putrefaction of his body Humanae ista lex necessitatis c. saith Hilary It is a law of humane necessity that the bodies being buried the Souls descend into Hell which descent the Lord himself did not refuse to shew the truth of his manhood or human nature And doubtless this is the scope of Peters words in this place of purpose to prove the Resurrection of Christ and that he was not left in the state of death as other mortals are And this opinion I hold to be pious and consonant to faith I believe the immortality of the Soul I believe the Resurrection of the body and its reunition with the Soul and life everlasting I am no friend to Purgatory nor to any prayer supplication or application to any Saint save only to our sole Mediator Jesus Christ who for that particular end ascended into the holy of holies that is into the highest heavens that there he may commend our prayers to our Father which is in heaven who from hence also conceive may be drawn a cogent argument that prayers ought not to be made to Saints whom Religion hath not yet placed in that holy of holies to wit the highest heavens and so qualified for fitting Mediators But there are not few and those no mean ones neither who positively say there is no receptacle of Souls
but affirm that the Souls of the Godly do immediately after their separation from their bodies go into heaven that is to say as I suppose that heaven which is properly called heaven One of whose great Arguments is from that of Luke c. 23. v. 43. Hodie eris mecum in Paradiso Thou shalt be with me this day in Paradise But that day our Saviour was not in heaven unless they speak and mean aequivocally for he was not yet ascended either in human Soul or Body as far as Scripture doth or reason can inform us Paradise therefore must be some other place namely this Hades or Hell as we Translate it in which for a short time his Soul was held to which he properly went or may be said to have descended and in which the same day together with his Soul was also the Soul of the Thief where together with the rest of the Souls of the Godly that are departed our Saviours only being delivered or loosened from its bonds the Third day this Soul of the Thiefs doth rest till the last day of the Resurrection ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in horto Eden qui locus est receptaculum animarum post hanc vitam Drusius ad locum Lucae c. 23. v. 43. He speaks the same lib. praeterit 3o. Paradisum à caelo distingui quod ille sit receptaculum animarum post vitam caelum autem recipiat omnes post judicium extremum They urge another argument from St Ambrose Christum introitu suo aperuisse credentibus regnum caelorum That Christ by his entrance had opened the Kingdom of heaven to all believers Before which time the Fathers were not made partakers of the Promise but that from the death and ascension of Christ they also ascended with him into heaven and were there consummate and made perfect as to their Souls which then were received into heaven which before the Ascension of Christ were not ascended In answer whereunto I do truly acknowledge but not in their sense that Christ by his Entrance or Ascension into heaven did open the Kingdom heaven to all believers which before was shut to all the world save only to the Jews but since the time of his Passion and Ascension open to any one that strives to enter so as it s now lawful for all persons of all Nations to press into it who shall believe in his Name But to meet the argument I beseech you where were the Souls of the Fathers before they Ascended with Christ into heaven For where ever they were reason perswades it and Scripture doth not deny it in the same place was the Soul of Christ and where was the Soul of Christ there was also the Soul of the Thief They were not yet Ascended Neither surely were they in a place of torment for I cannot think it could be any comfort to the Thief as I suppose it was intended if Christ should have told him that he should be that day with him in a place of torment it must therefore be rationally concluded that they were in some third place of rest In which place if we affirm that the Souls of all the Godly departed remain till the last day what danger is there what incommodity If we believe I say and believe no more that there remains to all a Resurrection in the last day both Fathers and us in which day we with them shall be most perfectly consummate and that in the mean while all the Souls of the Godly are in the hands of God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In a place due and proper to them as it is in the Epistle of Polycarpus to the Philippians And all this while not a moment of time if compared with Eternity Neither were the old Christians wont as Grotius saith to call this middle state of place and time between this life and the Resurrection by the name of heaven But I contain my self this question requiring a longer and larger disquisition then to be shut up in so narrow limits And yet a question which neither Scripture nor any general Council or Synod had ever yet explicitely determined for an Article of Faith before the Convocation at Dublin 1615. Which did then indeed so define it That after the end of this life the Souls of the Sons of God were immediately received into heaven c. Perhaps of purpose to meet with the Romish Purgatory Neither should I have said thus much but that many persons do so tenaciously maintain this last opinion for an Article of their Faith that they condemn all who hold otherwise of impiety and heresie And that these words seemed to me so plain that as it were they led me by the hand to the sense and meaning which I have here laid down though rarely in that respect observed of any I am very much pleased with the modesty of Calvin in this very argument when speaking of the Souls of the faithful and their place and state after this life he saith Valde se torquent multi c. Many do very much trouble themselves in disputing what place departed Souls possess and whether they enjoy a heavenly glory or not But t is a rash and foolish thing to enquire farther or deeper of or in things unknown then God hath permitted us to know And elsewhere upon that place of the Gospel aforementioned concerning the Thief and Paradise De loco Paradisi curiose argutè disputandum non est c. We must not dispute curiously or subtilly of the place of Paradise let it suffice us who are ingrafted into the body of Christ by faith that we shall be partakers of his life and so after death injoy a blessed and chearful rest till that in the coming of Christ the perfect glory of a heavenly life shall solidly appear unto us In which opinion I do willingly acquiesce conceiving that which I hold to be safe Probable with Peter Martyr agreeable to reason and not disagreeable to Scripture V. 30. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in this place is to be taken ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or as they say materialiter and denotes the matter of the oath which God sware unto David that is ex fructu lumbi ipsius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã resurgere facturum Christum ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in carne ut sederet super solium ejus That out of the fruit of his loyns he would raise up Christ in the flesh to sit upon his Throne And this is the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the very thing the Apostle seeks to prove to wit that Christ rose in the flesh which out of the Context is most evident and plain For he seeing this before spake of the Resurrection of Christ v. 31. and in the following verse it is positively affirmed That this Jesus hath God raised up whereof we are witnesses So that the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã raise up must not be understood de adventu Christi of the coming of Christ into the world as some would
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã By the glory of the Father as it is commonly rendred Beza would have it In gloriam Patris ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being put for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Pater gloriae The Father of glory C 7. v. 24. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being to be understood as a reddition to the question C. 8. v. 3. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. I cannot see how there can be construction here but by a Metathesis ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. To reconcile the sense and construction of these words wherein there hath been so much labour you must understand the verb ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã before the participle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã relating to ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I conceive to be a more proper phrase then ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For if a man be said ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Numb c. 5. v. 20. then is it rightly said ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã According to this time are the words of the LXX whom Paul it seems did follow and they questionless read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and so rendred it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã this time for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the time of life accoding as it is Gen. c. 18. v. 10. and 14. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at this time which should have been rather written conformably with the other places relating to this story ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at the time of life As for the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in our sense it is abundantly familiar The LXX use it for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by his uncircumcision he might be the Father of all believers righteousness also being imputed unto them ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being to be Transposed thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and not to be construed with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being all of the Masculine or Neuter gender do or can agree with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is of the Faeminine as in their sense who would so read they ought to do only varying the points and understanding ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is so frequent and taking away the latter Parenthesis may not yield a truer and better sense then they did before ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the former sense is avoided and the Article ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth fitly answer to the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Neither is the trajection harsh at all as some perhaps may object ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and another in the same Apostle 2 Ep. c. 1. v. 19. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã By water but the covenant or promise of a good conscience toward God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã By the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so as there is a clear Analogy between ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã lavit or purgavit to wash or cleanse Exod. c. 19. v. 10. But as I take it the Rabbins use for Baptism the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã stipulatio ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Promitto spondeo stipulor In which sense I conceive ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is also to be taken Sirac c. 33. v. 3. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã hospitatur Act. c. 10. v. 6. V. 6. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I suppose in this place to make the construction and the sense