Iewes were baptized by him Other reasons he hath chosen to annex for confirmation of his negative that Christ baptisme was not in imitation of or in conformity with the Iewish custome for 2. saith he Christ would not have avouched the baptisme of Iohn to be from heaven and not from men if it had been in imitation of the Iewish custome But I wonder what appearance of concludencie there is in that reason May not any thing be from heaven or by God's appointment which is derived from a Iewish custome may not God in heaven give commission to Iohn Baptist to preach repentance after the same manner that others before him Noah and Ionah c. had preached repentance and to receive all that came in on his preaching by the ceremonie of baptizing ordinarily used and known to initiate men into covenant with God among the Iewes I see not the least incongruity in this or that any obligation of reason can be pretended why God may not appoint a ceremonie known among men to be used in his service such sure was imposition of hands usuall among the Iewes in benedictions which now is made use of by the Apostles of Christ in ordaining Bishops over the Church And so it may well be in this matter of Iohn's or Christ's baptisme which though it were unquestionably from heaven in respect of the Commission given to them by God appointing them to do what they did yet might the ceremonie of washing used by them be derived from the customes that were already familiar among them T were easy to instance in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the power of the Keyes and many the like which though brought into the Church of Christians by Christ and so from heaven were yet derived and lightly changed from Jewish observances and in that respect from men also His 3d reason that it is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given of that custome as the directorie for Christians in the use of baptisme is too frivolous to require reply for beside that the negative argument were of no force if it were as is pretended It already appears that there are in the Iewish writers more then intimations of this custome and some indications of it even in the Scripture itself as John 3.5.10 and for any plainer affirmations what need could there be of them when both the matter it self speaketh it so plainly that there was no need of words to those that knew the Iewish customes as the first writers and readers of the New Testament did and when Christ's sole authority and practice of his Apostles were sufficient Directorie for the Christians in the use of baptisme Fourthly he addes that the institution and practice would have been comformable to it And so I say and have made clear that it was as far as to the controversie in hand we are or can be concerned in it But saith Mr. T. the contrarie appears adding one main instance of the inconformity and 14. lesser disparities The main disparitie saith he is in their baptizing no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversions whereas the Jewes baptized onely the Gentiles Infants at their first proselyting not the infants of those who were baptized in infancie For the former of these he offers no manner of proof beyond his own affirmation and therefore it is sufficient to deny it as he knows we do and evidently beggs the question in assuming and not offering any proof for the contrary For the second that of the Jewish practice he pretends no more then what he had before cited by reference but now sets down in words viz. the affirmation of Mr. Selden But I have already shewed how groundlesse that affirmation of Mr. S. was as to the native Jewes children who were still baptized after the giving of the Law And the same I now adde for the children of those proselytes who had been baptized in infancie there appears not the least proof of this from the Jewish writers who are the onely competent witnesses in it but for the contrary I propose these two testimonies taken notice of by Mr. S. himself de Synedr c. 3. out of Gemara Babylon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wants the rite of a proselyte for ever unless he be baptized and circumcised Here baptisme and circumcision are joyned together as aequally necessary to a proselyte and that for ever And circumcision there is no doubt was to be received by every male not onely at their first coming to the Church of the Jewes at their first proselytisme but through all posterities every child of a proselyte that was not circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 became straightways no proselyte And then sure this conjunction of baptisme with circumcision on these termes of equality both of perpetual necessity to all proselytes must needs extend the baptisme as well as the circumcision beyond the first proselytes and their immediate children to all their posteritie that shall come from them afterwards for to all those belonged circumcision So again in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if he be not baptized he remains a Pagan or Gentile Here I shall ask whether the child of a proselyte who had been baptized in his infancie were to be a Pagan for ever I suppose it will be answered no And then by the force of that testimonie of Gemara I conclude therefore it must be supposed that he was baptized for else he would be a pagan for ever Besides this two things I farther adde to remove all possible force of this suggestion 1. That if it were granted in the full latitude wherein it is proposed that the Iewes baptized no other infants of proselytes but those whom they had at their first conversion yet this would nothing profit Mr. T. For it were then obvious to affirme that Christ who imitated the Iewes in that and so baptized the children of Christian proselytes did make some light change in this and farther then the pattern before him afforded baptized all the posteritie that should succeed them and were born in the Church in their infancie also the reason though not the pattern belonging equally to them as to the children of the first proselytes and the Iewish custome of baptizing their natives infants being fully home to it 2dly That it being by all parts granted that the children which the proselytes had at their first proselytisme were baptized among the Iewes this is as evident a confutation of the Antipaedobaptist and so of Mr. T. as it would if all their infants to all posteritie were baptized For by that very baptizing of the infants at their first proselytisme it appears that infants may be baptized for I hope those proselytes infants are infants And if any infants may and ought to be baptized then are all their pretensions destroyed whose onely interest it is to evince that no infants must or may be baptized And I hope this will be of some use to Mr. T.
hath appointed and then if the precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infant baptisme which the Doctor ingenuously acknowledgeth it doth by manifest consequence deny it sith he forbids that to be done otherwise then he hath appointed when he hath determined how it should be done The Doctor when he saith above the words I baptize into the name of the Father c. must be indispensably used me thinks by the same reason should conceive Christs institution should be unalterably used in baptizing those only whom he hath appointed to be baptized To this the grounds of answer have been already laid also viz. that they that baptize infants baptize no otherwise then Christ appointed and the Apostles appear to have understood his appointment By Christs appointment not meaning particularly his words Mat. 28 but his will otherwise made known to his disciples when and in what words soever it was that he instituted baptisme which must be long before this even before his Apostles took upon them to baptize any which yet they did in great abundance Joh. 4.1 And of this appointment or institution of batisme by Christ it is most true that if that precept of Christ whereby he first instituted baptisme did not indeed comprehend and so necessarily inferre infant baptisme and was so understood to do by the Apostles it shall consequently be deemed to deny it But then herein lyes a great fallacie when from another appointment of Christs viz. that Mat. 28. which I acknowledge not to inferre infant baptisme necessarily he assumes in universum and reports it as my confession that Christs precept indefinitely taken and so extending to all Christs precepts at any time doth not necessarily inferre infant baptisme Which is that grand illogical fault in discourse of inferring an indefinite or universal conclusion from particular premisses As for the comparison which he makes betwixt the indispensable use of the words of baptisme Mat. 28. and the as unalterable observation of Christ's institution in respect of the persons to be baptized I willingly grant it on the condition praemised that he mistake not the text Mat. 28. to be the words of that institution wherein Christ defined who are the persons to be baptized Those words are a commission to the Apostles to go preach to or disciple all nations and thus farre extends to point out the persons viz. that they should as disciple so baptize Gentiles as well as Jewes and again they are express for the forme of baptisme that it should be in the Name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost but they are not any kind of direction to that other matter of receiving and admitting infants or not infants That I suppose sufficiently notified to them before both by the common practice of their ancestors in the Jewish religion by the vulgar notion of baptisme whilest it was familiarly used among the Jewes both to their own and their proselytes children and also by Christs speciall direction though the Gospels which express not at all the words of the first institution of baptisme do not set that down in the time of his preaching among them some while before that passage of storie related Joh. 4.1 c. From both of these I suppose the Apostles learnt it and not from Mat. 28. and we learn it only from the Apostles as shall hereafter appear And so much for his prooemial reasoning Sect. 2. Making disciples all one with receiving into discipleship Baptizing the act of the Baptist Instruction subsequent to discipling The pretended parallel between Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johns discipling by preaching excludes not infants No more the Apostles Mat. 10.5 The notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 13.52 Act. 14.21 Infants both said to come and to believe Instruction subsequent to baptisme AFter this praelusorie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he next proceeds to consider what shift as he calls it the Doctor makes to elude the force of Christs institution Mat. 28.19 But I have already made it evident that that Commission for preaching to or discipling all nations as for the baptizing them and the particularity of the forme to be used in baptisme c. was not the institution of baptisme nor any intimation on either side whether infants should be baptized or not and so t is manifest how little need I had to use any shift or artifice to elude the force of it However in his view of my discourse some exceptions he must find And the first is that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendred make disciples yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well paraphrased by receiving into discipleship baptizing them making this forme of baptisme the ceremonie of receiving them For by this saith he the making disciples is made the same with receiving them and baptisme the ceremonie of receivers into discipleship which is as truely an act of the baptized professing or avouching his discipleship Here is another subtlety of a refined nature making a difference betwixt making disciples and receiving into discipleship or receiving disciples As if these two were not perfectly synonymous and by me evidently used as such I shall not dispute of words when the matter is clear and when it is equally to my purpose which phrase is used whether making or receiving disciples 2dly When he affirmes of baptisme which I make the ceremonie of the Apostles receiving them that t is as truely the act of the baptized this is no subtilty but grosse and visible enough For certainly baptisme in the active sense as it is plain I understand it in that place where I paraphrase goe and make disciples and baptize is not the act of the baptized but of the baptist The coming to baptisme indeed and the undertaking the vow and making the profession is the act of the baptized either personally or by his proxy which in reputation of Law and in acceptation of the Church is his also but still baptisme or to remove all possible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 28.19 is an act of the baptizer onely and so the ceremonie of receiving into discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this His 2d branch of exception is to those words of mine wherein I say that the making or receiving disciples supposeth not any precedent instruction but lookes wholly on it as subsequent This I there concluded not from the bare negative because there was no precedent mention of such instruction where discipling and baptizing were both mention'd but because in that place on which the Antipaedobaptist so much relyes Mat. 28.19 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching is expressely mentioned after discipling and baptizing and so is in reason to be deemed and lookt on as subsequent to both and so the receiving ad discipulatum referre to that then future instruction And to this sense I there made it manifest that the definition of baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 did
to that ark in respect of that approaching ruine on the Jewes styled the kingdome of heaven v. 1. and that evidenced to be a bloody kingdome explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his baptisme did not bring their children with them to save them from the praedicted evils And then I professe not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptize those infants though the Scripture affirming nothing of it and tradition as far as I know as little I shall neither affirm nor believe any thing in it This only is certain that among the Jewes of that time infant Children were known to be capable of entring into covenant with God after this manner and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means And one thing more I may adde that Christ himself who was by his sinlesness as unqualified for the Repentance which John preacht as the infants were by their incapacities did yet come and was received to Johns baptisme v. 13. and then in câ—se infants were brought why might not they be received also Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Mat. 10. First T is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely and sure that phrase comprehends the Lambs also the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men by the addition of their actual to original sin And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also An 2. for their preaching it is just as Johns was to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction that vindicative act of Gods kingdome v. 7. that all that should give ear and heed to them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old even the whole nation why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their parents care in bringing them to baptisme and timely ingaging them to fly from the wrath to come as soon as they should come to understanding injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity Thirdly After their preaching though there be no mention of baptizing and so it was not so fit to be produced to our present business yet other things there are appointed to be done wherein infants were concerned as well as others as healing of diseases c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized why should it not to their receiving of cures Nay I may adde How should the dead in that place who sure were as uncapable of hearing or understanding as the tenderest infant be capable of being raised by those Apostles which yet is there affirmed of them v. 8. And so much for that reason also and in like manner for the third which is but repeating the last branch of this second that the Apostles were to disciple all nations by the same way that they discipled the lost sheep of the house of Israel which was saith he by preaching and therefore supposed precedent instruction In what sense I have now shewed viz. by preaching to the nations and receiving all that came in to the discipleship whether on their own leggs or in others arms whole families at once the parents and upon their undertaking their infant children also His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so saith he is used Mat. 13.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last translators and can be no otherwise rendred than made a disciple by teaching so Act. 14.21 it is said Having preached the Gospel to that city 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having taught or made many disciples For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient that it signifies to receive ad discipulatum as into a school of Spiritual instruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple and such he is made who by any motive or means either comes or is brought into the school this indeed in order to teaching in the Master and to learning in the scholar and the one so to teach as that the other learn but this subsequent to his being made a disciple the youth we know enters into the school is admitted into the College and Vniversity before he learns a word there the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as future at his entring into discipleship And this is all the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 13.5 only some accidental differences may be observed 't is in the passive and in the Aorist in the preter tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Scribe which is or hath been entred as a disciple unto the kingdome of heaven who since his entrance hath been instructed and as real passives import received influence been really affected and changed by discipleship still no way supposing that he was instructed in the learning or mysteries of the kingdome of heaven before he was thus admitted a disciple to it After his admission there is no doubt but he doth or ought to learn nay being there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Scribe discipled a grown man and learned among the Jews before he came to Christ I doubt not but some knowledge he had of it before he entred himself a disciple see baptizing of infants p. 199. but this not by force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for still a disciple he may be before he learns and is therefore obliged to learn because he hath assumed and undertaken to do so either personally or by others susception by his coming or being brought to be a disciple So in the other place Act. 14.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then having received or initiated i. e. I suppose by this rite of baptisme made and baptized many disciples which though it be there set down as a consequent of the Apostles preaching the Gospel in that City for otherwise it were not imaginable that they should receive any disciples there they must first proclaim admission to all that come before any can be expected either to come or be brought to them yet may it very reasonably be extended to more persons then those that understood their preaching viz. to the infant children of their proselytes brought to them by their parents and dedicated to Christ Thus invalid are his attempts from the notation of the word and by consequence his inference from thence which is set down as his fift proof that thereby it may appear how the Apostles understood the precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons and thereby make them disciples For although the practice of the Apostles be indeed the means by which we may discerne how they understood Christs precept and those two places cited by Mr. T. from
saith he notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel and comes to the Israelites to own their God and be part of their policie and not to be taught but enjoy priviledges with other Jewes whether Civil or Ecclesiastical But certainly this is no reason of difference for besides that I in that § 27. acknowledged this accidental difference that a proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation as a disciple doth not adding that this difference had no place in this matter where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations besides this I say it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of proselytes in such a notion as is equally competible to all of what nation soever they are that enter into Covenant with God Thus do we find a proselyte defined Heb. 11.6 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that cometh to God thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole law of the Jewes and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proselyte of their covenant and a proselyte of their righteousnesse and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile that cometh to Christ and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means particularly allowed freely to enter into the congregation and infants as well as grown men were thus among them admitted into Covenant so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian proselytes also nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile Infants were among the antient people of God i. e. by baptisme should not as properly be called proselytes of Christ though they neither come from any other nation nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh And whereas he saith of the proselytes coming to the Israelites that they came not to be taught but to enjoy priviledges I cannot divine what motive he had to affirme it for sure the infant child that was baptized and so received into the congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion into which he was thus early initiated and that was one speciall priviledge the rest of the heathen having not knowledge of these lawes the immediate end of his proselytisme yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby And when he addes but a disciple of Christ is one that ownes Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits I might well acknowledge it and aske why then an infant who hath need of those spiritual benefits assoon as he is born should not be hastened to a participation of them But it is farther evident that spiritual benefits being first and principally designed other even secular advantages may very lawfully be respected and reaped by them that are thus early brought in whether as disciples or proselytes to Christ Two sage observations he here addeth 1. That there is no mention of the disciples of the priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces and I can very well grant it who speak not of any lower kinde of disciples but either of God among the Jews or of Christ among us Christians those being the only discipleships to which they were admitted by the ceremony of baptisme the disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a subdivision and notification of several sects among Jews as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new baptismes to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they doe His 2d observation is that the holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs proselytes but his disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these terms But I answer 1. that those texts that expresse the Christians entring into discipleship by coming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them proselytes for a proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediatly from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto And 2dly that if this word whether in it self or in the verb from whence it comes had never been used in the New Testament yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of proselytes and disciples The word Jehovah is never used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament yet may we not thence conclude that the notion of Jehovah and God are divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the known style of the Nicene Fathers is never found used by the writers of the Bible yet sure it no way follows thence that the notion of that word and of this phrase I and my Father are one are different and may not be confounded T is pity to lose time on such fictions of scruple and difficulty as these What now is further said by him in this chapter both concerning little ones coming unto Christ and of their entring into covenant Deut. 29.10 is on both sides but a bare denyal of that which is competently proved in that 28 § For t is there evident that infant children are and always were accounted capable of proselytisme and so of being entred disciples and particularly of being entred into covenant with God and so of being baptized and there is no reason imaginable why the infants which were capable of coming to Christ were blessed by him were affirmed by him to be qualified for the kingdome of heaven should be denyed water to be baptized The holy Ghost being fallen on the Gentiles that came with Cornelius Peter durst not deny them baptisme And with what equity can the Christian Church do it to those who are qualified for the receiving pardon of sin for being blest by Christ for being received into Covenant with him and may afterward be instructed in all things which are needful to be learnt For that still they are unqualified till by hearing they own Christ as their Master this is a begging of the question without any the least tender of proof As for entring into covenant when by the force of Deut. 29.10 he is forced to yield it competible to infants yet he will do his best to escape the conviction which it offers him 1. by modifying the sense then by invalidating my inference from it First though he yield that they may enter into Covenant yet this saith he but in some sense by their fathers act ingaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into covenant Deut. 29.15 But if we examine the place it will be most clear 1. that the Covenant is entred into by the infants just as by the rest of them the wives and the strangers or proselytes On their part Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the
Lord and on Gods part that he may establish thee this day for a people 2dly Here is in the text no mention of any act of the fathers ingaging them under a curse or oath but only of Gods oath which he maketh to them v. 12. 3dly If they had thus adjured or laid oath or curse upon their children yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entring into Covenant we by the oath of baptisme which is laid on the childe by him to be performed when he comes to ability unlesse he will forfeit all the benefits of his baptisme do in like manner adjure our infants though whilest they remain such they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did 4thly Whereas from v. 15. he cites that the posterity then unborn thus entred into Covenant there is no such word in the text no mention of posterity or of unborn but of them only who were not that day with them i. e. I suppose were at that time of assmbling absent from the Congregation I wonder why Mr. T. should attempt thus to impose upon the reader As for our inference which is this that by parity of reason infants may be entred into discipleship and accordingly baptized as well as they then might be entred into the covenant of God he simply rejects it without any farther notice of his reason again save onely this that in baptisme such a discipleship is injoyn'd as is by preaching the Gospel and they onely are disciples that are believers and the onely are appointed to be baptized who in their own persons do enter into Covenant and ingage themselves to be Christs followers and this is again but a pitifull petitio principii a denying our conclusion when the premises cannot be denyed and so invincibly inferre the conclusion viz. that those may be brought to and received into discipleship covenant baptisme which in their own persons are not yet able to come to Christ as those Criples may be born by others to Christ who wanted strength to addresse themselves and be as really partakers of his healing miracles as those who came to him on their own legges And so much also for the 25th Chapter CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12 vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification used to denote baptisme the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture Tertullians testimonie designati Sanctitatis Origen Author Quaest ad Antiochum Cyprian Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there infant children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistles S. Augustines words examined IN his last Chapter he proceeds to the view of those §§ which set down the positive part of our basis evidencing the opinion and sense which the Apostles had of Christ's institution and of his intention to include and not to exclude infants from baptisme The Apostles sense must be judged by their own usage and practice and that is testified to us two waies 1. by one considerable remain and indication of it in S. Paul 2. By the practice of the first and purest ages of the Church receiving infants to baptisme and so testifying the Apostolical usage and farther affirming that they received it by tradition from the Apostles The remain and indication in S. Paul is in the known place of 1 Cor. 7.12 where speaking of the believers children he saith v. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now are they holy i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church in S. Paul's time to admit to baptisme the infant chldren of parents of whom one is Christian though not of others That this is the meaning of holy is there made evident as by other arguments so by this that the antient Fathers who knew the sacred dialect call baptisme Sanctification Eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctificandum in Cyprian and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sanctifyed when they have no feeling of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be sanctified from the infancie i. e. baptized then in Gregorie Nazianzen To which testimonies and the rest which is there produced out of the agreement of the Jewish style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for baptismes to which agrees Maecarius's saying of the Jewish baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it sanctifies the flesh Hom. 47. p. 509. because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein I shâ—ll now adde more one very antient before any of these within less then an 100. years after the death of S. John Tertullian de Animâ c. 39. where speaking of infants and saying ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either the father or mother is sanctified i. e. received as a believer by baptisme into the Church the children are holy c. clear evidences of the notion of the word this he there proves by these very words of this Apostle Caeterum inquit immundi nascuntur else so caeterum in Tertullian's style is known to be put for alioqui or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were your children unclean adding in stead of these other words but now are they holy quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios hereby willing that we should understand that the children of believers are the designed or the sealed of holyness in the sense I conceive wherein they that are baptized are by the antients frequently said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sealed and thereby of salvation also And all this saith he thus urged by the Apostle ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur that this hope might be a pledge to ingage the believing wife or husband not to part from the unbeliever And he yet farther addes still to the confirming of this interpretation Alioqui meminerat Dominicae definitionis Nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ spiritu non introibit in regnum Dei i. e. non erit Sanctus Otherwise or if this argument of the Apostle had not been sufficient he would have mentioned the definition of Christ that unless one be born of water and the Spirit i. e. baptized he shall not enter into the kingdome of God i. e. shall not be holy shewing still of what holyness he understands the Apostles speech that which the child of the believer is made partaker of by baptisme concluding Ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Every soul is so long inrolled in Adam till it be inrolled anew in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew inrolled which as it supposes every child of Adam to be impure till he be thus by baptisme made a child of Gods a member of Christ so it gives a full account of that uncleanesse and that holyness of which the Apostle speaks the former the state of a child of Adam unbaptized the
Christians children are admitted to baptisme viz. because by their living in the familie with the Christian parent they probably will and ought to be brought up in the faith and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents reasonably presumes they will and so admits them to baptisme This argument of the Apostles thus explained in my paraphrase or if he yet will have it more plainly thus The Church upon confidence that the believers children will be brought up in the faith receives them to baptisme when they are infants And upon the same grounds of hope that your abiding with the unbelieving husband may in time convert him as by experience it hath oft been found I advise you not to depart from him if he will live with you For what knowest thou whether thou shalt save thy husband c. Mr. T. hath made a shift not to understand and substituted another way of arguing in my name in stead of it p. 331. And having done so I must leave him to combate with the shadow of his own creating no part of his impression lighting upon that which alone I professe to be my meaning in it which I leave him or the reader to see in the particulars proposed by him but must not now be so impertinent as to lose time in the pursuit of them But the reasons produced for my thus interpreting he next proceeds to examine and I must take care to vindicate them My first reason is because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy noting a relative holynesse a setting apart to God and the lowest degree of that imaginable being the initiating into the Church by baptisme this must in reason be here noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy as all visible professors Ezr. 9.2 are the holy seed and in the Epistles of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy To this he answers that it being all granted confirmes not the Doctors exposition because t is no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmativè and because infants are not visible professors But sure when the species is such that he that hath not that hath not any part of the genus the argument will thus hold very irrefragably Suppose that of the Deacon to be the lowest order of officers of the Church and that without which there is no ascending to any higher degree in the ministerie will not then the argument hold He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him therefore sure he is a Deacon Thus sure it is in this matter the relative holyness belongs to no person that is not baptized baptisme is the lowest degree of it and all superior degrees of Apostle Prophet c. in the Christian Church are founded in that therefore if the infant children be holy the infant children are baptized So again Baptisme is the lowest degree of visible profession therefore if these that are said to be holy are visible professors then sure they are baptized And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason My 2d followes from the notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 10.14 for those that must not be received into the Church as on the other side God's cleansing is God's reputing him fit to be partaker of this priviledge whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptisme are exprest by holy and unclean To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion viz. the fitnesse of the expression All his exception is against my prâ—misse the notion of unclean Act. 10. which saith he signifies there not onely one out of the Church but also one that a Jew might not go in to or eate with To this I reply that my conclusion being granted I may safely part with that which inferred it as when I am arrived at my journeys end I have no farther need or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither Let it be remembred that holy and unclean fitly expresse those that are received or not received to baptisme and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words by concluding from this text that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to baptisme And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have then I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion As for the use of the phrase Act. 10. though now I need not contend yet I may adde that the notion of not entring to and eating with containing under it this other of not baptizing for sure he might not baptize those to whom he might not enter and the baptizing Cornelius and not onely entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that places signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by baptisme and the holyness on the contrary reception to that priviledge My 3d reason being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie for washing any part of the body and on occasion of that mentioning a conjecture that the use of holyness for baptisme might perhaps intimate that the primitive baptisme were not always immersions but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficient he hath a reply to each of these To the former that if this reason were good then the husbands being sanctified by the wife must signifie his being baptized or washed by her to the latter that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the baptisme of the Jewes and Christians to be immersion of the whole body that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary and that I can hardly believe my self in it To these I answer first to the former 1. That I that affirme sanctifications among the Jewes to signifie washings do also know that it hath other significations and that that signification is in each text to be chosen which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation Consequently that the wive's baptizing the husband being a thing absurd and utterly unheard of in the Church of God whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages this sense may not reasonably be affixt to it whereas the baptizing of infants by the antients affirmed to be received from the Apostles it is most reasonable to understand the words of this though not of the other and so to apply the observation as it is visible I did to the latter not former part of that verse And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of by and expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman of the perswasion that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptisme and not of her mysterie in baptizing we may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbelieving husband hath been
force against those evidences which I have here produced the best he offers us at any time to prove any thing concerning the Iewish customes And I shall now appeale to the Reader whether Mr. T. could well have been expected to have made more misadventures in so few words Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea The defence of my notion of it Learned mens affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies Christ's baptizing of Iewes as well as Gentiles no argument Christ's vouching Iohns baptisme to be from heaven no argument No more the pretended no intimations of it The no conformity The proselytes children baptized continually not onely at the first conversion The baptisme of a woman with child serving for the child also not argumentative The Canon of Neocaesarea about it NExt he proceeds to consider the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.1 of our Fathers being baptized into Moses as in the cloud so in the Sea Where 1. He tells me that he doth not conceive Mr. Seldens exposition that the sea was some vessell of waters but the red sea And I that am as little of Mr. Seldens mind but expressely interpreted it of the Red sea § 7. and rejected Mr. Seldens interpretation § 8. although I omitted to name the author of it am not he knows concerned in that but have from his rejecting Mr. Seldens authority when t is not for his turn his example for my not thinking my self bound up by it at other times either in that newly past where he vouched his name as his onely proof that the Jewes did not baptize Jewes by nature or in other particulars which I find afterwards vouched from him the truth of which I as little conceive as Mr. T. doth this of the sea not signifying the Red sea which I acknowledge to be unconceiveable But then 2. he doth not think my exposition right neither though I interpret it of the Israelites passing through the Red sea as he acknowledges to do But what is my interpretation why that their being baptized into Moses in the Red sea as also in the cloud signifieth their being initiated into God's covenant under the conduct of Moses as since they are wont to be initiated by baptisme And why doth he dislike this interpretation why because when it is said our fathers were baptized it is not meant were baptized as since proselytes were baptized among the Jews but as Christians were baptized But certainly this is no reason of exception to my interpretation For 1. I compare not this baptisme of out fathers in the sea with the baptisme of proselytes among the Jewes but annex it immediately to the baptizing of the native Jewes § 6. before I proceed § 9. to the baptisme of proselytes And 2. I do not lay the comparison of the Apostle betwixt the baptizing in the sea and the Jewish custome of baptizing but acknowledge it to be betwixt the baptisme of the Fathers under the Law and the baptisme since Christ among Christians All the use I make of the words of the Apostle was to shew that baptisme among the Jewes was a ceremonie of initiating into the covenant and that upon that supposall it was that the Apostle used the phrase of the Israelites that came out of Aegypt and entred into Covenant with him under the conduct of Moses God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings the phrase to signifie reception into the covenant by invironing them with the sea This I thought had been before intelligibly enough set down I hope now he will no longer misunderstand it What he addes out of Mr. S. that after Exo. 19.10 the Jewes did not baptize Jewes but onely proselytes hath already been evidenced at large to have no truth in it the custome of baptisme continuing to all their posterity as well as that of circumcision And whereas this is said to be set down thus out of Maimonides and other Jewish Rabbines the Reader if he will consult the place in Mr. Selden de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. will find there is no such matter That Mr. S. himself so affirmes p. 23 I willingly acknowledge but in a matter of antient storie such as this is neither he nor any else must be believed farther then the testimonies produced by him out of their writers exact especially against express testimonies to the contrary And such he there produceth more then one p. 34. out of Gemara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What did our Fathers truely they entred not into Covenant without circumcision and baptisme and sprinkling of blood and again p. 35. our mothers were baptized and not circumcised and p. 26. out of Victoria Porchetus that our mothers though not as he saith Sara and Rebecca referring the custome to a greater antiquity then that of the time of giving the Law were baptized and not circumcised and p. 38. out of Maimonides that the Israelites entred into covenant by a threefold rite or ceremonie by circumcision baptisme and oblation And again p. 39. What was done to you ye entred into covenant by circumcision baptisme and he sprinkling of the sacrifice and therefore the proselyte the custome of baptizing the proselytes founded in that of baptizing the native Jewes All these clear testimonies are by him produced directly to the proof of my position that the native Jewes indifferently were baptized and not a word in any other parts of the testimonies to give reason to suspect that after that one time of Exo. 19. the Jewes did not baptize What he hath done in his other book de Jure Nat. ac Gent. I need not apprehend and have not commodity to inquire or examine supposing that if there he had undertaken the proof of it he would here where he affirmes it without proofe and against expresse testimonies produced by him have referred according to custome to that place And now what force against any pretension of ours is there in Mr. T. his observation that Christ and his Apostles baptized Jewes as well as Gentiles For 1. so certainly they might and yet derive their baptisme from the custome formerly in use among the Jewes for they we know baptized native Iewes nay 2. so they might though the Iewes had baptized none but proselytes for to that it would bear just proportion that they should baptize both Iewes and Gentiles in case both came in as proselytes to Christ For it were a fallacie a little too grosse to deceive any man of common understanding to argue thus The custome was to baptize proselytes and not natives therefore Christ if he observed that custome was not to baptize native Iewes The answer being so obvious by distinguishing of proselytes that they are either such as come in to the Iewish religion or such as came in to Christ and that Christ was to baptize all that were proselytes to him and that the native Iewes as many as believed on him were such and as believers i. e. as proselytes to Christ not as native
when he shall have considered it The onely way M. T. hath to confirme this of the Iewes not baptizing any infants of proselytes born after their first conversion and baptisme is the resolution of the Jewes that if a woman great with child became a proselyte and were baptized her child needs not baptisme when t is born And this I had cited § 109. out of the Rabbines and so indeed I find it in Maimonides tit Isuri bia c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I cannot think that whether true or false a sufficient proof to inferre the conclusion For the Iewish Doctors might probably thus resolve upon this other ground because the mother and the child in her wombe being esteemed as one person the woman great with child being baptized they might deem the child baptized as well as the woman and not account it needfull to repeat it after the birth which yet by the way it seems they would have done if they had not deemed the childe all one with the mother and consequently they must be supposed to baptize those children which were begotten to the proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptisme And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Councel of Neocaesarea Can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother that bears the childe differs from the childe or is not all one with it and her confession in baptisme is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper or particular to her self and belongs not to the childe in her womb give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the woman that is with childe and is then converted to the faith leave to be baptized when she pleases supposing that the childe which then she carries shall notwithstanding her baptisme then be it self baptized after its birth Which as it is a cleer answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jewes in that point so t is moreover an evidence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own observation or Mr. Seldens testimonies from all which he can produce no other but this which in the sound is so far from affirming what he would have and upon examination is found to conclude the contrary Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice Yet they do not all hold Prayer the Christian sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rule of judging in this matter Baptizing in the name of the Father c. prescribed by Christ So dipping or sprinkling The Pract Cat. misreported Mr. Marshals covenanting THis grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mistake I shall not need to attend his other instances of disparity this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindicated being sufficient to my pretensions and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm that the parallel holds any farther then Christ was pleased it should hold and of that we are to judge by what the Scriptures or ancient Church tells us was the practice of him or his Apostles For 1. the Jewes I doubt not brought in many things of their own devising into this as into other institutions of God's and the latter Jewes more as of the proselytes being so born again in baptisme that lying with his natural sister was no incest and the like And 2. Christ I doubt not changed the Jewish oeconomy in many things as in laying aside circumcision in commissionating his disciples to baptize and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop and those to whom he should commit it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not lawful to baptize without the Bishop saith Ignatius whereas it was not among the Jewes any part of the Priests office any more then circumcision was And so in many other particulars But what prejudice is that to my pretentions who affirm no more of the accordance betwixt the Jewish and Christian practice then eiher by some indications in the Scripture it self or by the Christian Fathers deductions from the Apostles times appears to be meant by Christ and practised by the Apostles and then by the Jewish writers is as evident to have been in use among them And this is all the return I need make to his 14 lesser disparities and all that he hath at large endevoured to infer from them supposing and granting them all to be such But yet it is evident that some of them are not such As when 1. he saith the baptisme of males must be with circumcision and an offering t is clear that though 1. circumcision be laid aside by Christ and 2. when it was used it had nothing to do with baptisme yet as to the adjoyning of offering or sacrifice the parallel still holds the prayers of the Church being the Christian sacrifice and those in the Christian Church solemnly attendant on the administration of baptisme So parallel to the court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not only the whole Church in the presence of whom t is publickly administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselves formerly baptized do represent the Church of which they are members meaning thereby the people of the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24 Chap. as far as I am concerned in it unlesse it be to tell him that the Bishops Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practice of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yield all authority so I find the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bear perfect accoordance therewith in this particular of infant baptisme though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselves and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifie it to any Christian artist to be according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Doctors own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Of this score t is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to adde concerning the forme of baptisme In the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghost In
Antipaedobaptist to found his plea in it and all that I have to do is to shew how useless it is like to prove to him confessing also that to me it is as uselesse and so never attempting to draw any argument from it So again when upon a supposition by him specified he assumes me to grant that which he acknowledgeth me expressely to deny this sure is very incongruous T is visible from the words by me produced § 96. that I deny that that text of Mat. 28.19 can prejudice the baptisme of infants and the only design I had in considering this text at all in this place was to evidence the second branch of the negative part of my undertaking that there appeared nothing in Christs institution of baptisme or commission to his Apostles which was exclusive of infants How then can it be suggested with any shew of truth that I seem tacitely to yield that if the words include not infants under the discipled there is then something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptisme T is evident from whence it is that I infer and positively define Christs Commission for baptisme to belong to infants not from these words of Christ which as I said I never proposed to that end to prove my position from them but only to answer the Antipaedobaptists objection founded in them but from the practice of the Apostles signifying their sense and perswasion of Christs meaning in his institution of baptisme which institution we know from John 4.1 had long preceded the delivering of these words Matth 28. So that whatsoever were the notion of discipling there yet could not I deem infants thereby excluded from baptisme whom by another medium viz. the Apostolical practice I supposed to be admitted to it by Christs institution The short is Infants I suppose may be received into discipleship when their parents bring them and if so then they are or may be included in the words Mat. 28. but if they might not and so were supposed not to be comprehended in these words of Christ Mat. 28. yet that which is not included is not presently excluded he that saith a man is a living creature doth not thereby deny an angel to be so also when Christ gives his disciples power to heal diseases Mat. 10.1 he cannot be deemed to withhold from them power of raising the dead for that we see comprehended in their commission v. 8. and so I could no way be inforced to yield that they were excluded from baptisme as long as from any other medium I were assured they were admitted to it And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not the least appearance of truth in this discourse He proceeds then to some other attempts of proving it necessary for me if I will stand to my words elsewhere to acknowledge infants excluded by that text To which end he hath been very diligent in putting together several scattered passages in my writings in hope to finde some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to raise some shew of argument out of my own words and so from my temerity or inconstancy for want of solid proofs to conclude that if this precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infant baptisme then by manifest consequence it doth deny it The passages he gathers up are these The Doctor saith § 55. that Christs institution makes dipping or sprinkling with water a Sacrament which institution is Mat. 28.19 and therefore the Doctor will have the words there indispensably used in baptisme and § 92. he saith baptisme is a Sacrament that Sacrament an institution of Christs that institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth but only in the positive will of Christ and so that there is nothing considerable in this question or any of this nature but how it was delivered by Christ And § 94. that which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practise to be so And Pract. Cat. l. 6. § 2. he expounding Christs institution saith that the words import that the person baptized acknowledgeth maketh profession of believing in three delivers him to three as authors of his faith and to be ruled by the directions of his Master and this he will have to be meant by baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost These are the passages whence saith he I infer that if baptisme be a Sacrament and made so by Christs institution and that institution founded only in his positive will and the will of Christ be that baptisme be in the name of the Trinity and this is when the baptized makes profession of believing in three to be ruled by them and the Apostles practice interprets Christs rule no infant that doth not profess faith is baptized into the name of the Trinity nor was appointed to be baptized by Christ nor did the Apostles baptize them and therefore they are not baptized according to Christs institution and so no Sacrament to them Here is a very subtile fabrick and great pains taken to pro◠me to affirm tacitely what I expressely deny But herein though his pains be great he hath much failed of the successe it were too long to shew it at large yet the reader that will be at pains to survey his processe will certainly acknowledge it if he shall but remember these two things 1. That Christs institution of baptisme was not nor is ever affirmed by me to be set down in those words of Mat. 28. that having been long before instituted and practised as appears by plain words Joh. 4.1 2. Secondly That though Christs will and institution for baptizing infants be not so manifestly exprest in those words Mat. 28.19 as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gainsayer without any other way of evidence or proof added to it yet by the Apostles practice of baptizing infants appearing to us by other means it is most evident that they who certainly did not mistake Christs meaning did thus understand and extend his institution and commission The truth of this is there made evident § 30. c. I shall not here repeat it 2dly That the infant when he is to be baptized doth though not by his own voice personally yet by his lawful proxies which the Church accepteth in his stead professe the believing in three the Father Son and holy Ghost deliver himself up to three c. By this clue the reader will easily extricate himself out of the Labyrinth there provided for him if such it appear to be and discern a perfect accordance in all the passages which with such hope of advantage were so diligently collected by him But this is not all he will yet drive the businesse somewhat higher in these words Yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of baptisme they usurp upon Christs prerogative who baptize otherwise then Christ
Mat. 13. and Act. 14. do no way belong to that they tell us not whether they received infants to baptisme or not yet I may very well ward my self from any inconvenience which this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places can threaten it being already vindicated from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men and not communicated to infants also His last proof is by returning to the first again comparing the words in Matthew with the parallel place in Mark Whereby saith he a disciple and believer will appear to be the same the disciple to be baptized in Mat. being in Mark expressed by the believer which is put before baptism To this I answer 1. that that passage in S. Mark He that believes and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and so on to the end of the Gospel is as even now I intimated added by that Evangelist to the words as they are set down in Matthew and so being an addition cannot be looked on as exactly parallel to the words in Matthew Go and disciple all nations baptizing them And this we also know is ordinary for one Evangelist to set down more fully what is omitted or more shortly set down in another and S. Mark that in other things was willing to abbreviate S. Matthew doth now visibly in large And so the comparison cannot regularly be made betwixt these two Evangelists words something being abbreviated in Mark which was more at large in Matthew and something more concisely set down in Matthew and more largely in Mark. And then what necessity is there that Mark not mentioning discipling but believing and Matthew mentioning discipling but not believing the discipled and believers should be deemed the same T is true indeed of grown men none can in reason be admitted disciples which are not also believers the ground of which I have set down in the Resol of the Quaere p. 199. but of infant children this is not true for those though they cannot come may yet be brought and though not upon their own confession yet by the susception of others made capable of the Churches charity and so may be disciples without actual or personal belief Nay 2dly if Mr. T. his argument had power to infer it t were that which I might safely avouch that infants may be comprehended under the style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that believe and are baptized so even now we had it in the expresse words of Christ the little ones and S. Luke specifies them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little infants that believe on him i. e. just as they are said elsewhere to come unto him when they are as uncapable for want of bodily strength of personal coming as for want of strength of minde or judgement for personal believing and yet in respect of others bringing them to Christ and so to the Church in baptisme they are by Christ himself said to do both of these to come in one place and to believe in the other But then 3dly I willingly acknowledge that the word believe in Mark belongs peculiarly to the grown men and women who are called by the preaching of the Gospel of whom though it be said that believing and being baptized they shall be saved and not believing they shall be damned yet it no way follows that none but such as thus personally believed should be baptized or that being baptized they should not be saved but lose all the benefit of their baptisme The later part of the words is considerable He that believeth not shall be damned Infidelity is pitcht on as the thing peculiarly that incurs the certain damnation i. e. the voluntary resisting the Faith when it is preacht convincingly to them and of that none are capable but those that are arrived to years of understanding Which as it is an indication that that ver and those that follow in S. Mark of believers casting out devils c. v. 17 18. belong to adulti peculiarly so it no way hinders but S. Matthews words being different from them and supposed to be precedent to them in Christs delivery may comprehend infants also as such who are capable of entring into discipleship and of being brought and presented to the Apostles by believing parents This being the way whereby the faith of the parents may be signally beneficial to the childe in bringing him thus early into the School and so to the benediction of Christ the parents together with the infant children as among the Jews so among Christians entring together into covenant with God In this matter Mr. T. is willing to finde a difference betwixt Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded them Mat. 28.20 and the preaching of the Gospel in S. Mark thinking by that means to avoid the importunity of that text in Matthew which evidently sets baptisme before instructing But this can avail him nothing For if by the Gospel in Mark we understand the whole Gospel as in reason we must for that is it which must be preacht to every creature the Gentile world then is that directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded But if by preaching the Gospel we mean no more then as Mr. T. here saith that Jesus is the Christ i. e. the proposing him as a Master and calling all to come to him as disciples then this being supposed precedent to mens coming to discipleship or bringing their infants to it for without this they cannot be expected to come themselves or to bring their infants all the rest is left to follow baptisme and so all particular Christian instruction is subsequent not precedent to baptisme an effect of their discipleship attending it no way necessary to prepare for it which is the utmost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from that circumstance of that text I undertook to demonstrate Sect. 3. Discipleship before instruction What knowledge of the Master is required to discipleship Two sorts of disciples Some come others are brought HIS reasons for the disproving of my interpretation of Mat. 28. being thus evidenced to have no force or validity in them against our pretensions and so indeed his whole fabrick demolished that place of S. Mat. being the one main if not only ground of Antipaedobaptists structure I might well spare the advantages of the 26 27 28. §§ to which he makes some kinde of answer in the remainder of his 25 Chapter But there is so little weight in his answers that they will be speedily dispatched First then to my 26 § he saith that were it all granted me yet it would no whit avail to prove that an infant may be a disciple appointed by Christ to be baptized To this I reply that the 26 § being most of it spent for the explaining an hard place 1 Pet. 3.21 concerning baptisme and for assigning the due notion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a question or addresse as
CHAP. IV. An answer to Mr. Tombes's view of my Conclusion and therein the sense of Antiquity in this Question Sect. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. infant children The Jewes practice Their notion of holy Baptisme a priviledge of believers children yet is communicated to others whose guardians are believers The several sorts of holyness all vainly mentioned by Mr. T. His denyals of the Conclusion The place in Tertullian vindicated S. Hieromes answer to Paulinus Institutionis disciplina in Tertullian Candidati Damoniorum A 3d denyal of the Conclusion The use of baptisme to regenerate c. No prejudice to the founding it in the Jewish practice His art of diversion to put off answering of testimonies The way of Testimonies insisted on AFter this examination of my paraphrase of this text to the Corinthians he proceeds to the conclusion which I deduce from thence which is no other then my premisses viz. my confirmation of that interpretation had regularly inferred that the infants of Christian parents were by the Apostles received to baptisme But to this he will object also not onely by referring to his former performances in validating the premisses to which I shall not need to now advert having refuted his answers as they were produced but by denying the consequence in case my interpretation were granted and that upon these accounts 1. Because it is not clear that your children are your infants the Corinthians having for ought yet hath been shewed other children besides infants and the Jewes baptizing proselytes children females under 12. and males under 13. years old not according to their will but of the Father or Court 2. Because if the Apostle should by holy mean a priviledge whereupon they were baptized he should conceive otherwise then the Jewes did who conceived all unclean whom they baptized till by baptisme they cleansed them and made them holy 3. Because there is no priviledge attributed by the Apostle to the Christians infants which would not belong to the infants of heathen or if there were yet it might not be baptisme To the first of these I have incidentally answered already by making it evident not that the Corinthians had no other children beside infants I have no want of such ridiculous evasions but that the children which are there spoken of were infant children as appeared both by the express words of Tertullian and the Author of Answers ad Antiochum and the agreeableness of Nazianzen's expressions by the general doctrine of the Fathers in this matter and by the inconveniences which were consequent to the interpreting it of any other but infant children meaning by them such as are either strictly infants new born or such as are proportionable to these having not arrived to maturity of understanding and capacity of professing personally for themselves For this I must refer the reader to that place And for the practice of the Jewes which I acknowledge to be as is here suggested not to baptize any proselytes children by their own wills or professions till they be the female at the full age of 12. the male of 13. years sure it makes nothing against me for they that thus baptized the proselytes children all under that age by the profession of others did also baptize their infant children in the same manner and all that I pretend from that place is that the believers infants were admitted to baptisme if infants they were not doubting but if they were of greater years they were baptized also if before they were fit to profess for themselves then by their parents or the Churches but if fit to answer for themselves then by their own profession To the 2d I say that by holy the Apostle means the priviledge of admission to baptisme because in baptisme they were received into the Church and so made relatively holy And the very same was the Jewes notion of holyness when they called baptismes Sanctifications and conceived those that were unclean to be made holy by that means This holyness is the terme of the motion in both their usages of the word To the 3d 1. I suppose it evident by my interpretation that the holyness which belonged to the believers children was a priviledge and that not common to the unbelievers children unless they were by the charity of the Church or some member thereof having power and assuming to make use of that power to bring them up in the knowledge of their baptismal vow brought to baptisme and then those supplied the place of the parents and the children equally received the same benefit by that charity as if their own parents had done it for them and there being no reason here offered to the contrarie but a reference to another place which I have not commodity to consult or examine there is nothing that exacts any farther reply from me The same will satisfie the latter part of this last suggestion for to prove that if there were a priviledge yet it might not be baptisme he produceth this reason that baptisme according to the fathers opinion and practice belonged to unbelievers children also if they were brought which being willingly granted so the matter cleared that the children of believers were to be admitted to baptisme when the very unbelievers children if brought assumed for by others which were not their parents were to be admitted It certainly followes not from thence that the believers children were not admitted or that their admission was not a priviledge of believers children For so still it was though by parity of reason and by the charity of the Church it was communicated to some others viz. those that were brought by friends or guardians though not by parents for so still this priviledge belonged not to those unbelievers children who lived in their parents power were not thus undertaken for by believers The short is baptisme was a priviledge of the believers infants undertaken for by their parents and by analogie communicated to those who were undertaken for by others whose charitie and pietie supplyed the place of believing parents but was not communicated simply or indifferently to all children of unbelievers and herein the priviledge consisted As for the other imagined priviledge which he names belonging to infants If it be that of real actual inward holyness I discern not Mr. T. hath any kindnesse to it nor can he without destroying his own hypotheses and therefore it matters not what others imagine If it be federal external holynesse that I suppose to be the same with baptismal holynesse baptisme being the entrance into that Covenant And for holynesse in hope and expectation 1. that cannot denote actually holy as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here notes unlesse by holy we mean in the relative sense consecration or designation to holynesse and then it is all one with baptisme again the solemnity of that consecration Before he leaves the survey of my conclusion he will again resume what he had said without all degree of truth in the
garments washt and so entred into the campe this it seems the ceremonie of his admission And then follows the baptisme of John and Christ Other examples I doubt not the Reader may observe in the Fathers writings on this subject these few may serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore when Mr. T. addes that some passages of the Fathers shew rather that they took it as in stead of circumcision the answer also is very obvious that the Jews custome being to initiate by circumcision and baptisme both and the former of these being laid aside by Christ's reformation and onely the second continued and that so improved by Christ as to have more then the whole virtue of both and to be the onely initial Sacrament the Fathers might well learn of S. Paul to make this comparison or parallel betwixt the Jewish and the Christian Sacrament and so betwixt baptisme and circumcision and indeed could not properly say that the Christian baptisme was in stead of the Jewish baptisme being rather the continuance of it adding some ceremonies and virtue to that which was formerly among them not substituting somewhat else as for circumcision it did in stead of it This is evident enough and yet if it were not we should have little reason to be moved with this suggestion knowing that in the other Sacrament which Christ visibly instituted in the Jewish postcoenium and imitated it in the delivering the portions of bread and wine the Fathers generally lay the comparison betwixt the Paschal Lamb and that and not without the authority of S. Paul himself saying that Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us the plain meaning of it being this that the Jewish Passeover being abolished we have now the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ the true immaculate lamb of God substituted in the stead of it but that copied out not from the Jewish manner of eating the Lamb of Passeover for Christ did not eat it at that time being put to death before the hour in which it was to be eaten but of the postcoenium or close of the Iewish Supper after which he took bread c. consecrating this ordinary custome of theirs into an higher mysterie then formerly it had in it Sect. 4. The conceipts of Pe Alfunsus and Schickard of the Iewish baptisme Raf Alphus Mr. T. his conclusion not inferred The original of the Iewish Baptisme the onely doubt vindicated Iacob's injunction to his family Sanctifications Exod. 19.10 differ from washing garments WHat he next addes from Mr. Selden of some that conceived the Iewish baptisme in initiating of proselytes was in imitation of Christs example and so not Christs of theirs and of Schickard that conceives they added baptisme to circumcision to difference them from Samaritans is too vain to deserve any other reply then what he himself hath annext concerning the former viz. that Mr. Selden naming onely Pet. Alfansus for this doth not give any credit to him in it but indeed disproves it and addes antidotes to that poyson that without them I should not have thought likely to have wrought on any man And indeed so he doth also in plain terms concerning the latter de Syxed l. 1. c. 3. fateor me nondum illud aut eâ de re quicquam alibi legisse he never read that or any thing of that matter any where else To which I adde that if the place in Schickard be examined it will acknowledge it to be a singular conceipt and invention of his and nothing else In his 5t. Chap. de Reg. Iud. he hath these words ad differentiam Samaritanorum addiderunt baptismum quendam de quo Raf. Alphes Tom. 2. p. 26. ipse Talmud Mass Jefamos fol. 47. citing the words at large in Hebrew But in those words though they are by Schickard applied indefinitely as if they were the testification of the whole foregoing proposition yet the reader shall find no syllable to that purpose of differencing from Samaritanes more then from all other men but onely that when a proselyte is received he must be circumcised and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he is cured they shall baptize him in the presence of two wise men saying Behold he is as an Israelite in all things or if she be a woman the women lead her to the waters c. A plain testimony to the sense of those which we formerly produced of baptizing both Jews and proselytes for else how could the proselyte upon receiving this be said to be a Israelite in all things but no least intimation that this was designed to distinguish them from Samaritanes peculiarly but as that which was alwayes customarie among the Jews at their entring into Covenant with God And then the premises being so groundlesse and frivolous I shall not sure be concerned in any conclusion that Mr. T. shall inferre from them which it seems is to be this that notwithstanding the Doctor 's supposition that the whole fabrick of baptisme is discernible to be built on that basis the customary practice among the Jews yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recitall of passages out of Iewish writers But Mr. T. would be much put to it to shew in what mode and figure it is that this conclusion is drawn out of these premisses Certainly none that my Logick hath afforded me for that hath no engine first to draw many out of two nor 2. to inferre that those that had mistaken for want of knowledge as Alphunsus or adverting as Schickard of the Iewish customes would need any more then the recitation of clear testimonies out of the soberest Iewish writers to disabuse him or 3. that they that either through prejudice or any other principle of obstinacie shall resist this degree of light thus offered them will be convinced by any other sort of testimonies whether out of the Fathers or Scripture it self being so well fortified and provided with inclinations at least if not with artifices to reject one or misinterpret the other But it seems after all this and to evidence to how little purpose he hath said thus much Mr. T. is well enough satisfied at least as farre as to baptizing of proselytes that there was such a custome among the latter Iewes afore Christs incarnation All the difficulty saith he is concerning the original of it among them For that either it should begin from Iacobs injunction to his household Gen. 35.2 or from Gods command Exo. 19 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving of the law he cannot conceive those places speaking of washing Jewes by nature not proselytes whereas the Jewes baptized not Jewes by nature as Mr. Selden saith but by profession Here are many weak parts in these few words For 1. The original of the custome among the Jewes is but an accessarie wholly extrinsecal to the matter in hand and in no respect necessary to be defined by us If the custome be acknowleged we need ask
no more and Mr. T. having acknowleged the custome grants all that in that matter we require of him for on that and not on that particular original of it it is that we superstruct our whole fabrick as farre as belong to infant baptisme which is very fitly founded in the Jewish custome of baptizing from whence soever that custome was derived to them And so that one thing supersedes and answers that whole difficulty if indeed there were any such in this matter But then 2dly for the two originals here set down and both rejected by him it is a little strange that he should think fit to do so and not to substitute any third in the place of them For t is certain that every custome received universally into a Church or society of men must have some originall or other and consequently this custome being by Mr. T. acknowleged must not in any reason be left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Father without Mother without any original and therefore those two that are alleged for it by the Iewish writers being by him so fastidiously rejected it was very fit that he should assign some other and annex his reasons of giving it the deference upon which it should be prefer'd before them And when he shall do so I shall not doubt to imbrace it and make the same advantage of it which hitherto I have done of either of these But he is here pleased to be reserved and gives not the least intimation of any other reason which is more suitable with his conceptions T is true indeed he did before out of Grotius mention Noahs flood in memorie of which this custome arose among other nations but besides that this original of it was not by him deemed sufficient to appropriate it to the Iewes but leaves it common to them with other nations those other two Iacobs injunction and Gods command before receiving the Law either one or both are perfectly reconcileable with that and the memorie of the deluge being the more remote and first original these may be the neerer and more immediate and so are not prejudged by his pretending or my yeelding of that 3dly For Iacobs injunction to his household Gen. 35.2 it is no where vouched by me as the original of this custome among the Iewes but onely an intimation given that that other the command of God before the giving the Law was agreeable to what we read of Iacob to his household and so certainly it is for as in the one the ceremonie prescribed them to use at the putting away strange Gods was this to be clean and change their garments so in the other they are injoyned to sanctifie themselves and wash their clothes which is in other words directly the same thing washing themselves and having clean garments being among the Iewes joyned together and the witnesse of their garments prescribed in baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Glosse on Gemara Babylon tit Iabimoth to receive the presence of the divine Majesty just as in the Christian Church the Dominica in albis white or Whitsunday was a special day for administration of baptisme and the persons baptized wore rhetorically styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 starres rising out of the waters sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bright lilies of the font as they are joyned together in Proclus Orat 12. p. 384. and in S. Chrysostome new lilies planted from the font Hom. 6. de resurr and accordingly on Constantine's great coyne stampt in memory of his baptisme was ingraven on one side a poole of water with a lilie grown out of it see Jos Scal in Opusc and all these but figurative expressions of what Chrysostome more plainly sets down by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their putting on white garments at the receiving of baptisme Tract de S. Pent. for which Jobius in Photius hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely And then as Jacob vowed a vow to the Lord to give him the tenth of all and accordingly God after instituted the tithes for the Levites portion and so the latter of these was agreeable to the former but yet the latter viz. Gods institution the original of the custome of tithing among the Jewes so Iacob might injoyn his household that ceremonie of washing or baptisme and after that God injoyn it in giving the Law and one of these be agreeable to the other and yet the custome of baptisme among the Iewes be derived onely from the latter as from the peculiar original of it 4thly The command of God Exod. 19.10 in which baptisme is said to be founded by the Iewes is not as Mr. T. suggests the command to the Israelites to wash their clothes nothing but the custome of changing their garments can be founded in that but the command to Moses to sanctifie them Go unto the people and sanctifie them to day and to morrow in the Hebrâ—w notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for washing either the whole or some parts of the body as is shew'd at large § 35. And if in stead of this of sanctifying i. e. baptizing them Mr. T. did unwittingly substitute washing their garments then I hope he may now be advised to reforme that mistake and see more reason then hitherto he hath done to assign that command of Gods as the most agreeable original of this custome and no longer imagine that it was a custome of the latter Iewes taken up by themselves without any ground of Scripture But if formerly he saw this and was willing to disguise it and on purpose to misguide the reader left out the mention of Moses's sanctifying or baptizing them and onely set down the washing of their garments which was not at all proper for the turn to be the original of baptisme wherein as Paulinus tells us they were rendred nivei white as snow corpore as well as babitu in body as well as garment I shall not then hope that even this length of words will be sufficient for his conviction Lastly For his reason against deducing the baptisme of proselites from this original because the Iewes baptized not Iewes by nature but by profession whereas those places speake of washing Iewes by nature not proselytes it will presently appear to be very vain for 1. The Iewes baptized Iewes by nature and not proselytes onely as hath been both there and here shewed at large out of the most creditable of the Iewish writers 2dly Their baptizing of proselytes was founded in their precedent custome of baptizing of Iewes as hath been evidenced also from the Rabbines explication of Num. 15.15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation of Israel and also for the stranger or proselyte And so t is evident that of Exod. 19.10 being the original of baptizing native Iewes may and must be the original of baptizing the proselytes And this in each part being thus manifest Mr. Selden's authority if it should be as is pretended can be of no
to an Oracle for instruction for the future life I pretended not to conclude infant baptisme from thence nor any more then this that baptisme being the entring of a disciple and not praerequiring actual instruction but consisting in coming to Christ and his Church to receive it for the future 't is certain that by this account children are capable of baptisme because they may by the care of their parents be thus brought early to Christ and entred into his school by them before they themselves have faculties either to desire or know what is done to them the proportion holding in this betwixt infants and other scholars that are entred by their parents in any school before they know one letter in the book or have actual willingness to acquire any knowledge And this is there illustrated by the example Philip Joh. 1.44 and of the Jews Ex. 19.8 which have again been mentioned and are clear evidences that those may be received into discipleship which have not yet had precedent instruction Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words Let putting to school be as early as the Doctor will imagine yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher and so none is Christ's disciple in the Scripture language till he know Jesus to be Christ and take him for his Lord which infants being not capable of they are not disciples nor to be baptized according to Christ's appointment To this I answer 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to School by the care of their parents was designed to shew no more then this that they may be delivered up to be scholars who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn nor have actual willingnesse to acquire knowledge and consequently that entrance into discipleship referres onely to subsequent supposes not any precedent instruction And this is competently evidenced by that example though it were supposed of the child that goes to school that he knowes his teacher this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher being none of the documents which he comes to school to learn but the good letters that are profest and taught in the school nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school or put to an instructer and so cannot be deemed to know the Master before assuetude hath acquainted him with him should not yet be said with as full propriety of speech to come to school as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither 2dly It is as true that children that are brought to School do not always know their Masters before their entrance no not by the most superficiall knowledge Many are brought to publick Schools who never so much as saw their Masters till they are by their parents delivered up into their power and discipline If this be not plain enough then change the similitude from the Schoolmaster to the parent or guardian or the very nurse every one of these are to feed and nourish and as he shall be capable to instruct the child and so doth Christ in a Spirituall sense whosoever is intrusted by being brought to him in baptisme And we know God and Nature doth thus bring a child to the parent to the nourse or Guardian when the child knows none of these nor understands any more of all these transactions then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there And so still this evidenceth the vanity of this answer concerning the childs knowing his teacher But then 3dly This so imperfect superficial knowledge of the teacher is in no wise worth considering in this matter For I shall demand doth such very imperfect knowledge of Christ as a Schoolboy hath of his teacher the first hour he comes into the School qualifie him for discipleship to Christ or no If it do then his countrymen and kinsmen before he revealed himself to be the Messiah and the Pharisees which believed not his miracles were sufficiently qualified and then t is evident that those might be admitted to discipleship which were not believers and so all Mr. T. his hypotheses are destroyed and then infants may be discipled and baptized though they be not believers As for that which he here interposes the knowing Jesus to be Christ and taking him for his Lord this bears no proportion with the childs bare knowing of his master but is farre above it equal to his making it his own choice to have this Master rather then any other and promising exact obedience to him which is much more then is to be found in most young scholars or indeed in any that are brought by their parents or guardians who alone are the persons who bear proportion with the infants brought by others to baptisme So that this reasoning of his is soon salved by distinguishing of disciples that they are either such as come or such as are brought to School proselytes of their own choice or children under the care of others of the former sort there are none but such as have some rude imperfect knowledge of Christ upon which they make this choice and without it would not probably be expected to make it But for children which as minors in their guardians hands have no will of their own there is no necessity they should have knowledge to move their will they may very reasonably be acted by the will of others and by their charity be made partakers of those priviledges which are communicated from Christ in his Church to all true members thereof and to that end be discipled and baptized entred by this ceremonie into the Church of God where instruction is to be had as soon as they are capable of it and in the mean while partake of those other advantages of which their condition is capable Sect. 4. The difference of a disciple and proselyte examined Christian as well as Jewish proselytes Priviledges of proselytisme Disciples of the Pharisees The Holy Ghost's not using the word proselyte of Christians concludes nothing Jehovah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants qualified for baptisme As for entring into Covenant Deut. 29. Gods oath Infants adjured Creples capable of Christ's cures TO my 27. and 28. §§ his answer is brief that what I say is not right And for proof though he begins with a For 1. and so by his forme of branching promises more reasons then one yet that first hath never a Secondly to follow or back it and so t is all resolved into that one viz. that it is not true that a disciple and a proselyte are perfectly all one To this therefore I must advert and consider what nice difference he can spring betwixt a disciple and a proselyte whereupon to found satisfaction for conscience why infants may be proselytes and as such come unto Christ and yet cannot be made disciples or received in baptisme to discipleship And his reason is because a proselyte
it shall be redundant and signifie no more then if it were not to be found there As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must certainly be rendred among the Fathers thus the tabernacle of witness was among our Fathers in the wilderness T is pity the reader should be exercised and detained with such debates as these with which yet in obedience to Mr. T. I must farther importune him For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16 and 2 Pet. 1.5 That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith that he was pleased to reveale his own sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when I had rendred that by or through me to others This exposition saith he makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared for certainly there was little temptation for it why I pray might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure say God was pleased through me to reveal his sonne and by way of explication and withall to denote the designation of that Apostle to his peculiar province as the Apostle of the uncircumcision adde that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles Certainly every explication of an obscurer or narrower by a clearer or larger phrase is not inept tantologie but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly have always been full of And yet 2dly the latter part here of his preaching the Gospell to the Gentiles he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles as Peter and John were of the Jewes wheresoever dispersed is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and paraphrasing the former part of it for in that those others had not been defined who they were or limited to the Gentiles This Mr T. adverted not in his objection I desire he will now take notice of it For that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I need adde no more to what I had before said that it is most fully rendred thus unto or over and above your faith superadde virtue or fortitude Two places he saith he had formerly produced out of the old Testament Deut. 28.60 and 2 Kin. 7.27 and now addes one more Psal 68.18 But besides that three onely places in the whole old Testament would never inferre that so it must be in this place of the new there being many more to preponderate for the contrary and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it must be here besides this I say it will be found that these three will be of no availe to him Of the two former the 2d is not there be but 20. vers in that Chapter and therefore no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 27th and for the former we well read it unto thee where the 72. reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ordinary way of acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And lastly for his new sprung testimonie Psal 68.18 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which saith he the Apostle hath Eph 4.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he takes to be more then enough to refute the Doctor t is presently visible that it hath no manner of force in it For though those two places are perfectly parallel as to the matter yet for the expression t is evidently very different in one thou hast received in the other he hath given and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or among men must of all necessity differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to men For how could it be sense to fay thou hast received gifts to men yet so it must be to make good Mr. T. his observation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to or is redundant or the note of a dative case And so he never had a more improper season for his triumphs never lesse cause to tell others of taking ad randum when he himself was so far removed from all appearance of demonstration And so much for the Grammatical notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very unfit to have exercised us thus long but that Mr. T. would have it so and words are the meanes of conveighing realities unto us and mistakes in them though minute may be of substantiall importance My 3d proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt by comparing it with the reason subjoyned For what knowest thou ô wife whether thou shalt save thy husband or how knowest thou ô man whether thou shalt save thy wife he comes next to examine and hath many exceptions against it all which without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to ly Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordinary observation that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and baptisme by the believing wife therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever in case the unbeliever be willing to stay v. 13. for this reason v. 16. because what hath been so oft may very probably be hoped again and consequently upon the premises the believer hath ground to hope that she may in time gain the husband to the faith and that being so fair a reward in her view the saving or rescuing him from infidelitie to Christ may well inforce the counsel of the Apostle not to depart from him as long as without sin she is permitted to stay By which it appeares that this v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally depend but an application of the argument formerly proposed but now more signally brought home to them under the forme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what by this means to reinforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelitie If the reader will but observe what is thus visible he will want no more help to get out of the intricacies and toiles which Mr. T hath here spred for him in this matter which is in it self so manifest as nothing can be added to it if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense The argument à genere ad speciem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How the husband is said to be baptized by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings The proportion betwixt legal holyness and baptisme Difference between relative and real sanctification The testimonies of the antient for and against my interpretation HIS exceptions to the former part of my paraphrase being now ended I must attend what he hath to say against the latter part of it that which concernes our matter in hand more neerly The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for else were your children unclean but now are they holy i. e. upon that score it is that
brought to baptisme viz. by being brought to faith to which this priviledge belongs As for his 2d exceptions to my conjecture founded in the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for partial not total washings 1. I answer that I mention it only as a conjecture with a perhaps and lay no more weight upon it 2. That for Christian baptisme I no where affirme that it was onely by immersion nor on the other side that it was always by sprinkling but disjunctively either by one or the other as by the words cited by him from Prac Cat l. 6. Sect. 2. is clear supposing indeed that Christ's appointment was not terminated to either and so satisfied by either My last reason is taken from the effect of the legal uncleannesse contrary to those their sanctifications viz. removing men from the congregation agreeable to which it is that those should be called holy who in the account of God stood so that they might be received into the Church To this he answers that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle are proportionable to the notion here given of the children being excluded or included in the Church asking why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church being a devout man But to this I reply that that which is so manifest needed no farther proof for what two things can be more proportionable or answerable the one to the other then the Jewes calling those unclean and holy who were excluded from and restored to the tabernacle and the Christians calling them unclean and holy that were excluded from and received into the Church the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides as also the uncleanness and holyness and the proportion lying only betwixt the Jewish tabernacle and the Christian Church which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on As for his question of Cornelius it is most vain the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truely in him in respect of his devotion fearing praying c. and that outward priviledge of admission into the congregation of the Jewes which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denyed Cornelius These be pitifull sophismes and in no reason farther to be insisted on And therefore it was but necessary that to amuse the reader he should here adde by way of close that Augustine aid disclaim this interpretation Hierome and Ambrose gave another and so did Tertullian De Anima c. 39. The three former of these we must it seems take upon his word for he cites not the places where they give that other interpretation nor pretends he that they gave that to which he adheres But for Tertullian the most antient of these by the place here cited I am assured what credit is due to his citations having set down the words at large from that c. 39. de Animâ and found it perfectly to accord to my interpretation The like hath appeared of S. Hierome in part for the former and more difficult part of the verse the man hath been sanctified exemplum refert saith he quia saepe contigerit just according to my paraphrase of the place For S. Augustine also l. 2. de Pecc Mer. Remiss c. 26. which I suppose the place he means I have already accounted And for the Annotations on the Epistles which go under S. Ambrose's name as I have not commoditie to examine them so they are known and universally acknowledged to be none of S. Ambrose's writings And then it is competently evident how little he hath gained by this unseasonable appeal to testimonies The designe I suppose was to prevent the force of my allegations For in that place as an appendix to the use of the word holy among the Jewes I had added the acception of it among the antient Christian writers S. Cyprian Ep. 59. Eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctificandm and the two places out of Gregory Nazianzen of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sanctified when they are not through want of years sensible of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified from infancy And before he chooses to take notice of these he brings forth his names of Fathers too with what success we have seen and shall not need farther to consider At length he descends to take notice of my testimonies and to them he hath two answers 1. That for the antients of the third or fourth Century especially for the Latine Doctors he thinks the Doctor knows them better then to assert that they knew certainly the sacred Dialect adding that few of them had skill in Hebrew or Greek 2. That if those Fathers knew the sacred dialect then not holy but sanctified must be as much as baptized and then the sense is that the unbeleeving husband is baptized by the wife This latter answer was even now satisfied to the full To the former then I reply 1. That of the two antients cited by me the former was crowned a Martyr within 160 yeers after the Apostles age and the latter flourished about 110 yeers after him and so that in respect of their time they are no way incompetent to testify what was the sacred language the writers whereof were so lately gone out of the world 2dly That one of these being a Greek Doctor and he agreeing exactly with the other and more of the same kind I have now produced in this Rejoynder there can here be no pretense for Mr. T. either to prejudice the Latine Doctors skill in this matter or to say they had no skill in Greek 3dly That the notion that they had of the word being the very same that the Hebrews were so lately shown to have had of it there was as little colour or temptation from the matter in hand to except against their skill in Hebrew 4thly That either of these antient Doctors knew as much the one much more of Greek as any of the four whom just now Mr. T. had vouched for the interpreting of the place and for the Hebrew S. Hierome who alone was better skilled in that concurred with me in the main part and basis of my interpretation Lastly The text to the Corinthians beeing in Greeke certainly Gregory Nazianzen was as great a Master in that language as any that can be pretended fit to be confronted against him and with that concurrence which I have shewed he had of Origen and others both Greek and Latine may be thought worthy to be heeded by Mr. T. for a matter of no greater weight then his the interpretation of word especially when Mr. T. himself hath so lately joyned his suffrage in these plain words I deny not the fitness of the expressing receiving to baptisme by the terme holy And so much for those exceptions against the latter part of my paraphrase of that verse and my reasons for it
of the antient Christian writers no nor any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practice But certainly this is of no force for 1. So long as none of all these deny it to be so derived and when the matter it self speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jewes there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion that Christs institution of baptisme was founded in the Jewish practice of baptizing their natives and their proselytes and that their custome being to baptize infant children Christs institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant childrens baptisme was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian What he addes from several antient testimonies shortly pointed at that they shew that the Fathers took the baptisme of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice but in the conceit they had that baptisme did regenerate give grace and save and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdome hath nothing of weight in it For 1. Their conceiting that baptisme had this force from Christs institution no way prejudges Christs founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice T is as if he should thus argue the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be usefull for the confirming of our faith therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jewes They conceived imposition of hands to conferre a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custome of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands The foundation of the institution is one thing and the benefits of it being instituted is another and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing 2dly Their very opinion that baptisme did regenerate and was necessary to enter into the kingdome as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again v. 3. and that of water v. 5. by baptisme he cannot enter into the kingdome of God so was that speech of Christ taken from the customary doctrine of the Jewes among whom baptisme was said to regenerate and to enter into the Church as that was the portal to the kingdome of God and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition Art thou a Ruler a Master in Israel and knowest not these things and therefore again those perswasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcileable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptisme Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Jewes and so might as well found the baptisme of Christian infants there the Jewes baptisme as hath appeared belonging to such hath formerly been evidenced from Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so from others also What he now addes of womens baptizing among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us of private baptisme of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous of the sureties answering in the childs behalf and expressing their desire to be baptized into the faith recited of the custome of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsontide of sprinkling or powring water on the face of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed antiently before they were baptized is all amast together if it might be to make up one accumulative argument but is utterly insufficient to do so All that he concludes from the mention of all these is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alledged from the Fathers to prove that Infant baptisme was an Apostolical tradition His words are these upon the mentioning of those particulars And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptisme brought by the Doctor because having said so much Here indeed by his therefore I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelesly and unseasonably viz. by way of diversion as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers But I must not thus farre complie with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this the doctrine of the antient Church in this matter For. 1. baptisme being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion and 2. The forme wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels and so 3. The Apostles practice being our onely guide for the resolving such difficulties as these whether infants were admittable or no to baptisme the foundation thereof among the Jewes visibly belonging to infants but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christs institution it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age 1600 years after those times to discern Christs institution in this matter but by the words or actions of or some kind of intimation from the Apostles how they understood Christs institution Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally speaking to another matter and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough and defines for the baptizing of infants in those dayes But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words how fair and easy soever there is but one possible method remaining in this as in all other questions of fact as evidently this is whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptisme or no viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter who by succession and tradition the one from the other had the Apostles practice the interpreter of their sense of Christs institution conveyed and handed down unto them and are to us their late posterity the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact and so are in all reason to decide the controversie and give a final conclusion to the debate between us This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere I professe to have laid the most weight upon it according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies and consequently must still insist upon it and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexteritie and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence I shall again resume it and give him a competent series of testimonies some formerly mentioned and now put more into forme of evidence and others added to them so
referre that baptisme is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeking to God as to the oracle to inquire for the whole future life no way prerequiring actual instruction but coming to Christ and the Church to receive it and obey it for the future and that done in some sort by those that are brought when they are not able to come and by the charitie of the Church received there And this farther illustrated as by the manner of children brought by parents to School without either knowledge of letters or choise or so much as wish of instruction so by the manner of Christ's disciples being received by him particularly of Philip Joh. 1.44 who was called and received into discipleship as soon as ever Christ met with him i. e. before he was at all instructed by him and so also by the storie of the Jewes Exo. 19.8 who undertook to obey all the Commandments of God which he should give them which yet were not then but after given them v. 20. and so lastly by the nature of proselytisme which as it is all one with entring into God's covenant and in the Christian sense with coming to Christ and being received to discipleship so t is that which children are known to be capable of not onely by that text Deut. 29.10 but by the custome of baptizing infant proselytes among the Jewes and by Christ's command to suffer them to come unto him whensoever they were thus brought Now to this thus evidenced and much more largely in that place § 26. c. he is pleased to annex some reasons of his dissent For 1. saith he that which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make disciples all nations is in Marke Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature which shewes how they should disciple all nations Now they who are made disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Mat. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this I answer 1. That the words in Marke are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is parallel to a larger discourse such we know S. Markes for the most part is an abbreviation of S. Matthews Gospel as in many others so in this particular some passages indeed there are in S. Mark in this place which are not in S. Matthew as shall a non be shewed but in the particular now before us S. Mark is according to wont more concise there is no mention in him of baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son of the holy Ghost nor consequently of discipling of which that was the ceremonie as in S. Matthew there is 2dly That Christs appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospel in S. Mark doth no way inferre the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to baptisme The phrase signifies to proclaime or promulgate the happy tidings brought into the world by Christ grace and mercy and eternal felicitie to all that should come into him and take his yoke upon them and learn of him And upon the publishing of this to all the world to every creature i. e. to the Gentiles universally as well as the Jewes I suppose t is very possible that many of them should make all speed to come unto Christ and come out at the Apostles preaching they and their whole housholds together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the oracle commanded in Homer and to bring their infant children with them as they used to do that became proselytes to the Jewes and then the Apostles knowing their Masters mind for the receiving of Infants and that as from the institution I suppose them fore-instructed to baptisme receive them all and as many as interposed no voluntary hindrance baptize them and having taken them into the School of Christ make good provision for the future instruction of them as soon as ever they should be capable of it That thus it was I pretend not still to deduce from these words Mat. 28. but to infer from another medium the practice of the Apostles otherwise notified to us All that I am now to manifest is that this passage hath nothing contrary to our hypothesis but is perfectly reconcileable with it and this is done by the scheme thus laid And so t is most visible how no force there is in this first reason of exception The 2d followes that such as the making disciples was Jo. 4.1 such is the making disciples Mat. 28.19 For by the Doctors confession they are all one But that was by preaching as is plain concerning John Mat. 3.1 2 5 6. and concerning the Apostles Mat. 10.5 6 7. Ergo. To this I answer that the account last given is fully satisfactory to this exception also For supposing the Apostles to publish whithersoever they came the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good newes that was come into the world by Christ and the hearers not only to come in themselves but to bring their whole families and so their infant children with them there is no difficulty to imagine that they that had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples yong and old that either came or were brought and so it being granted that they made disciples by preaching preaching being the instrument to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship it is still very visible how children should be discipled and consequently baptized by them baptisme being the constant ceremony of discipling And though I am not able to affirm how it was actually in Johns baptisme yet this I may say that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus it very possibly might be both in Johns and in the Apostles baptizing First for John 't is true indeed that his baptisme attended his preaching yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptized by him but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching For 1. Why might not those that heard it divulge it to others and bring them before they heard him to desire to be baptized and upon their confessing their sins and professing amendment he baptize them 2. Why might not those that heard it or heard of it give that heed of it as to bring all that were dear to them of what age soever by that means to secure them from the wrath to come when Noah preacht repentance to the old world and upon the decree of sending the flood upon the world of the ungodly called all to come into the Ark to him to escape the deluge suppose others besides Noahs family had hearkned to his preaching or suppose he and his sons had had infant children can we imagine they would have left their infants to that certain ruine and not have taken them into the ark with them And Johns baptisme was answerable