this one thing saith he which Christ did not prescribe nor did the Apostles that we find so conceive it yet saith the Doctor Christs prescription must be indisspensably used In reply to this I shall not spend much time to evidence this forme to be Christ's prescription If the expresse words at his parting from the world Mat. 28. Go ye therefore and teach or receive to discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be not a prescription of Christs and if the universall doctrine and continuall practice of the whole Church through all times be not testimonie sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it thus and a competent ground of the indispensable tinuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall mind him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Serapion Tom. 1. p. 204. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is not baptized in the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no baptisme perfect it seems but that And if this will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can produce so expresse grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the Vniversal Church of God through all ages or from any one ancient Father for his denying baptisme to infants What in this place he addes farther from me out of the Practicall Catechisme that I confesse that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the Primitive antient custome to be put under water is a strange misreporting of my words I wonder Mr. T. would be guilty of it The words in the Pract. Cat. are visibly these By Christ's appointment whosoever should be thus received into his familie should be received with this ceremonie of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the Primitive anetint custome to be put under water three times or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it where 1. All that Christ's appointment is affixt to is the receiving all that should be received into Christ's familie with this ceremonie of Water 2. For the manner of that reception by water t is set down disjunctively therein to be dipt three times or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it These are evidently my words no way affirming either the dipping or sprinkling one exclusively to the other to be appointed by Christ but onely the ceremonie of water whether it be by dipping in it or sprinkling with it either of which may be signified by the word used from Christ by S. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize yee What ground the Church of Christ hath had to disuse immersion and in stead of putting the whole body under water only to dip the face or sprinkle it with water I shall not now discourse all that I have to do in this place being to vindicate my self that I have no way affirmed the putting under water used by the Primitive Church to be appointed by Christ exclusively to sprinkling and that I hope I have already done by the exact reciting of my words which had been so much misreported by him And so I have done with his 24th Chapter For as to the objection against Mr. M. drawn from his covenanting to performe the worship of God according to Gods word and admiring that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot farther then the Lord hath commanded and yet in point of infant baptisme following the Talmud I that am farre from Mr. M. his perswasions as well as practices am not sure bound to give answer for him Aetatem habet let him answer for himself and when he doth so 't were not amiss he would consider whether Episcopal government stand not on as firme a basis in the Church of God as Infant baptisme is by him vouched to do CHAP. II. Of Christ's words Mat. 28.19 Sect. 1. The Doctors pretended concessions examined Christ's institution of baptisme not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time HIS 25. Chapter is a view of my interpretation of Mat. 28.19 which lyes thus Goe and disciple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples receive into discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name c. teaching them c. thereby evidencing that the making or receiving disciples not supposing any precedent instruction but looking wholly on it as subsequent can no way exclude the Christians infants from baptisme when they are thus brought to the Church to be entred into the School of Christ and undertaken for that they shall learn when they come to years And to this a long proemial answer he hath of many lines which begins thus Though I conceive Dr. H. to ascribe more power to the Canons of the Prelates about the Sacraments then is meet being one who hath written in defence of the Common prayer Book yet by this allegation of Mat. 28.19 he seems tacitely to yield that if the words there include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptisme although he say § 96. I do not believe or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessarily inferre though it do as little deny that infants are to be baptized Before I proceed to that which followes 't is not amiss to view in passing how many incongruities are here amass't together in these few words For whereas my having written in defence of the Common Prayer Book is made use of as an evidence to inferre that I ascribe more to the Canons of Prelates then is meet it is certain 1. that the Common Prayer book stands not by the Canons of the Prelates but by Act of Parliament and consequently if I had been guilty of a confest partiality to the Common Prayer book yet were this no evidence of my ascribing any thing therefore sure not more then is meet or too much to the Canons of Prelates 2dly It never yet appeared that by writing in defence of the Common Prayer book I offended at all therefore surely not about either much less against both the Sacraments 3ly The making my defence of the Common Prayer book written long ago a proof that I oftend now in somewhat else viz. in attributing too much to the Canons of the Bishop is 1 the connecting together things that are most disparate concluding quidlibet ex quolibet and 2dly a plain begging of the question for such certainly it is in respect of him with whom he disputes and so must be till he shall offer proof that I have erred in that defence The same as if he should conclude that he who hath once written the truth were obliged the next time to swerve from it So when he mentions my allegation of Mat. 28.19 the word allegation must signifie that I produce and so allege that text as a proof of my position But this he knows I do not But only suppose the
by their affirmations If he be I wonder why the uniforme consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevaile with him If he be not why doth he mention this as usefull in this matter But then 2dly It must be adverted that this one containing two quaestions in it 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptisme were a Jewish custome 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this rite of baptizing of Christians The former of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of it self evident without farther probation supposing onely that the Fathers testified that to be Christ's institution of baptisme which we find to have been thus agreeable to the practice customary among the Jews As for example if it were made matter of doubt or question whether Christ derived the Censures of his Church from the Jews It will sure be a sufficient answer to the question if wee shall first find in the Jewish writers their customes of Excommunication and then from the Christian writers find the like records of the Christian custome from the institution of Christ and the practice of his Apostles 〈◊〉 down unto us For those two things being done what need we any Father's assistance or guidance to secure us that Christ derived and lightly changed this custome of Ecclesiasticall censures in his Church from what he found in the Jewish Sanhedrim In this matter 't is easy and obvious to object as M. T. here doth about baptisme that excommunication was a custome among other nations as well as the Jews the description of it among the Druids in Cesar's Commentaries being so famous and notorious to every man which yet will not sure prevaile with any reasonable man or make it necessary to produce the testimonies whether of Scriptures or Fathers that Christ took it not from the Druids but the Jewes The like might be instanced again in the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in the Jews postcoenium from which it is by light change deduced And so it is in this matter of baptisme the Jewish custome of baptizing not onely proselytes and their children but the Jewish natives I thought necessary to clear from the most competent witnesses of their customes the Talmud Gemara and Maimonides the soberest of their writers And so likewise in the second place the practice of the Christian Church as it is from Christ and his Apostles deduced and applied particularly to the Resolution of our Quaere to the baptizing of Infants I have cleared also from some footsteps of it in the Scripture it self and from the concordant testimony of the Fathers of the Church And having cleared these two particulars wherein all the difficulty consisted I need not sure inquire of the opinion of antiquity for the dependence betwixt these two or the derivation of one of them from the other the very lineaments and features acknowledging and owning this progenie to have come forth from that stock this stream to have been derived from that fountain without any testimonials to certifie it And yet 3dly After all this I demand whether Christ's words to Nicodemus Joh. 3. mentioned § 18. be not an evidence from Scripture it self of this very matter the derivation of the Christian from the Jewish baptisme when upon Christs discourse on that subject that except a man be regenerate of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God and on occasion of Nicodemus's objection against this v. 9. Iesus answered Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things discernibly intimating that this his institution of baptisme was so agreeable to the Iewish customes of initiating and receiving into the Covenant by baptisme that a Rabbi among the Iews could not reasonably be imagined to be ignorant of it And if the baptisme of the Iews had as Mr. T. cites it out of Grotius its first original from the memorie of the deluge purging away the sins of the world then sure that place of S. Peter which affirms the Christian baptisme to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype or transcript of Noah's deluge is an express testimony of it also And this I hope might be a competent account of this matter And yet after all this it is also clear that the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Iews witness Gregory Nazianzen Or. 39. Seeing saith he it is the feast of Christ's baptisme let us philosophize discourse exactly of the difference of baptismes then after this preface entring on the discourse he thus begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses saith he baptized but in water and before this in the cloud and in the sea And then making that with S. Paul a type of the Christian baptisme he proceeds to Iohn's baptisme which saith he differed from the Mosaical in that it added Repentance to water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn also baptized but not Iudaically So before him Macarius Hom. 32. having mentioned the circumcision which was under the Law foresignifying the true circumcision of the heart annexes thereto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the baptisme of the Law which saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a figure of true things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there that washed the body but here the baptisme of the holy Ghost and of fire purgeth and washeth the polluted mind and so goes on to the parallel betwixt the legall Priest and Christ making the same accord betwixt the one and the other pair So Hom. 47. p. 509. speaking of things under the Law he first mentions the glory of Moses face a type of the true glory under the Gospel 2. Circumcision a type of that of the heart 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them there is baptisme cleansing or sanctifying the flesh but with us the baptisme of the holy Spirit and of fire that which John preached The same is intimated again but not so explicitely set down Hom. 26. p. 349. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter succeeded Moses having the New Church of Christ and the true Priesthood committed to him for now is the baptisme of fire and the Spirit and a kind of circumcision placed in the heart where it seems the Iewish baptisme was the figure of the Christian as the Jâ—wish priesthood of the Christian and the Jewish circumcision of the circumcision in the heart So in Athanasius's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qu 103. numbring up seven sorts of Baptisme the first even now mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that of the flood for the cutting off of sin the second that of Moses in passing the Red sea which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurative the third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legall baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Hebrews had whereby every unclean person so is every one by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was baptized in water had his
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
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
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
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