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
of the Vniversal Church for 1600 years received as the Fathers with one consent testifie from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself having this force and authority over every meek son of the Church that he may not without incurring God's displeasure oppugne or contemne it And so by this means there is much more performed then was needful if Mr. T. had been the onely adversary foreseen even that which may convince all sorts of opposers and disputers in this matter from Peter de Bruce and Henry his Scholar and the Petrobusiani and Henriciani that sprang from them to Nicholas Storck and John Munzer Melchior Rinck Balthazar Habmaier Michael Satelar the Switzers and so on to Michael Hofman the skinner in the Low Countries to Vbbo and Menno of Friseland and Theodorick Vbbo's son and all their followers which either then lived and set up in Germany or are now revived or copied out among us This one deduction of this practice of baptizing Infants from the Apostles if it be solid being abundantly sufficient to make an end of all controversies of this kind It being highly unreasonable that an institution of Christ's such as each Sacrament is should be judged of by any other rule whether the phansies or reasons of men but either the words wherein the institution is set down or when they as they are recorded in the Scripture come not home to the deciding of the controversie by the records of the practice whether of Christ or because he baptized not himself of the Apostles however conserved or made known unto us In a word then the customary baptisme among the Jews being first laid onely as the basis and foundation which as I said must be observed to differ from the whole building being indeed onely the first and most imperfect part of it and evidently brought home and applied to every branch of the Christian baptisme I desire Mr. T. will permit the baptisme of our infants to deduce and evidence it self from the considerations which are thereunto annexed both negative and positive and then make triall how he shall be able to demolish that structure which is thus founded and supported Meanwhile I shall now consider the severals of his exceptions having premised thus much in generall Sect. 3. The Jewes Baptisme of natives as well as proselytes Testimonies of their writers in proof thereof Baptisme among the heathens taken from the Jewes Among both from Noahs flood The derivation of Christian from Jewish Baptisme how manifested Christs answer to Nicodemus Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the deluge Gr. Nazianzen's and Macarius's testimonies The Fathers meaning in affirming the Christians baptisme to be in stead of Circumcision The Lords Supper founded in the Jewes Postcoenium yet in stead of their Passeover AND first he will abbreviate and give the Reader the substance of my proof which he conceives to be this that the Jewes were wont when they admitted proselytes to baptize them and their children Here again at the entrance I must enterpose that his Epitome hath done some injurie to the Book left out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the Native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their children This must be here taken notice of because Mr. T. makes haste to assume the contrary that the Jewes baptized not Iewes by nature p. 306. that after the baptisme Exo. 19.10 the Iews did not baptize Iewes but onely proselytes p. 307. and so makes a shift to conclude that by my arguing the children of those that were baptized in infancie ought not to be baptized and so that no infant of Christian race or descended from Christian ancestors is now to be baptized p. 308. no infants but at the first conversion of the parent p. 309. And this I was many moneths before the publication of his book warned to expect from Mr. T. as an irresistible answer to my way of defending infant baptisme mentioned by him in the pulpit as ready to be publisht that by deducing the baptisme of Christians from the Jewish custome of baptizing of proselytes I had excluded all the children of Christian ancestors from our baptisme But as this was then a great surprise to me who knew that I had cleared that Iudaical baptisme to belong to the children of all native Iewes as well as of proselytes so now I could not but wonder to find there was so perfect truth in that relation which I had received and have no more to say but to desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon that Treatise and informe himself whether I have not as punctually deduced from the Iewish writers the customary baptisme of native Iewish infants as I have done the baptisme of proselytes and their children and indeed mentioned the former as the original from which the latter was to be transcribed and so as the foundation and groundwork of that other T is unreasonable to recite here what is there so visible yet because I see it is not taken notice of but the contrary assumed for granted and the chief weight of his 24th Chapter laid upon that supposition there is nothing left me to do in this matter but to transcribe my words from that 6th § which are expressely these First then Baptisme or washing of the whole body was a Iewish solemnity by which the native Iewes were entred into the covenant of God made with them by Moses so saith the Talmud tr Repud Israel or the Israelites do not enter into covenant but by these three things by circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by baptizing and by peace offering So in Gemara ad tit Cherithoth c. 2. your fathers i. e. the Iewes of old time did not enter into the covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by circumcision and baptisme and in Iabimoth c. 4. Rabbi Ioshua said we find of our mother that they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not circumcised so Maimonides tit Isuribia c. 13. By three things the Israelites entred into the covenant by circumcision baptisme and sacrifice and soon after what was done to you to the Iewes in universum ye were initiated into the Covenant by circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and baptisme and sacrifice All these Testimonies there thus set down and then how could I conclude lesse then there I do that nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them i. e. by the Jewish writings of the greatest authority among them the Talmud Gemara and Maimonides If this were not sufficient then follows § 11. as a third thing observable in this baptisme among the Jewes that the baptisme of the natives was the pattern by which the baptisme of proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded and this made evident by the arguing and determining the question in the Gemara tit Jabimoth c. 4. after this manner Of him that was circumcised and not baptized Rabbi Eliezer said that he was a Proselyte because said he we
were the change of the mode not changing the sense in this matter which was the cause why I followed the English rendring and made no change in that translation As for his 3d instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. which he saith is manifestly put in the preter tense for the present I cannot be convinced of it The context will well bear the preter tense yet continued no Law of Christ hath or doth thus inslave her or the preter tense simply she by entring the bonds of marriage hath not thus inslaved her self that she should think her self bound to do any thing contrarie to her religion in order to continuing with her husband As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3.18 I wonder it could be thought fit to be produced to the prejudice of the preter sense when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 already which is present is an evident proof of the preter sense and if it be continued as well as past he that hath been condemned remaining still under condemnation this is still perfectly agreeable to my notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbeliever oft hath been and daily is converted and brought to baptisme by the believer And so much for all the grounds of his first exception and his two answers to my inference from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 3. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman defended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latine author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16 1 Pet. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 68. My proof of the interpretation from the context THE 2d concernes the rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I read by the woman but he to the woman as to is a note of the dative case and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redundant And the reason saith he that he still adheres to his way is be because this seems to him the fairest easiest and most congruous sense thus to expound it The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow For though he be an unbeliever and in himself unsanctified yet in or to his wife he is as if he were sanctified it 's all one in respect of conjugal use as if be were sanctified To this reason I have many things to answer 1. That the very rendring it is the begging the question which is onely this in this matter whether this be the fairest easiest and most congruous sense and must not be here supposed when it should be proved 2dly That if it were the fairest sense yet if the words bear it not it must not be affixt to them if it be more capable of another and whether they will bear it or no is the question again on occasion of which this inquiry is made into the use of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to suppose again that it will signifie to in the dative sense before it is proved it will is a second begging the question a paralogisme in stead of a reason 3dly The fairenesse of the sense simply taken is not attempted to be proved which yet doth stand in great need of it For beside the redundance or unusual sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some other parts of the rendring are none of the fairest As 1. the believer may abide as if it were simply free to abide or not abide whereas in the present case when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least if not commanded and that is more then a liberty that he may To him the Apostle saith and his sayings have sure authority with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him not put away Nay the interdict of Christ belonging to all but that one case of fornication Mat. 5. and Mat. 19. it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever that is guilty of no more but unbeliefe And accordingly the preface 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for the rest or for the other questions v. 1.6.8.10 say I not the Lord must be applied not to the immediate consequents of the believers not putting away the unbeliever that will stay with him for that had been determined by Christ in the Negative but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart i. e. if the unbeliever wlll not dwell with the believer except the believer forsake his or her religion what shall be done then And to that the Apostles counsel is that mariage inslaves not the believer so far All which is a competent prejudice to that part of Mr. T. his sense The believer may abide For if that be it even when the unbeliever is willing to abide then she may also depart if she rather choose which will be found contrary to Christ's precept and so may not be admitted 2dly In this rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is englished not by is or hath been sanctified but by is as if he were sanctified which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not truely in any respect sanctified and then sure this will be a strange construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbeliever is not sanctified but is as if he were sanctified when yet literally it must be rendred the unbeliever hath been or to gratifie Mr. T. is or continues to be sanctified For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation he is sanctified by he is not for so assuredly he is not if he onely be as if he were With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbeliefe and this sense inforced by the interrogation v. 16. For what knowest thou ô woman whether thou shalt save the man c. and by S. Peters aphorisme of daily observation 1 Pet. 3.1 the husband that obeyes not the word i. e. the unbeliever may probably be gained by the conversation of the wife and then let him impartially passe judgement which is the fairest and easiest rendring His 2d reason is because though the Dr. deny it yet saith he I averre that the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to as a sign of the dative case is found more then once in the New Testament The truth of this I must now examine by the proofs offered for the affirmation And his first proofe is from Mat. 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This saith he cannot be eluded because the same speech is Mar. 9.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendred by Beza in the former place fecerunt ei they did to him 2. Whereas the Doctor saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon him or against him It had been meet the Doctor should have given one instance at least of such construction which saith he I do not
was necessary the shewing the lawfulness being sufficient and the example of circumcision being competent for the disproving the pretensions of the Antipaedobaptist and so ex abundanti an act of Supererogatory probation in relation to Mr. T. The same is appliable in some degree to the other waies of probation which he supposeth to be relinquisht by me especially to that of Christ's behaviour to little children commanding to suffer them to come unto him who yet were no otherwise able to come then as they were brought and as now they come to the font for baptisme and embracing and laying on his hands and blessing them But this is competently set down and the force of it how far t is argumentative § 22. Onely I now adde that that other place of Mat. 18.6 where Jesus speaking of little children useth these words who so offendeth one of these little ones that believe in me it were good for him that a Milstone c. may tend much to give us the full importance and signification both of their coming to Christ and of his commanding not to forbid them such as will neerly concern every Antipaedobaptist to take notice of For as in other places of the New Testament the coming unto God and Christ is believing on him seeking to receive benefit from him as He that cometh to me shall never hunger and Come unto me all ye that are weary and If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink so it seems by this place that that coming of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Infants for so they are called in the Parallel place Luk. 9.47 which they were capable of by the help of their parents or friends is styled by Christ the childrens believing and so far imputed to them as that upon that account the sentence is very severe upon those that shall scandalize them repulse or discourage or any way hinder them in this their progress to Christ though it be but in the armes of other men How fitly this is applicable to the state of Infants in respect of the guilt of original sin under which they are born and for the remission of which and not onely for the entring into the Kingdome of Heaven the Fathers defined against the Pelagians that baptisme was necessary for them I shall not need here to inlarge having formerly spoken to that head Onely it may not be amiss here to advert that it was as reasonable for the children to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers who yet had no faith of their own but onely of their parents c. to bring them to Christ as for the same children to be accounted sinners as undoubtedly they are which yet never committed any act of sin which made S. Augustine De verb Apost Serm 4. say Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infantes God forbid that I should say that Infants are not believers Credit in altero qui peccavit in altero He believes by another who sinned by another dicitur Credit valet inter fideles baptizatos computatur the Susceptors say he believes and so he is reputed among the baptized believers And this reputative faith the more reasonably accepted by the Church it being moreover evident by the baptisme of Simon Magus and of all hypocrites that 't is the profession of faith and not the possession of it which is required as the qualification which authorizes the Church to admit them to baptisme and that being performed by the Infants proxies in his name the Church after the forementioned example of Christ may very lawfully accept it of those who can performe no other in lieu of a personal profession Meanwhile this passage of Christ concerning children though it be a certain evidence again against the Antipaedobaptist as hath been shewed and I need no more then this one proof if I were destitute of all others to refute his pretensions yet because it contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptizing infants therefore I put it in the rank of the more imperfect probations in comparison with that other way of probation which I conceive deduceth and concludeth the whole matter more intirely though as t is evident § 22. this was neither waved nor relinquisht by me To this if I shall now adde that it was my design in that resolution of the Quaere to insist more largely on that way of probation which I discerned to be lesse considered or insisted on by others and yet to have perfect evidence in it if it were duely explained and improved as it was capable and on the same account thought I might spare to multiply words where others had often inlarged and therefore said but little of those common arguments or heads of probation and yet sufficient to testifie my neither waving nor relinquishing them It will then abundantly appear how little I deserved Mr. T. his good words and how justly I renounce that title to ingenuity which he bestowes upon me being better pleased with his animadversions on my dotages as he after phraseth it then these his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his liberalities to me by which he designed advantage to himself Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptisme depending on the positive part of the probation The severall sorts of Anabaptists Testimonies the onely proof of Institutions BEfore I proceed I must desire the Reader to consider two things 1. That the Jewish baptisme is not by me set up as the competent proof but onely as the ground or foundation which taken by its self is always very imperfect in respect of the whole fabrick or building 2. That the perfect proof being set down to consist of two parts a negative and a positive the first onely shewing the no incongruity or unlawfulness of baptizing Infants and the second adding thereto duty and obligation these two must in all reason remain conjoyned in our discourse and not be so severed or considered asunder as if I thought the former way of negative probation sufficient to do the whole work without the assistance of the latter This I needed not have said in relation to Mr. T. For the bare negative consideration that there is nothing in the pattern whence Christs baptisme is copied out nothing in the copie it self as far as Christ's words in the Gospel or the Apostles practice extend c. is perfectly sufficient to refute an antipaedobaptist such as he professeth to be who undertakes to shew the baptizing of Infants to be unlawfull but cannot pretend to shew it by any other way but by producing some either law or practice of Christ or his Apostles to the contrary which he must be concluded unable to do if my Negative stand inviolate But I thus interpose and do it thus early because the positive part being indeed the principal especially when it is also added to the negative doth not onely demonstrate it lawfull but duty to offer and receive our Infants to baptisme the judgement and practice