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
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
t is manifest it must be understood of the infant uncapable children and none else T is true that Mr. T. also excepteth against the paraphrasing of holy by admitted to baptisme affirming this to be a sense of the word no where else found But this I hope I have cleared already both from the usage of the word among the Jewish and first Christian writers and might farther do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Rom. 1.17 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy 1 Cor. 1.2 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy 2 Cor. 1.1 and Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that style But I shall need adde no more of that to what hath been already so largely said And the parts of my interpretation being thus cleared that their children were their babes or infants and their being holy their being baptized t is sure I cannot be concerned in his conclusion that he never read or heard any exposition antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any I hope now he will alter his mind and acknowledge that it was his own fault that this interpretation seemed so new and strange to him As for the one place of S. Augustine produced by him it should be l. 2. de Pecc Mer. remiss c. 26. to the seeming prejudice of this interpretation Ac per hoc illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omnino non pertinet it will easily be reconciled to it if we but mark what question it is that there he speaks of even that which he had then in hand viz. whether baptisme were necessary to remission of sinnes and entring the kingdome of heaven That this was the question in hand appeareth by the words immediately precedent which are these sanctificatio Catechumenâ— si non fuerit baptizatâ—â— non ei valet ad inâ—randum regnum coelorum aut ad peccatorum remissionem The sanctification of a Catechumenus what that is he had mentioned before Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands of which we sometimes read in the antients as hath elsewhere been shewed profits him not for the entring the kingdome of heaven or obteining remission of sins unless he be baptized And therefore that sanctification of whatsoever kind it is viz. if it be without baptisme belongs not saith he to the question then in hand concerning baptisme and the original and pardon of sin Here then I suppose is Saint Augustines meaning The adversaries with whom he disputes the Pelagians to maintain the no necessity of baptizing infants for the remission of sinnes made use of that text and concluded from it the sanctitie of the Christian infant birth before and without baptisme To this he answers without any strict examination of the importance of that text that whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speakes of except it be that of baptisme it cannot avail to the remission of sinnes c. Some improper kind of sanctification saith he he may confesse secundum quendam modum in him that is not yet baptized but that without baptisme non valet ad intrandum is not of force for entring into the kingdome of heaven and therefore whatsoever sanctification that is viz. Whatsoever without baptisme it belongs not to his question then before him and so the Apostles words can have no force against him This I suppose then to be in brief S. Augustines meaning in that place that t is not the holinesse of the Christian infants birth but of their baptisme which stands them in stead toward the kingdome of heaven And then that as it is no evidence on my side that he interpreted that place to the Cor. as I interpret it so it affirmes nothing to the contrary but leaves it in medio having his advantages other wayes against the disputers However for the substance his accord with us is evident and his conclusion firme both in that place and l. 3. de Pecc mer. Remiss c. 12. Illud sine dubitatione tenendum quaecunque illa sanctificatio sit non valere ad Christianos faciendos atque ad dimittenda peccata nisi Christiana atque Ecclesiasticâ institutione Sacramentis â—ffici 〈◊〉 fideleâ— It is to be held without doubting that whatsoever that sanctification be it availes not to the making them Christians and to the obteining remission of sins unlesse by Christian and Ecclesiastical institution and by the Sacraments they be made faithfull This is all that I can seasonably return for the vindicating of my paraphrase It would be too immoderate an excursion to take notice of all his pretended objections to the former part of it which concerns the cohabiting of the believer with the unbeliever which I assure Mr. T. were easy fully to answer and shew his mistakes in each particular if the matter of our present dispute did require or would well bear a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that length or if I thought it in the least degree usefull to the reader that I should farther explain the grounds of my paraphrase then as they are already laid before him Sect. 31. c. Yet because the reasons which I there tendred for the paraphrase taken from the notations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to but by the wife and by the plain consequents what knowest thou ô wife whether thou shalt save thy husband are by Mr. T. examined with an endeavour to confute them and so to overthrow the whole paraphrase it may perhaps be thought usefull that I should take a view of those his indeavors and therefore that I shall now proceed to do and shall there meet with by the way what was most material in his former exceptions against my paraphrase Sect. 2. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified defended S. Hieromes testimonie Enallages must not be made use of without necessity No advantage from it here Feigned instances of Enallage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FIrst then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kind of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an
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
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
as to inferre an uniforme concordant tradition of all the ages of the Church of Christ even since the Apostles times unto this day for the receiving infants to baptisme and that shall be the last part of this Replie to Mr. T. and the Antipadobaptist whose pretensions are the contrary that infants must not be thus admitted Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptisme and the Apostolicalness thereof FIrst then I begin with the words of the Apostle so long insisted on and vindicated from Mr. T. his exceptions and by so antient a writer as Tertullian c. applyed to this matter And that first Epistle to the Corinthians being written at the end of his three years stay in Asia Act. 20.31 i. e. An. Chr. 54. I shall there place my first testimonie In the middle of the first Centurie S. Paul delivered these words Now are your children holy i. e. your children new-born as appears by the context and Tertullian are sanctified as that signifies baptized in the style of the New Testament and the antient Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are vouchsafed the good things that come by baptisme saith the Author of the Respons ad Orthod whether that were Justine the Martyr who suffered Anno 163. or another very antient writer under that name And this of that Apostle is an evidence of the practice of the first or Apostolical age soon after Christ and is not contradicted by any that wrote in that age In the next age after the Apostles flourished S. Irenaeus said to be martyred at Lyons the seate of his Bishoprick the 5 t of Severus An. Chr. 197. he had been an auditor of Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna styled by that Church an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor and is by S. Hierome lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times and by Tertullian as a most accurate searcher of all doctrines and so is a most competent witnesse of the Apostolical doctrine and practice and thus he speaks l. 2. advers har c. 38. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Christ came to save all by himself all I say who are born again unto God by him Infants and little ones and children and young men and older men where it is evidently his affirmation that infants expressely are by Christ regenerate unto God and that must be in baptisme that laver of regeneration and so they are not in his opinion excluded from baptisme And so this is a testimonie of the second Century not found or praetended to be contradicted by any other of that age Immediately after Irenaeus followed Tertullian in the end of the 2d and beginning of the 3d Century a man of great learning and a diligent observer and recorder of the customes and practices of the most antient Church And he lib. de Animâ c. 39. affirmes it from the Apostle ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either parent is sanctified or believer i. e. baptized the children that are born from them are holy and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ both by praerogative of their seed and by the discipline of the institution i. e. as hath been shewed by baptisme adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.4 that his meaning was that the children of believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis and evidencing what he means thereby by the following words of Christ's definition Joh. 3. Vnlesse a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdome of God i. e. non erit sanctus shall not be holy where baptisme is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity and more he addes in the beginning of the next chapter to the same purpose And so he is a competent witnesse for the beginning of that third age and is not found contradicted by any other passage in his works or by any of his time But on the contrary Origen who died at Tyre An. Chr. 254. hath three most irrefragable testimonies for it first on Luke Hom. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum little ones are baptized into the remission of sins and quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulò autè diximus Nullus mundus à sorde c. How can the account of baptizing little ones bold but according to that which before was said none is clean from pollution no not if he be but a day old and per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli by the sacrament of baptisme the pollutions of our birth are put off and therefore little ones are baptized Secondly on Leviticus Hom. 8. Requiratur quid causae est cum baptisma Ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari Let it be considered what the cause is when the baptisme of the Church is given for the remission of sins that baptisme should according to the observation or custome of the Church be given to little ones Thirdly on the Epistle to the Romans l. 5. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare the Church hath received tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme to little ones also such little ones still as by the former words appears as those of a day old and the like And so here is a full concord of testimonies both for the practice of the Church and tradition received from the Apostles for baptizing of infants and so is a farther evidence of the doctrine of the third age not contradicted by any of that time About the same time or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the Acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very antient and learned Author He therefore in his 7. chap of Eccles Hierarch proposeth the question as that which may seem to profane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximus his Scholiast adding to the same head also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others in their stead pronounce the abrenunoiations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God
THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS REVIEVVED and DEFENDED from the Exceptions OF Mr. TOMBES In his three last CHAPTERS of his Book Intituled ANTIPEDOBAPTISME By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy lane 1655. THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS Reviewed and Defended The Introduction HAving by Gods help past through many stadia in these agones and therein paid some degree of obedience to the precept of Christ Mat. 5.41 and withall to S. Peters directions of rendring an account of the Faith which is in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to him that most unnecessarily requires it There is yet remaining one matter of discourse wherein some seeming ingagement lyes upon me occasioned by the Resolution of the 4th Quaere concerning Infant Baptisme For to this Mr. Jo Tombes hath offered some answers in the three last Chapters of his Book intitled Antipaedobaptism What I have thought meet to return to these might I supposed have been not unfitly annexed by way of appendage to that of Festivals the treatises of Festivals and Infant Baptisme being so neerly conjoyned in the first draught or monogramme that the defence of them which may in some degree passe for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought incongruity to be contrived into the same table also But the length of this Answer hath disswaded that and the desire that the Reader may have no taskes imposed on him but by his own choice hath advised the publishing this by it self with some hope that this may conclude his trouble and that this new year may not bring me so many occasions of such contests as the last hath done CHAP. I. Of Baptisme among the Jewes Sect. I. Probations more and less perfect The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptisme As also of Christ's reception of children Childrens coming and believing Mat. 18. Children sinners THe foundation of Mr. Tombes's returns to me he is pleased to lay in some words which he hath recited out of § 23. of my Resolution of the 4th Quaere where I say that there is no need of laying much weight on this or any the like more imperfect wayes of probation the whole fabrick being sufficiently supported and built on this basis the customary baptismes among the Jewes and that discernible to be so if we consider it first negatively then positively To this he begins his Reply with these words I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect wayes of proving Infant Baptisme viz. the example of circumcision Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold Act. 16.33 Christs reception of little children Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.16 and doubt not to shew his own to be no better then those he relinquisheth To this introduction of his I shall make some Reply in a generall reflexion on the Treatise which he undertakes to answer and begin with disclaiming his good words and approbation of my ingenuity assuring him that he is wholly mistaken in these his first lines and that I do in no wise relinquish those wayes of probation by him taken notice of nor shall so far despise the authority and aides of the ancient Church writers who have made use of them as wholly to neglect the force and virtue of them And I thought it had been to him visible that I have made my advantage of every one of them § 20 21 22. though I do verily think the foundation of this practice is more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptisme which belonged to all both Jews and proselytes children females as well as males whereas circumcision belonging to males onely was in that and some other respects a less perfect basis of it Meanwhile for the clearing of this whole matter it must be remembred that probations are of two sorts either less or more perfect those I call less perfect which though they have full force in them as far as they are used yet are not of so large an extent as to conclude the whole matter in debate which others that are more perfect may be able to do I shall apply this to the matter before us The instituting of the Sacrament of circumcision among the Jewes and the express command of God that the children of eight daies old should by this rite be received into Covenant is an irrefragable evidence that those may be capable of receiving a Sacrament who have not attained to years of understanding the nature of it that children may be received into Covenant with God though they are not personally able to undertake or performe the condition of it and then that argument will so far be applicable to Paedobaptisme as to evidence the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by this analogie with God's institution among the Jewes and so certainly invalidate all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. Tombes drawn from the incapacity of Infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of Infants it is yet evident to be the appointment of God that every Infant of 8. days old should be circumcised Gen. 17.12 and the threatning of God denounced against them as transgressors in case it be neglected The uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant v. 14. And this the rather because the Apostle compares baptisme of Christians with circumcision Col. 2.11.12 In whom ye are circumcised buried with Christ in baptisme Isidor Pelusiote l. 1. Ep. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews used circumcision in stead of baptisme whereupon S. Epiphanius styles Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great circumcision and S. Augustine to them that require a divine authority whereby to prove the baptisme of Infants renders this of the Jewish circumcision ex quâ veraciter conjiciatur quid valeret in parvulis Sacramentum Baptismi whereby true judgement may be made what force the Sacrament of Baptisme may have in Infants And in like manner Isidore l. 1. Ep. 125. whereupon consideration of the Angel coming to kill Moses because of the childs not being circumcised he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us make haste to baptize our children Yet because what is thus evidenced to be lawfull and agreeable to divine appointment in the old Testament is not thereby presently proved necessary under the New Christ might otherwise have ordained if he had pleased and from his ordinance onely as that was understood by his Apostles and by them delivered to the Church the necessity of our obedience and so of Baptizing Infants is completely deduced therefore it is that I mentioned this as a more imperfect way of probation in respect of the intire conclusion which I undertook to make viz. not onely the lawfulness but the duty and obligation that lies upon us to bring our Infants to Baptisme which by the way was much more then
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
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
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.
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
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
later of him that by baptisme is initiated and matriculated into Christ And to this agrees perfectly that of Origen of the same age a very few years after Tertullian speaking of the Apostles from whom saith he the Church received by tradition that infants should be baptized Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent They to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries or Sacraments were committed knew that there are in all the connatural pollutions of sin which ought to be washt away by water and the spirit giving us to understand what uncleanness and holyness it is that children are capable of the uncleanness of their birth from Adam and the cleanness or sanctity of Christian baptisme So Athanasius Quaest ad Antioch 114. or whosoever it is under the name of that antient Father where the salvation of the baptized infants is concluded by him upon force of those two texts Suffer little children to come unto me and now are your children holy whereto he there sets parallel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the baptized infants of believers as the plain paraphrase of the Apostles words To these I farther adde another passage of Cyprian together with the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him in their Epistle to Fidus where speaking of the baptisme of infants and expressely forbidding that any such should be hindred or kept from it he brings for proof of it the words of S. Peter that the Lord had said unto him that he should count none common or unclean where it appears what was that Holy Fathers notion of common or unclean such as might be refused baptisme and consequently they which are not such but on the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clean or holy and such saith Paul here are the believers children are to be admitted thither Upon which words of S. Cyprian S. Augustine speaking saith he made no new decree but kept most firme the faith of the Church mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis coepiscopis censuit and he and his fellow Bishops resolved that a child might duely be baptized as soon as born So S. Chrysostome in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that were to be baptized speaking of the several titles of baptisme applies unto it that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 6.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ye are washed but ye are sanctified and again of those that were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture pronounces them not onely made clean but just and holy also So Gregorie Nyssene in like manner Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. speaking of him that deferres baptisme to old age saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he is sanctified indeed i. e. baptized but brings in no profit to God And Comm in Is l. 1. Or. 1. speaking of baptisme again and the sufficiency to wash away sin he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But they are once sanctified i. e. baptized But I need no more such like suffrages This I have both there §§ 34 35 36 37. and here thus largely deduced because in this one matter all the difficulty consists and if it be once granted that this is the meaning of Now are your children holy then here is an evidence undenyable of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants and consequently an irrefragable testimonie of their sense of Christs institution including not excluding infants And so this is a short and clear way of preventing all Mr. T. his indevours and pains so largely taken to invalidate my conclusion from this place of the Apostle and I need not now be farther sollicitous for my paraphrase on all those 3. verses wherein he would fain find out some excesses and defects some insertions and omissions If such there were as I doubt not to evidence there are none it would be little for his advantage as long as the interpretation of the last words but now are they i. e. your children holy appears to be this but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of baptisme for this one part of that verse concludes all that I pretend or he oppugneth And this I hope is now cleared to be no singular interpretation of mine but that which beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rational importance of the Context concluding it the style of Scripture and the uniforme attestation of the antientest writers assign to it so that there can be no reason for doubting in it Yet because this is one of the exuberancies objected to my paraphrase and the onely one which I can without impertinence take notice of that the term young children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which saith he is not restrained to infancie I shall briefely remove this exception 1. By the authority of Tertullian just now produced who interpreted it of their infant children as appeared both by the express words sanctos procreari and the caeterum immundi nascerentur and by the occasion of that discourse in that place which was the immunda nativitas ethnicorum the unclean birth of heathens children and the unlawfulnesse of baptizing them unlesse one of the parents were Christian To which may be added also Nazianzens phrase forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sanctified from infancie for so sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child before or soon after birth saith Hesychius and Aristophanes the Grammarian cited by Eustathius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child new born which in all probability referres to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children 2dly T is as manifest by the general doctrine of the Fathers when they speak of the faith of parents profiting their children meaning alwaies their infant children brought to baptisme by the faith of their parents before they are personally capable of having faith themselves 3dly By the inconveniences which must follow in case it be interpreted of any other but infant children For suposing them come to years of understanding and capacity they shall then either be supposed to have received the faith or to remain in infidelity If they have received the faith then be baptized t is evident that this benefit comes not to them upon any consideration of the faith of the parent but upon their own personal profession and consequently that these cannot be spoken of by the Apostle in that place where he makes the sanctification or baptisme of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever and as Tertullian saith patropinium a plea to move the beleever not to depart But if they have lived to years and not received the faith t is then certain that they may not be baptized at all And so
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 a ground whereby children may be deemed capable of this relative holynesse which is to be had by baptisme though as yet they are not capable for want of understanding of inherent holynesse Lastly when he mentions it as an idiome of Scripture to call them holy who are cleansed purified expiated speaking of those legal lustrations or purifications this gives an account of S. Pauls using the word in the Christian Church for the Christian lustration purification expiation i. e. for baptisme And by the way it appears by S. Hierome that he useth promiscuously sancti and sanctificati and so that gives us authority to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the end of the verse in the same sense in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the beginning for those that are brought and received to baptisme All which are farre enough fom serving any of Mr. T. his interests and might have inclined him to have omitted that testimonie of S. Hieromes if he had more maturely considered of it Nay 3. I must adde that Mr. T. his rendring of candidati and designati sanctitatis and candidati fidei by being in designation of being believers and baptized intended to be holy by the parents to be bred up to the faith and so baptized is a most groundlesse inconvenient interpretation For if by holynesse and faith be meant inherent holynesse and faith then baptisme it self is the ceremony of consecrating and designing them to this and so precedent to that holynesse not subsequent to it as Mr. T. sets it and accordingly in the Church writings the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers is never bestowed on any though of mature age and knowledge till after they be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminate and believers being all one promiscuously used for those that have received baptisme in opposition to catechumeni those that have not yet attained it But if holynesse and faith be the relative holynesse then infants being as capable of that as vessels in the Temple they might be presently designed and consecrated to that and not first bred up in the faith before they were partakers of it The children of believers I willingly grant are presumed to be by them intended to be bred up to the faith but it that intention of theirs bring forth no present effect if they do not bring them thus early and enter them into the Church by baptisme why should that bare intention of the parents give them the style of holy or sanctified or how should these infant children which may dy before they come to those years receive any present priviledge or benefit by that which is thus farre removed from them Now for the 2d part of this suggestion that what I say from Tertullian that they were holy i. e. baptized in seminis praerogativâ is a mistake I must answer by viewing of the proofs of his assertion First saith he the holynesse was not onely by prerogative of birth but ex institutionis disciplinâ This sure is a strange proof It is not so because it is not onely so T is certain that Tertullian saith they are holy ex institutionis disciplina and as certain that they are as much so by prerogative of their birth the words are most clear tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplina and I that never denyed the second could not be mistaken in affirming the first Some difficulty I suppose there may be what Tertullian who did not excell in perspicuity of expressions meant by institutionis disciplina My opinion gathered from the observation of his language in other places is that he meant the doctrine of baptisme instituted by Christ in his Church for by this it is that baptisme was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati born of parents of which either of them was Christian Thus in his Book De Bapt. c. 12. he uses a like phrase tingi disciplinâ religionis to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion meaning evidently being baptized By this interpretation of that phrase the whole place will be most clear in reference to the antecedents thus The birth of all men by nature brings impurity into the world with them the children of heathens have this mightily inhansed to them by the Superstitions that are used before and at and soon after their birth inviting the devil to come and take possession of them who is himself very ready to catch them and so making them as soon as born candidatos daemoniorum candidates of the devils ambitious to be admitted thus early into their service Thus every one hath his genius i. e. his devill assigned him from his birth and so no birth of any heathen can choose but be polluted Hinc enim Apostolus for from hence saith he it is that the Apostle affirmes that whosoever is born from either parent Christian is holy both by prerogative of seed and by discipline of institution i. e. hath one priviledge by nature by his very seed by being born of a Christian not an heathen that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy in that respect not so polluted as heathen children are another priviledge he hath by the orders and rites which Christ instituted and left in his Church viz. that of reception to baptisme whereby he is consecrated to God whereas heathen children are desecrated to devils and in that respect also they are called holy by the Apostle citing that place 1 Cor. 7. Caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur else were your children unclean but now are they holy adding that the Apostle in those words means that the children of believers are designati sanctitatis that sure must signifie that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian rite or sign or ceremonie of baptisme as those which had the heathenish ceremonies used upon them were candidati daemoniorum candidates of the devils in the former thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra How farre now this is from intimating any discipline of their instruction the word their is clearly inserted by Mr. T. and institutio rendred instruction and so Christs institution turn'd into their instruction I shall not now need farther to declare nor to adde ought concerning his other reason taken from the idolatrous Superstitions without which they that are born are said to be holy for how farre that hath here place I have already manifested also In this fit of incitation he yet farther proceeds 3. Saith he it is false that the Jewish practice in baptizing proselytes and their children laid the foundation of infant baptisme But as this is like the former a meer denying of my conclusion and so against all rules of discourse in the first place so is it not attempted to be proved save onely by the negative argument à testimonio Neither the Scripture saith he gives any hint thereof nor any