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 ... Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. 1655 Approx. 325 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 59 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A45397 Wing H515A ESTC R875 11875380 ocm 11875380 50200 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A45397) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50200) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 533:5) 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 ... Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. [2], 108, [5] p. Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston ..., London : 1655. Reproduction of original in Bristol Public Library, Bristol, England. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. -- Antipaedobaptism. Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800. 2005-12 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-04 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-06 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2006-06 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 was necessary ( the shewing the lawfulness being sufficient , and the example of circumcision being competent ) for the disproving the pretensions of the Antipaedobaptist , and so , ex abundanti , an act of Supererogatory probation , in relation to Mr. T. The same is appliable in some degree to the other waies of probation , which he supposeth to be relinquisht by me , especially to that of Christ's behaviour to little children , commanding to suffer them to come unto him ( who yet were no otherwise able to come then as they were brought , and as now they come to the font for baptisme ) and embracing and laying on his hands and blessing them : But this is competently set down , and the force of it , how far t is argumentative , § 22. Onely I now adde , that that other place of Mat. 18.6 . where Jesus speaking of little children , useth these words , who so offendeth one of these little ones that believe in me , it were good for him that a Milstone &c. may tend much to give us the full importance and signification both of their coming to Christ , and of his commanding not to forbid them ( such as will neerly concern every Antipaedobaptist to take notice of ) For as in other places of the New Testament , the coming unto God and Christ , is believing on him , seeking to receive benefit from him ( as , He that cometh to me shall never hunger , and Come unto me all ye that are weary , and If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink ) so , it seems , by this place , that that coming of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Infants ( for so they are called in the Parallel place Luk. 9.47 . ) which they were capable of by the help of their parents or friends , is styled by Christ the childrens believing , and so far imputed to them , as that upon that account the sentence is very severe upon those that shall scandalize them , repulse or discourage , or any way hinder them in this their progress to Christ , though it be but in the armes of other men . How fitly this is applicable to the state of Infants , in respect of the guilt of original sin , under which they are born , and for the remission of which ( and not onely for the entring into the Kingdome of Heaven ) the Fathers defined against the Pelagians , that baptisme was necessary for them , I shall not need here to inlarge , having formerly spoken to that head . Onely it may not be amiss here to advert , that it was as reasonable for the children to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers , who yet had no faith of their own , but onely of their parents &c. to bring them to Christ , as for the same children to be accounted sinners ( as undoubtedly they are ) which yet never committed any act of sin , which made S. Augustine De verb : Apost : Serm : 4. say , Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infantes , God forbid that I should say that Infants are not believers , Credit in altero , qui peccavit in altero , He believes by another who sinned by another , dicitur , Credit , & valet , & inter fideles baptizatos computatur , the Susceptors say he believes , and so he is reputed among the baptized believers . And this reputative faith the more reasonably accepted by the Church , it being moreover evident by the baptisme of Simon Magus , and of all hypocrites , that 't is the profession of faith , and not the possession of it , which is required as the qualification which authorizes the Church to admit them to baptisme ; and that being performed by the Infants proxies in his name , the Church after the forementioned example of Christ , may very lawfully accept it of those , who can performe no other , in lieu of a personal profession . Meanwhile this passage of Christ concerning children , though it be a certain evidence again against the Antipaedobaptist , as hath been shewed , and I need no more then this one proof , if I were destitute of all others , to refute his pretensions , yet because it contains no relation of Christs , or his Apostles baptizing infants , therefore I put it in the rank of the more imperfect probations ( in comparison with that other way of probation , which I conceive , deduceth and concludeth the whole matter more intirely ) though , as t is evident § . 22. this was neither waved nor relinquisht by me . To this if I shall now adde , that it was my design in that resolution of the Quaere to insist more largely on that way of probation , which I discerned to be lesse considered or insisted on by others , and yet to have perfect evidence in it , if it were duely explained and improved as it was capable , and on the same account thought I might spare to multiply words , where others had often inlarged , and therefore said but little of those common arguments or heads of probation , and yet sufficient to testifie my neither waving nor relinquishing them , It will then abundantly appear , how little I deserved Mr. T. his good words , and how justly I renounce that title to ingenuity which he bestowes upon me , being better pleased with his animadversions on my dotages , as he after phraseth it , then these , his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his liberalities to me by which he designed advantage to himself . Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptisme depending on the positive part of the probation . The severall sorts of Anabaptists . Testimonies the onely proof of Institutions . BEfore I proceed I must desire the Reader to consider two things , 1. That the Jewish baptisme is not by me set up as the competent proof , but onely as the ground or foundation ( which taken by its self is always very imperfect in respect of the whole fabrick or building , ) 2. That the perfect proof being set down to consist of two parts , a negative and a positive , the first onely shewing the no incongruity or unlawfulness of baptizing Infants , and the second adding thereto duty and obligation , these two must in all reason remain conjoyned in our discourse , and not be so severed , or considered asunder , as if I thought the former way of negative probation sufficient to do the whole work without the assistance of the latter ; This I needed not have said in relation to Mr. T. For the bare negative consideration ( that there is nothing in the pattern whence Christs baptisme is copied out , nothing in the copie it self , as far as Christ's words in the Gospel , or the Apostles practice extend , &c. ) is perfectly sufficient to refute an antipaedobaptist ( such as he professeth to be ) who undertakes to shew the baptizing of Infants to be unlawfull , but cannot pretend to shew it by any other way , but by producing some either law or practice of Christ or his Apostles to the contrary , which he must be concluded unable to do , if my Negative stand inviolate ▪ But I thus interpose ( and do it thus early ) because the positive part , being indeed the principal , especially when it is also added to the negative , doth not onely demonstrate it lawfull , but duty , to offer and receive our Infants to baptisme , the judgement and practice 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 find of our Fathers ( Abraham Isaac — ) that they were circumcised but not baptized ; And of him that was baptized and not circumcised Rabbi Josua said , he was a proselyte , because said he , we find of our mothers that they were baptized and not circumcised : But the wise men pronounced that till he were baptized and circumcised he was not a proselyte , where the example of the Jewes is the rule by which the obligation of the proselytes is measured . And the same is evident by the reason rendred by the Jewish writers of their baptizing the proselytes , which is generally taken by them from that command , Numb . 15.15 . One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation , and also for the stranger ( i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proselyte ) that sojourneth with you , an ordinance for ever in your generations , as ye are , so shall the stranger be before the Lord , one law and one manner ( i. e , one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.6 . one Law for moral duties , and one ordinance for rituals or ceremonies ) shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with you . Thus the Gemara tit : Cherithoth , c. 2. foundeth the circumcising and baptizing of proselytes , upon those words , As to you , so shall it be to the proselyte . So Maimonides tit : Isuri bia , c. 13. In like manner through all ages as oft as a Gentile will enter into the Covenant , and receive the yoke of the Law upon him , it was necessary that circumcision and baptisme should be used for him , beside sprinkling of the sacrifice , and if it were a woman , baptisme and sacrifice , According as it is said ( Numb . 15.15 . ) as to you , so also to the proselytes . And yet farther , as to the original of this baptisme among the Iewes themselves , the 12. § . out of their writers deduceth it from the time of giving the Law in Mount Sinai , Exo. 19.10 . when God , to prepare them for the receiving it , commands Moses , Go to the people and sanctifie them to day and to morrow , and let them wash their clothes . So saith Maimonides Isuri bia , c. 13. But baptisme was in the desart before the giving of the Law , according as it is said , Thou shalt sanctifie them — And that agreeable to what we read of Jacob to his household , Gen. 35.2 . Put away the strange Gods that are among you , and be clean and change your garments ( where being clean is answerable to being sanctified or baptized , and changing to washing their garments ) so that as the covenant made with Abraham was sealed by circumcision , so the giving of the Law which was the Covenant made by God with all the people , was thought to be sealed by baptisme , and that the washing , if not of the whole , yet of some parts of the body ( ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications ) and the washing ( or wearing clean ) garments also . And now I may , I hope , assume , that not onely there is perfect truth in what I now affirme , that baptisme among the Iewes belonged to their natives as well as to proselytes ( even to all that entred into the Covenant , and those evidently were the Iewish children as well as men ) but also that this had before been evidenced in that Resol : of the 4th Quaere , which here Mr. T. hath been pleased to examine , and consequently that it was no small injustice , and unkindness in him both to the reader , and to me , that he would omit to take notice of it , but assume and build on it as a thing yielded and granted him by my discourse that the proselytes onely , and not the native Jewes were partakers of that Jewish baptisme . This sure was a strange infirmity in an answer , and that which must needs have a special influence upon it , in any impartial weighing , even such an one , as will make it very unnecessary for me to consider any of his other considerations which he hath offered in that matter , which must certainly have no force in them , when that which is such a principal part of my arguing is so perfectly omitted , and the contrary supposed by him . However I shall not refuse to attend him in all his motions , and inquire whether there be any particular pitcht on by him , which may deserve our farther consideration , in order to the point in hand , that of Infant baptisme among Christians . And 1. saith he , Baptisme , it seems , was a custome of all nations as well as the Jewes , citing Grotius for it on Mat. 3.6 . and Mat. 28.19 . Of the truth of this observation I shall raise no question , onely I wonder what he could phansie from thence to conclude for his advantage . Certainly he will not hope by that argument to evince the negative , that it was not used among the Jewes , for how can the Gentiles , using it conclude , against all other evidence , that the Jewes did not use it ? Nor can he pretend that Christ transcribed it from those Gentiles , and not from the Jewes : for Christ preaching , as he was sent , to the lost sheep of the house of Israel , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to them first , Act. 3.26 . and if not to them onely , yet in a far more eminent manner to them then to any others , and accordingly adapting his Reformation to the Iewish Religion , and lightly deducing so many other customes from the Iewes , and none from the Gentiles , can with no probability be conceived to deduce this from the Gentiles , rather then from the Iewes , especially when ( as Clement observes , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the heathens borrowed or stole both their learning , and their custome from the Iewes , so ) it is very obvious to imagine , that this of baptisme , purgations and lustrations might by those heathens be borrowed from the Iewes , at least by both of them be derived from the same common fountain , the sonnes of Noah , in remembrance of the deluge , according to that famous verse among the Greeks , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sea sweeps away all the evils of men , to which S. Peter alludes in making baptisme the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Noah's stood ( as he hath himself cited it out of Grotius , ) and so in like manner some of the Fathers , as Athanasius , in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Tom. 2. p. 426. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , The first baptisme is that of the deluge for the excision of sinnes . And if neither of these be hence deducible , that it matters little what else he can design to infer from it . And so sure there was some want of answers , when this ( so nothing to the matter on either side ) was thought fit to march in the front of them . Under this head of answer , he presently addes , that he doth not know that Dr. H. or any other hath alleged one passage in Scripture , or any of the Fathers , that might evince that the custome of baptizing , or baptizing infants was derived from the Iewes initiating proselytes by baptisme . To this I answer , 1. By asking Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay that reverence to the authority of the Fathers , as to be concluded 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 J●wish priesthood of the Christian , and the Jewish circumcision of the circumcision in the heart . So in Athanasius's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : qu : 103. * numbring up seven sorts of Baptisme , the first even now mentioned , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that of the flood for the cutting off of sin , the second that of Moses , in passing the Red sea , which he calls , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , figurative ; the third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legall baptisme , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which the Hebrews had , whereby every unclean person ( so is every one by nature ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , was baptized in water , had his garments washt , and so entred into the campe , this it seems the ceremonie of his admission . And then follows the baptisme of John and Christ . Other examples I doubt not the Reader may observe in the Fathers writings on this subject , these few may serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And therefore when Mr. T. addes that some passages of the Fathers shew rather , that they took it as in stead of circumcision , the answer also is very obvious , that the Jews custome being to initiate by circumcision and baptisme both , and the former of these being laid aside by Christ's reformation , and onely the second continued , and that so improved by Christ , as to have more then the whole virtue of both , and to be the onely initial Sacrament , the Fathers might well learn of S. Paul to make this comparison or parallel betwixt the Jewish , and the Christian Sacrament , and so betwixt baptisme and circumcision , and indeed could not properly say that the Christian baptisme was in stead of the Jewish baptisme being rather the continuance of it , adding some ceremonies and virtue to that which was formerly among them , not substituting somewhat else ( as for circumcision it did ) in stead of it . This is evident enough , and yet if it were not we should have little reason to be moved with this suggestion , knowing that in the other Sacrament which Christ visibly instituted in the Jewish postcoenium , and imitated it in the delivering the portions of bread and wine , the Fathers generally lay the comparison betwixt the Paschal Lamb and that , and not without the authority of S. Paul himself , saying that Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us , the plain meaning of it being this , that the Jewish Passeover being abolished , we have now the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ( the true immaculate lamb of God ) substituted in the stead of it , but that copied out not from the Jewish manner of eating the Lamb of Passeover ( for Christ did not eat it at that time , being put to death before the hour in which it was to be eaten ) but of the postcoenium or close of the Iewish Supper , after which he took bread &c. consecrating this ordinary custome of theirs into an higher mysterie , then formerly it had in it . Sect. 4. The conceipts of Pe : Alfunsus and Schickard of the Iewish baptisme . Raf : Alphus : Mr. T. his conclusion not inferred . The original of the Iewish Baptisme ( the onely doubt ) vindicated . Iacob's injunction to his family . Sanctifications Exod. 19.10 . differ from washing garments . WHat he next addes from Mr. Selden , of some that conceived the Iewish baptisme in initiating of proselytes was in imitation of Christs example ( and so not Christs of theirs ) and of Schickard that conceives they added baptisme to circumcision , to difference them from Samaritans , is too vain to deserve any other reply , then what he himself hath annext concerning the former , viz. that Mr. Selden ( naming onely Pet. Alfansus for this ) doth not give any credit to him in it ( but indeed disproves it , and addes antidotes to that poyson , that without them I should not have thought likely to have wrought on any man. ) And indeed so he doth also in plain terms concerning the latter , de Syxed : l. 1. c. 3. fateor me nondum illud aut eâ de re quicquam alibi legisse , he never read that or any thing of that matter any where else . To which I adde , that if the place in Schickard be examined , it will acknowledge it to be a singular conceipt and invention of his , and nothing else . In his 5t. Chap. de Reg. Iud. he hath these words , ad differentiam Samaritanorum addiderunt baptismum quendam de quo Raf. Alphes Tom. 2. p. 26. & ipse Talmud Mass . Jefamos fol. 47. citing the words at large in Hebrew . But in those words , though they are by Schickard applied indefinitely , as if they were the testification of the whole foregoing proposition , yet the reader shall find no syllable to that purpose of differencing from Samaritanes , more then from all other men , but onely that when a proselyte is received he must be circumcised , and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he is cured , they shall baptize him in the presence of two wise men , saying , Behold he is as an Israelite in all things , or if she be a woman , the women lead her to the waters &c. A plain testimony ( to the sense of those which we formerly produced ) of baptizing both Jews and proselytes ( for else how could the proselyte , upon receiving this , be said to be a Israelite in all things ? ) but no least intimation , that this was designed to distinguish them from Samaritanes peculiarly , but as that which was alwayes customarie among the Jews , at their entring into Covenant with God. And then the premises being so groundlesse and frivolous , I shall not sure be concerned in any conclusion that Mr. T. shall inferre from them , which it seems , is to be this , that notwithstanding the Doctor 's supposition that the whole fabrick of baptisme is discernible to be built on that basis , the customary practice among the Jews , yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recitall of passages out of Iewish writers . But Mr. T. would be much put to it , to shew in what mode and figure it is , that this conclusion is drawn out of these premisses : Certainly none that my Logick hath afforded me , for that hath no engine first to draw many out of two ; nor 2. to inferre that those that had mistaken for want of knowledge ( as Alphunsus ) or adverting ( as Schickard ) of the Iewish customes , would need any more then the recitation of clear testimonies out of the soberest Iewish writers , to disabuse him : or 3. that they that either through prejudice , or any other principle of obstinacie shall resist this degree of light thus offered them , will be convinced by any other sort of testimonies , whether out of the Fathers , or Scripture it self , being so well fortified and provided with inclinations , at least if not with artifices , to reject one , or misinterpret the other . But , it seems , after all this , and to evidence to how little purpose he hath said thus much , Mr. T. is well enough satisfied , at least as farre as to baptizing of proselytes , that there was such a custome among the latter Iewes afore Christs incarnation ; All the difficulty , saith he , is concerning the original of it among them , For that either it should begin from Iacobs injunction to his household , Gen. 35.2 . or from Gods command Exo. 19 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving of the law , he cannot conceive , those places speaking of washing Jewes by nature , not proselytes , whereas the Jewes baptized not Jewes by nature ( as Mr. Selden saith ) but by profession . Here are many weak parts in these few words ; For 1. The original of the custome among the Jewes is but an accessarie , wholly extrinsecal to the matter in hand , and in no respect necessary to be defined by us : If the custome be acknowleged , we need ask no more , and Mr. T. having acknowleged the custome , grants all that in that matter we require of him , for on that , and not on that particular original of it , it is that we superstruct our whole fabrick , as farre as belong ; to infant baptisme , which is very fitly founded in the Jewish custome of baptizing , from whence soever that custome was derived to them , And so that one thing supersedes and answers that whole difficulty , if indeed there were any such in this matter . But then 2dly . for the two originals here set down and both rejected by him , it is a little strange that he should think fit to do so , and not to substitute any third in the place of them ; For t is certain that every custome received universally into a Church or society of men , must have some originall or other , and consequently this custome being by Mr. T. acknowleged , must not in any reason be left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without Father , without Mother , without any original ; and therefore those two that are alleged for it by the Iewish writers , being by him so fastidiously rejected , it was very fit that he should assign some other , and annex his reasons of giving it the deference , upon which it should be prefer'd before them . And when he shall do so , I shall not doubt to imbrace it , and make the same advantage of it which hitherto I have done of either of these . But he is here pleased to be reserved , and gives not the least intimation of any other reason , which is more suitable with his conceptions . T is true indeed he did before out of Grotius , mention Noahs flood , in memorie of which this custome arose among other nations , but besides that this original of it was not by him deemed sufficient to appropriate it to the Iewes , but leaves it common to them with other nations , those other two , Iacobs injunction , and Gods command before receiving the Law ( either one or both ) are perfectly reconcileable with that , and the memorie of the deluge being the more remote and first original , these may be the neerer and more immediate , and so are not prejudged by his pretending , or my yeelding of that . 3dly . For Iacobs injunction to his household , Gen. 35.2 . it is no where vouched by me as the original of this custome among the Iewes , but onely an intimation given , that that other , the command of God before the giving the Law , was agreeable to what we read of Iacob to his household , and so certainly it is , for as in the one the ceremonie prescribed them to use at the putting away strange Gods , was this , to be clean and change their garments ; so in the other they are injoyned to sanctifie themselves and wash their clothes , which is in other words directly the same thing : washing themselves and having clean garments being among the Iewes joyned together , and the witnesse of their garments prescribed in baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( saith the Glosse on Gemara Babylon , tit ▪ Iabimoth ) to receive the presence of the divine Majesty ( just as in the Christian Church the Dominica in albis , white or Whitsunday was a special day for administration of baptisme ▪ and the persons baptized wore rhetorically styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 starres rising out of the waters , sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bright lilies of the font , as they are joyned together in Proclus Orat : 12. p. 384. and in S. Chrysostome , new lilies planted from the font , Hom. 6. de resurr : and accordingly on Constantine's great coyne , stampt in memory of his baptisme , was ingraven ( on one side ) a poole of water with a lilie grown out of it ; ( see Jos : Scal : in Opusc : ) and all these but figurative expressions of what Chrysostome more plainly sets down by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their putting on white garments at the receiving of baptisme , Tract . de S. Pent. for which Jobius in Photius hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely . ) And then as Jacob vowed a vow to the Lord to give him the tenth of all , and accordingly God after instituted the tithes for the Levites portion , and so the latter of these was agreeable to the former , but yet the latter , viz. Gods institution , the original of the custome of tithing among the Jewes ; so Iacob might injoyn his household that ceremonie of washing or baptisme , and after that God injoyn it in giving the Law , and one of these be agreeable to the other , and yet the custome of baptisme among the Iewes be derived onely from the latter , as from the peculiar original of it . 4thly . The command of God , Exod. 19.10 . in which baptisme is said to be founded by the Iewes , is not ( as Mr. T. suggests ) the command to the Israelites to wash their clothes ( nothing but the custome of changing their garments can be founded in that ) but the command to Moses to sanctifie them ( Go unto the people and sanctifie them to day and to morrow ) in the Hebr●w notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sanctifications , for washing , either the whole , or some parts of the body , as is shew'd at large , § . 35. And if in stead of this of sanctifying , i. e. baptizing them , Mr. T. did unwittingly substitute washing their garments , then I hope , he may now be advised to reforme that mistake , and see more reason then hitherto he hath done , to assign that command of Gods , as the most agreeable original of this custome , and no longer imagine that it was a custome of the latter Iewes , taken up by themselves without any ground of Scripture ; But if formerly he saw this , and was willing to disguise it , and , on purpose to misguide the reader , left out the mention of Moses's sanctifying or baptizing them , and onely set down the washing of their garments ( which was not at all proper for the turn ) to be the original of baptisme , wherein , as Paulinus tells us , they were rendred nivei , white as snow , corpore as well as babitu , in body as well as garment , I shall not then hope that even this length of words will be sufficient for his conviction . Lastly , For his reason against deducing the baptisme of proselites from this original [ because the Iewes baptized not Iewes by nature but by profession , whereas those places speake of washing Iewes by nature , not proselytes ] it will presently appear to be very vain ; for 1. The Iewes baptized Iewes by nature , and not proselytes onely , as hath been both there and here shewed at large , out of the most creditable of the Iewish writers ; 2dly . Their baptizing of proselytes was founded in their precedent custome of baptizing of Iewes , as hath been evidenced also from the Rabbines explication of Num. 15.15 . One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation of Israel , and also for the stranger or proselyte . And so t is evident that of Exod. 19.10 . being the original of baptizing native Iewes , may , and must be the original of baptizing the proselytes . And this in each part being thus manifest , Mr. Selden's authority ( if it should be , as is pretended ) can be of no force against those evidences which I have here produced , the best he offers us at any time , to prove any thing concerning the Iewish customes . And I shall now appeale to the Reader , whether Mr. T. could well have been expected to have made more misadventures in so few words . Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea. The defence of my notion of it . Learned mens affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies . Christ's baptizing of Iewes as well as Gentiles , no argument . Christ's vouching Iohns baptisme to be from heaven , no argument . No more , the pretended no intimations of it . The no conformity . The proselytes children baptized , continually , not onely at the first conversion . The baptisme of a woman with child , serving for the child also , not argumentative . The Canon of Neocaesarea about it . NExt he proceeds to consider the words of the Apostle , 1 Cor. 10.1 . of our Fathers being baptized into Moses ( as in the cloud , so ) in the Sea. Where 1. He tells me that he doth not conceive Mr. Seldens exposition , that the sea was some vessell of waters — but the red sea ] And I that am as little of Mr. Seldens mind , but expressely interpreted it , of the Red sea , § . 7. and rejected Mr. Seldens interpretation § . 8. ( although I omitted to name the author of it ) am not , he knows , concerned in that , but have from his rejecting Mr. Seldens authority , when t is not for his turn , his example for my not thinking my self bound up by it at other times , either in that newly past , where he vouched his name as his onely proof , that the Jewes did not baptize Jewes by nature , or in other particulars which I find afterwards vouched from him , the truth of which I as little conceive , as Mr. T. doth this of the sea not signifying the Red sea , which I acknowledge to be unconceiveable . But then 2. he doth not think my exposition right neither ( though I interpret it of the Israelites passing through the Red sea , as he acknowledges to do ) But what is my interpretation ? why , that their being baptized into Moses in the Red sea ( as also in the cloud ) signifieth their being initiated into God's covenant under the conduct of Moses , as since they are wont to be initiated by baptisme . And why doth he dislike this interpretation ? why , because when it is said , our fathers were baptized , it is not meant were baptized as since proselytes were baptized among the Jews , but as Christians were baptized . But certainly this is no reason of exception to my interpretation ; For 1. I compare not this baptisme of out fathers in the sea with the baptisme of proselytes among the Jewes , but annex it immediately to the baptizing of the native Jewes , § . 6. before I proceed § . 9. to the baptisme of proselytes . And 2. I do not lay the comparison of the Apostle betwixt the baptizing in the sea , and the Jewish custome of baptizing , but acknowledge it to be betwixt the baptisme of the Fathers under the Law , and the baptisme since Christ among Christians , All the use I make of the words of the Apostle , was to shew that baptisme among the Jewes was a ceremonie of initiating into the covenant , and that upon that supposall it was , that the Apostle used the phrase of the Israelites that came out of Aegypt , and entred into Covenant with him , under the conduct of Moses , God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings ( the phrase to signifie reception into the covenant ) by invironing them with the sea . This I thought had been before intelligibly enough set down , I hope now he will no longer misunderstand it . What he addes out of Mr. S. that after Exo. 19.10 . the Jewes did not baptize Jewes but onely proselytes , hath already been evidenced at large to have no truth in it , the custome of baptisme continuing to all their posterity , as well as that of circumcision . And whereas this is said to be set down thus out of Maimonides and other Jewish Rabbines , the Reader , if he will consult the place in Mr. Selden de Synedr : l. 1. c. 3. will find there is no such matter ; That Mr. S. himself so affirmes p. 23 ▪ I willingly acknowledge , but in a matter of antient storie , such as this is , neither he nor any else must be believed farther then the testimonies produced by him out of their writers exact , especially against express testimonies to the contrary . And such he there produceth more then one , p. 34. out of Gemara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What did our Fathers ? truely they entred not into Covenant without circumcision and baptisme and sprinkling of blood , and again p. 35. our mothers were baptized and not circumcised , and p. 26. out of Victoria Porchetus , that our mothers ( though not as he saith , Sara and Rebecca , referring the custome to a greater antiquity then that of the time of giving the Law ) were baptized and not circumcised , and p. 38. out of Maimonides , that the Israelites entred into covenant by a threefold rite or ceremonie , by circumcision , baptisme , and oblation . And again , p. 39. What was done to you ? ye entred into covenant by circumcision , baptisme , and he sprinkling of the sacrifice , and therefore the proselyte — the custome of baptizing the proselytes founded in that of baptizing the native Jewes . All these clear testimonies are by him produced directly to the proof of my position , that the native Jewes ( indifferently ) were baptized , and not a word in any other parts of the testimonies to give reason to suspect , that after that one time of Exo. 19. the Jewes did not baptize . What he hath done in his other book de Jure Nat. ac Gent. I need not apprehend ( and have not commodity to inquire or examine ) supposing that if there he had undertaken the proof of it , he would here , where he affirmes it without proofe , and against expresse testimonies produced by him , have referred ( according to custome ) to that place . And now what force against any pretension of ours is there in Mr. T. his observation that Christ and his Apostles baptized Jewes as well as Gentiles ? ] For 1. so certainly they might , and yet derive their baptisme from the custome formerly in use among the Jewes , for they , we know , baptized native Iewes : nay 2. so they might , though the Iewes had baptized none but proselytes , for to that it would bear just proportion , that they should baptize both Iewes and Gentiles , in case both came in as proselytes to Christ . For it were a fallacie a little too grosse to deceive any man of common understanding , to argue thus , The custome was to baptize proselytes , and not natives ; therefore Christ , if he observed that custome , was not to baptize native Iewes ; The answer being so obvious , by distinguishing of proselytes , that they are either such as come in to the Iewish religion , or such as came in to Christ , and that Christ was to baptize all that were proselytes to him , and that the native Iewes as many as believed on him , were such , and as believers , i. e. as proselytes to Christ , not as native 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 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 hath appointed , and then if the precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infant baptisme ( which the Doctor ingenuously acknowledgeth ) it doth by manifest consequence deny it , sith he forbids that to be done otherwise then he hath appointed when he hath determined how it should be done . The Doctor when he saith above , the words , [ I baptize into the name of the Father &c. ] must be indispensably used , me thinks by the same reason should conceive Christs institution should be unalterably used in baptizing those only whom he hath appointed to be baptized . To this the grounds of answer have been already laid also , viz. that they that baptize infants , baptize no otherwise then Christ appointed , and the Apostles appear to have understood his appointment . By Christs appointment , not meaning particularly his words Mat. 28 but his will otherwise made known to his disciples , when and in what words soever it was that he instituted baptisme , which must be long before this , even before his Apostles took upon them to baptize any , which yet they did in great abundance Joh. 4.1 . And of this appointment or institution of batisme by Christ , it is most true , that if that precept of Christ , whereby he first instituted baptisme , did not indeed comprehend and so necessarily inferre infant baptisme , and was so understood to do by the Apostles , it shall consequently be deemed to deny it . But then herein lyes a great fallacie , when from another appointment of Christs , viz. that Mat. 28. which I acknowledge not to inferre infant baptisme necessarily , he assumes in universum , and reports it as my confession , that Christs precept ( indefinitely taken , and so extending to all Christs precepts at any time ) doth not necessarily inferre infant baptisme . Which is that grand illogical fault in discourse , of inferring an indefinite or universal conclusion from particular premisses . As for the comparison which he makes betwixt the indispensable use of the words of baptisme Mat. 28. and the as unalterable observation of Christ's institution , in respect of the persons to be baptized , I willingly grant it , on the condition praemised , that he mistake not the text , Mat. 28. to be the words of that institution , wherein Christ defined , who are the persons to be baptized . Those words are a commission to the Apostles to go preach to , or disciple all nations , and thus farre extends to point out the persons , viz. that they should ( as disciple so ) baptize Gentiles as well as Jewes , and again , they are express for the forme of baptisme , that it should be in the Name of the Father , the Sonne , and the Holy Ghost , but they are not any kind of direction to that other matter of receiving , and admitting infants or not infants . That I suppose sufficiently notified to them before both by the common practice of their ancestors in the Jewish religion , by the vulgar notion of baptisme , whilest it was familiarly used among the Jewes , both to their own and their proselytes children , and also by Christs speciall direction ( though the Gospels , which express not at all the words of the first institution of baptisme , do not set that down ) in the time of his preaching among them , some while before that passage of storie related , Joh. 4.1 . &c. From both of these , I suppose , the Apostles learnt it ( and not from Mat. 28. ) and we learn it only from the Apostles , as shall hereafter appear . And so much for his prooemial reasoning . Sect. 2. Making disciples all one with receiving into discipleship . Baptizing the act of the Baptist . Instruction subsequent to discipling . The pretended parallel between Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johns discipling by preaching excludes not infants . No more the Apostles , Mat. 10.5 . The notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Mat. 13.52 . Act. 14.21 . Infants both said to come and to believe . Instruction subsequent to baptisme . AFter this praelusorie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he next proceeds to consider , what shift ( as he calls it ) the Doctor makes to elude the force of Christs institution , Mat. 28.19 . But I have already made it evident that that Commission for preaching to , or discipling all nations ( as for the baptizing them , and the particularity of the forme to be used in baptisme , &c. ) was not the institution of baptisme , nor any intimation on either side , whether infants should be baptized or not ; and so t is manifest how little need I had to use any shift , or artifice to elude the force of it . However in his view of my discourse some exceptions he must find ; And the first is , that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendred , make disciples , yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well paraphrased by , receiving into discipleship , baptizing them , making this forme of baptisme the ceremonie of receiving them . For by this , saith he , the making disciples is made the same with receiving them , and baptisme the ceremonie of receivers into discipleship , which is as truely an act of the baptized professing , or avouching his discipleship . Here is another subtlety of a refined nature , making a difference betwixt making disciples , and receiving into discipleship , or receiving disciples ; As if these two were not perfectly synonymous , and by me evidently used , as such . I shall not dispute of words , when the matter is clear , and when it is equally to my purpose which phrase is used , whether making or receiving disciples . 2dly . When he affirmes of baptisme , which I make the ceremonie of the Apostles receiving them , that t is as truely the act of the baptized , this is no subtilty , but grosse and visible enough ; For certainly baptisme in the active sense ( as it is plain I understand it in that place , where I paraphrase , goe and make disciples and baptize ) is not the act of the baptized , but of the baptist ; The coming to baptisme indeed , and the undertaking the vow , and making the profession , is the act of the baptized , either personally , or by his proxy , which in reputation of Law , and in acceptation of the Church , is his also , but still baptisme , or ( to remove all possible mistake ) baptizing , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Mat. 28.19 . is an act of the baptizer onely , and so the ceremonie of receiving into discipleship , whomsoever they thus duely baptize . I hope I need say no more of this . His 2d branch of exception is to those words of mine wherein I say that the making or receiving disciples , supposeth not any precedent instruction , but lookes wholly on it as subsequent . This I there concluded not from the bare negative , because there was no precedent mention of such instruction , where discipling and baptizing , were both mention'd , but because in that place , on which the Antipaedobaptist so much relyes , Mat. 28.19 . the [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching ] is expressely mentioned after discipling and baptizing , and so is in reason to be deemed , and lookt on , as subsequent to both , and so the receiving ad discipulatum referre to that then future instruction . And to this sense I there made it manifest , that the definition of baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 . did referre that , baptisme is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , seeking to God , as to the oracle to inquire for the whole future life , no way prerequiring actual instruction , but coming to Christ and the Church to receive it , and obey it for the future ( and that done in some sort by those that are brought , when they are not able to come , and by the charitie of the Church received there ) And this farther illustrated as by the manner of children brought by parents to School , without either knowledge of letters , or choise , or so much as wish of instruction , so by the manner of Christ's disciples being received by him , particularly of Philip , Joh. 1.44 . who was called , and received into discipleship , as soon as ever Christ met with him , i. e. before he was at all instructed by him , and so also by the storie of the Jewes , Exo. 19.8 . who undertook to obey all the Commandments of God , which he should give them , which yet were not then , but after given them , v. 20. and so lastly by the nature of proselytisme , which as it is all one with entring into God's covenant and ( in the Christian sense ) with coming to Christ and being received to discipleship , so t is that which children are known to be capable of , not onely by that text , Deut. 29.10 . but by the custome of baptizing infant proselytes among the Jewes , and by Christ's command to suffer them to come unto him , whensoever they were thus brought . Now to this thus evidenced ( and much more largely in that place , § . 26. &c. ) he is pleased to annex some reasons of his dissent , For , 1. saith he , that which is exprest in Matthew by , Go ye therefore and make disciples all nations , is in Marke , Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature , which shewes how they should disciple all nations ; Now they who are made disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction , Ergo , the making or receiving disciples Mat. 28.19 . supposeth precedent instruction . But to this I answer , 1. That the words in Marke are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew , then as an Epitome is parallel to a larger discourse , such we know S. Markes for the most part is , an abbreviation of S. Matthews Gospel , as in many others , so in this particular , some passages indeed there are in S. Mark in this place , which are not in S. Matthew , as shall a non be shewed , but in the particular now before us , S. Mark is , according to wont , more concise ; there is no mention in him of baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son & of the holy Ghost , nor consequently of discipling , of which that was the ceremonie , as in S. Matthew there is . 2dly . That Christs appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to preach the Gospel , in S. Mark , doth no way inferre the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to baptisme : The phrase signifies to proclaime or promulgate the happy tidings brought into the world by Christ , grace , and mercy , and eternal felicitie to all that should come into him and take his yoke upon them , and learn of him ; And upon the publishing of this to all the world , to every creature , i. e. to the Gentiles universally , as well as the Jewes , I suppose t is very possible , that many of them should make all speed to come unto Christ , and come out at the Apostles preaching , they and their whole housholds together ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the oracle commanded in Homer ) and to bring their infant children with them , as they used to do , that became proselytes to the Jewes and then the Apostles , knowing their Masters mind for the receiving of Infants , and that ( as from the institution I suppose them fore-instructed ) to baptisme , receive them all , and ( as many as interposed no voluntary hindrance ) baptize them , and having taken them into the School of Christ make good provision for the future instruction of them , as soon as ever they should be capable of it . That thus it was I pretend not ( still ) to deduce from these words , Mat. 28. but to infer from another medium , the practice of the Apostles , otherwise notified to us : All that I am now to manifest , is , that this passage hath nothing contrary to our hypothesis , but is perfectly reconcileable with it , and this is done by the scheme thus laid : And so t is most visible how no force there is in this first reason of exception . The 2d followes , that such as the making disciples was Jo. 4.1 . such is the making disciples Mat. 28.19 . For by the Doctors confession they are all one . But that was by preaching , as is plain concerning John , Mat. 3.1 , 2 , 5 , 6. and concerning the Apostles . Mat. 10.5 , 6 , 7. Ergo. To this I answer , that the account last given is fully satisfactory to this exception also ; For supposing the Apostles to publish whithersoever they came , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good newes that was come into the world by Christ , and the hearers not only to come in themselves , but to bring their whole families , and so their infant children with them , there is no difficulty to imagine , that they that had thus made proclamation , received all , and made all disciples , yong and old , that either came or were brought , and so it being granted that they made disciples by preaching , preaching being the instrument to draw the parents themselves , and to move them to bring their children to discipleship , it is still very visible how children should be discipled , and consequently baptized by them , baptisme being the constant ceremony of discipling . And though I am not able to affirm , how it was actually in Johns baptisme , yet this I may say , that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) thus it very possibly might be both in Johns and in the Apostles baptizing . First for John , 't is true indeed that his baptisme attended his preaching , yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptized by him but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching ; For 1. Why might not those that heard it , divulge it to others , and bring them before they heard him , to desire to be baptized , and upon their confessing their sins , and professing amendment , he baptize them ? 2. Why might not those that heard it , or heard of it , give that heed of it , as to bring all that were dear to them of what age soever , by that means to secure them from the wrath to come ; when Noah preacht repentance to the old world , and upon the decree of sending the flood upon the world of the ungodly , called all to come into the Ark to him to escape the deluge , suppose others besides Noahs family had hearkned to his preaching , or suppose he and his sons had had infant children , can we imagine they would have left their infants to that certain ruine , and not have taken them into the ark with them ? And Johns baptisme was answerable to that ark , in respect of that approaching ruine on the Jewes , styled the kingdome of heaven v. 1. and that evidenced to be a bloody kingdome , explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his baptisme , did not bring their children with them to save them from the praedicted evils , And then I professe not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptize those infants ( though the Scripture affirming nothing of it , and tradition , as far as I know , as little , I shall neither affirm nor believe any thing in it ) This only is certain , that among the Jewes of that time infant Children were known to be capable of entring into covenant with God after this manner , and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means . And one thing more I may adde , that Christ himself , who was by his sinlesness , as unqualified for the Repentance which John preacht , as the infants were by their incapacities , did yet come and was received to Johns baptisme , v. 13. and then in c●se infants were brought , why might not they be received also ? Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Mat. 10. First , T is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely , and sure that phrase comprehends the Lambs also , the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men , by the addition of their actual to original sin : And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also ? An 2. for their preaching , it is just as Johns was , to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction , that vindicative act of Gods kingdome v. 7. that all that should give ear and heed to them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life ; and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old , even the whole nation , why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their parents care in bringing them to baptisme , and timely ingaging them to fly from the wrath to come , as soon as they should come to understanding , injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity ? Thirdly , After their preaching though there be no mention of baptizing ( and so it was not so fit to be produced to our present business ) yet other things there are appointed to be done , wherein infants were concerned as well as others , as healing of diseases &c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized , why should it not to their receiving of cures ? Nay I may adde , How should the dead in that place ( who sure were as uncapable of hearing or understanding as the tenderest infant ) be capable of being raised by those Apostles , which yet is there affirmed of them , v. 8. And so much for that reason also , and in like manner for the third , which is but repeating the last branch of this second , that the Apostles were to disciple all nations by the same way that they discipled the lost sheep of the house of Israel , which was , saith he , by preaching and therefore supposed precedent instruction . In what sense , I have now shewed , viz. by preaching , to the nations , and receiving all that came in to the discipleship , whether on their own leggs , or in others arms , whole families at once , the parents , and upon their undertaking their infant children also . His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word , which is so to teach as that they learn , and so , saith he , is used Mat. 13.52 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is rendred , [ instructed ] by our last translators , and can be no otherwise rendred than [ made a disciple by teaching ] so Act. 14.21 . it is said , Having preached the Gospel to that city , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having taught or made many disciples . For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient , that it signifies to receive ad discipulatum , as into a school of Spiritual instruction , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple , and such he is made , who by any motive or means either comes or is brought into the school , this indeed in order to teaching in the Master , and to learning in the scholar , and the one so to teach , as that the other learn , but this subsequent to his being made a disciple , the youth we know enters into the school , is admitted into the College and Vniversity , before he learns a word there , the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as future , at his entring into discipleship . And this is all the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 13.5 . only some accidental differences may be observed , 't is in the passive , and in the Aorist in the preter tense , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Scribe which is or hath been entred as a disciple unto the kingdome of heaven , who since his entrance hath been instructed and ( as real passives import ) received influence , been really affected and changed by discipleship , still no way supposing that he was instructed in the learning or mysteries of the kingdome of heaven , before he was thus admitted a disciple to it ; After his admission , there is no doubt but he doth ( or ought to ) learn , nay being there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Scribe discipled , a grown man and learned among the Jews , before he came to Christ , I doubt not but some knowledge he had of it before he entred himself a disciple ( see baptizing of infants , p. 199. ) but this not by force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for still a disciple he may be before he learns , and is therefore obliged to learn , because he hath assumed and undertaken to do so , either personally , or by others susception , by his coming , or being brought to be a disciple . So in the other place Act. 14.21 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] signifies no more then having received , or initiated , i. e. ( I suppose ) by this rite of baptisme , made and baptized many disciples , which though it be there set down as a consequent of the Apostles preaching the Gospel in that City ( for otherwise it were not imaginable that they should receive any disciples there , they must first proclaim admission to all that come , before any can be expected either to come , or be brought to them ) yet may it very reasonably be extended to more persons then those that understood their preaching , viz. to the infant children of their proselytes , brought to them by their parents and dedicated to Christ . Thus invalid are his attempts from the notation of the word , and by consequence his inference from thence ( which is set down as his fift proof ) that thereby it may appear how the Apostles understood the precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons and thereby make them disciples . For although the practice of the Apostles be indeed the means by which we may discerne how they understood Christs precept ( and those two places cited by Mr. T. from Mat. 13. and Act. 14. do no way belong to that , they tell us not , whether they received infants to baptisme , or not ) yet I may very well ward my self from any inconvenience , which this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places can threaten , it being already vindicated from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men , and not communicated to infants also . His last proof is by returning to the first again , comparing the words in Matthew with the parallel place in Mark , Whereby , saith he , a disciple and believer will appear to be the same , the disciple to be baptized in Mat. being in Mark expressed by the believer , which is put before baptism . To this I answer , 1. that that passage in S. Mark , He that believes and is baptized shall be saved , and he that believeth not shall be damned , and so on to the end of the Gospel , is ( as even now I intimated ) added by that Evangelist , to the words , as they are set down in Matthew and so being an addition , cannot be looked on , as exactly parallel to the words in Matthew , Go , and disciple all nations baptizing them — And this we also know is ordinary for one Evangelist to set down more fully , what is omitted or more shortly set down in another , and S. Mark that in other things was willing to abbreviate S. Matthew , doth now visibly in large ; And so the comparison cannot regularly be made betwixt these two Evangelists words , something being abbreviated in Mark which was more at large in Matthew , and something more concisely set down in Matthew , and more largely in Mark. And then what necessity is there , that Mark not mentioning discipling but believing : and Matthew mentioning discipling but not believing the discipled and believers should be deemed the same . T is true indeed of grown men , none can in reason be admitted disciples , which are not also believers ( the ground of which I have set down in the Resol . of the Quaere p. 199. ) but of infant children this is not true , for those , though they cannot come , may yet be brought , and though not upon their own confession , yet by the susception of others , made capable of the Churches charity , and so may be disciples without actual or personal belief . Nay 2dly if Mr. T. his argument had power to infer it , t were that which I might safely avouch , that infants may be comprehended under the style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they that believe and are baptized ; so even now we had it in the expresse words of Christ , the little ones ( and S. Luke specifies them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little infants ) that believe on him : i. e. just as they are said elsewhere to come unto him , when they are as uncapable , for want of bodily strength , of personal coming , as for want of strength of minde or judgement , for personal believing , and yet in respect of others bringing them to Christ ( and so to the Church in baptisme ) they are by Christ himself said to do both of these , to come in one place , and to believe in the other . But then 3dly , I willingly acknowledge that the word [ believe ] in Mark , belongs peculiarly to the grown men and women , who are called by the preaching of the Gospel , of whom though it be said , that believing and being baptized they shall be saved , and not believing they shall be damned , yet it no way follows , that none but such as thus personally believed , should be baptized , or that being baptized they should not be saved , but lose all the benefit of their baptisme . The later part of the words is considerable ; He that believeth not shall be damned , Infidelity is pitcht on , as the thing peculiarly , that incurs the certain damnation , i. e. the voluntary resisting the Faith , when it is preacht convincingly to them , and of that none are capable , but those that are arrived to years of understanding . Which as it is an indication that that ver . and those that follow in S. Mark of believers casting out devils , &c. v. 17 , 18. belong to adulti peculiarly , so it no way hinders but S. Matthews words being different from them , and supposed to be precedent to them in Christs delivery , may comprehend infants also , as such who are capable of entring into discipleship , and of being brought and presented to the Apostles by believing parents , This being the way whereby the faith of the parents may be signally beneficial to the childe , in bringing him thus early into the School , and so to the benediction of Christ , the parents together with the infant children , as among the Jews so among Christians , entring together into covenant with God. In this matter Mr. T. is willing to finde a difference betwixt Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded them , Mat. 28.20 . and the preaching of the Gospel in S. Mark : thinking by that means to avoid the importunity of that text in Matthew , which evidently sets baptisme before instructing . But this can avail him nothing , For if by the Gospel in Mark we understand the whole Gospel , as in reason we must , for that is it which must be preacht to every creature ( the Gentile world ) then is that directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded ; But if by preaching the Gospel we mean no more then , as Mr. T. here saith , that Jesus is the Christ , i. e. the proposing him as a Master , and calling all to come to him as disciples , then this being supposed precedent to mens coming to discipleship , or bringing their infants to it ( for without this they cannot be expected to come themselves , or to bring their infants ) all the rest is left to follow baptisme , and so all particular Christian instruction is subsequent , not precedent to baptisme , an effect of their discipleship , attending it , no way necessary to prepare for it , which is the utmost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which from that circumstance of that text I undertook to demonstrate . Sect. 3. Discipleship before instruction . What knowledge of the Master is required to discipleship . Two sorts of disciples , Some come , others are brought . HIS reasons for the disproving of my interpretation of Mat. 28. being thus evidenced to have no force or validity in them against our pretensions , and so indeed his whole fabrick demolished , ( that place of S. Mat. being the one main ( if not only ) ground of Antipaedobaptists structure ) I might well spare the advantages of the 26 , 27 , 28. §§ . to which he makes some kinde of answer in the remainder of his 25 Chapter : But there is so little weight in his answers that they will be speedily dispatched . First then to my 26 § . he saith , that were it all granted me , yet it would no whit avail to prove that an infant may be a disciple appointed by Christ to be baptized . To this I reply , that the 26 § . being most of it spent for the explaining an hard place 1 Pet. 3.21 . concerning baptisme , and for assigning the due notion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a question , or addresse as to an Oracle , for instruction for the future life , I pretended not to conclude infant baptisme from thence , nor any more then this , that baptisme being the entring of a disciple , and not praerequiring actual instruction , but consisting in coming to Christ and his Church to receive it for the future , 't is certain that by this account children are capable of baptisme , because they may by the care of their parents be thus brought early to Christ , and entred into his school by them , before they themselves have faculties either to desire , or know what is done to them , the proportion holding in this betwixt infants and other scholars that are entred by their parents in any school before they know one letter in the book , or have actual willingness to acquire any knowledge ; And this is there illustrated by the example Philip , Joh. 1.44 . and of the Jews , Ex. 19.8 . which have again been mentioned , and are clear evidences , that those may be received into discipleship which have not yet had precedent instruction . Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words , Let putting to school be as early as the Doctor will imagine , yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher , and so none is Christ's disciple in the Scripture language till he know Jesus to be Christ , and take him for his Lord , which infants being not capable of , they are not disciples , nor to be baptized according to Christ's appointment . To this I answer , 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to School by the care of their parents , was designed to shew no more then this , that they may be delivered up to be scholars , who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn , nor have actual willingnesse to acquire knowledge , and consequently that entrance into discipleship referres onely to subsequent , supposes not any precedent instruction . And this is competently evidenced by that example , though it were supposed of the child that goes to school , that he knowes his teacher , this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher , being none of the documents which he comes to school to learn , but the good letters that are profest and taught in the school , nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school , or put to an instructer , and so cannot be deemed to know the Master , before assuetude hath acquainted him with him , should not yet be said , with as full propriety of speech , to come to school , as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither . 2dly . It is as true , that children that are brought to School do not always know their Masters before their entrance , no not by the most superficiall knowledge ; Many are brought to publick Schools , who never so much as saw their Masters , till they are by their parents delivered up into their power and discipline ; If this be not plain enough , then change the similitude from the Schoolmaster to the parent or guardian , or the very nurse , every one of these are to feed and nourish , and , as he shall be capable , to instruct the child , and so doth Christ in a Spirituall sense , whosoever is intrusted ( by being brought ) to him in baptisme . And we know God and Nature doth thus bring a child to the parent , to the nourse or Guardian , when the child knows none of these , nor understands any more of all these transactions , then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there . And so still this evidenceth the vanity of this answer concerning the childs knowing his teacher . But then 3dly . This so imperfect superficial knowledge of the teacher is in no wise worth considering in this matter ; For I shall demand , doth such very imperfect knowledge of Christ , as a Schoolboy hath of his teacher , the first hour he comes into the School , qualifie him for discipleship to Christ , or no ? If it do , then his countrymen and kinsmen , before he revealed himself to be the Messiah , and the Pharisees , which believed not his miracles , were sufficiently qualified , and then t is evident that those might be admitted to discipleship , which were not believers , and so all Mr. T. his hypotheses are destroyed , and then infants may be discipled and baptized , though they be not believers . As for that which he here interposes [ the knowing Jesus to be Christ , and taking him for his Lord ] this bears no proportion with the childs bare knowing of his master , but is farre above it , equal to his making it his own choice to have this Master , rather then any other , and promising exact obedience to him , which is much more then is to be found in most young scholars , or indeed in any that are brought by their parents or guardians , who alone are the persons who bear proportion with the infants brought by others to baptisme . So that this reasoning of his is soon salved by distinguishing of disciples , that they are either such as come , or such as are brought to School , proselytes of their own choice , or children under the care of others , of the former sort there are none but such as have some rude imperfect knowledge of Christ , upon which they make this choice , and without it would not probably be expected to make it ; But for children which as minors in their guardians hands , have no will of their own , there is no necessity they should have knowledge to move their will , they may very reasonably be acted by the will of others , and by their charity be made partakers of those priviledges which are communicated from Christ , in his Church to all true members thereof , and to that end be discipled and , baptized , entred by this ceremonie into the Church of God , where instruction is to be had , as soon as they are capable of it , and in the mean while partake of those other advantages , of which their condition is capable . Sect. 4. The difference of a disciple and proselyte examined . Christian as well as Jewish proselytes , Priviledges of proselytisme , Disciples of the Pharisees . The Holy Ghost's not using the word proselyte of Christians , concludes nothing . Jehovah . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants qualified for baptisme . As for entring into Covenant Deut. 29. Gods oath . Infants adjured , Creples capable of Christ's cures . TO my 27. and 28. §§ . his answer is brief , that what I say is not right ; And for proof , though he begins with a [ For 1. ] and so by his forme of branching , promises more reasons then one , yet that first hath never a [ Secondly ] to follow or back it , and so t is all resolved into that one , viz. that it is not true that a disciple and a proselyte are perfectly all one . To this therefore I must advert , and consider what nice difference he can spring betwixt a disciple and a proselyte , whereupon to found satisfaction for conscience why infants may be proselytes , and as such , come unto Christ , and yet cannot be made disciples , or received in baptisme to discipleship . And his reason is , because a proselyte , saith he , notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel , and comes to the Israelites to own their God , and be part of their policie , and not to be taught , but enjoy priviledges with other Jewes , whether Civil or Ecclesiastical . But certainly this is no reason of difference , for besides that I , in that § . 27. acknowledged this accidental difference , that a proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation ( as a disciple doth not ) adding that this difference had no place in this matter , where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations ; besides this , I say , it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of proselytes in such a notion as is equally competible to all of what nation soever they are , that enter into Covenant with God. Thus do we find a proselyte defined , Heb. 11.6 . by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he that cometh to God , thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him , and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole law of the Jewes , and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proselyte of their covenant , and a proselyte of their righteousnesse , and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile , that cometh to Christ ; and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means , particularly allowed freely to enter into the congregation , and infants as well as grown men , were thus among them admitted into Covenant ; so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian proselytes also , nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ , after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile Infants were among the antient people of God , i. e. by baptisme , should not as properly be called proselytes of Christ , though they neither come from any other nation , nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh . And whereas he saith of the proselytes coming to the Israelites , that they came not to be taught , but to enjoy priviledges , I cannot divine what motive he had to affirme it , for sure the infant child that was baptized , and so received into the congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion , into which he was thus early initiated , and that was one speciall priviledge ( the rest of the heathen having not knowledge of these lawes , ) the immediate end of his proselytisme , yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby . And when he addes , but a disciple of Christ is one that ownes Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits , I might well acknowledge it , and aske , why then an infant , who hath need of those spiritual benefits , assoon as he is born , should not be hastened to a participation of them ? But it is farther evident , that spiritual benefits being first and principally designed , other even secular advantages may very lawfully be respected , and reaped by them that are thus early brought in , whether as disciples , or proselytes to Christ . Two sage observations he here addeth , 1. That there is no mention of the disciples of the priests , but of the Pharisees and Sadduces , and I can very well grant it , who speak not of any lower kinde of disciples , but either of God among the Jews , or of Christ , among us Christians , those being the only discipleships , to which they were admitted by the ceremony of baptisme , the disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a subdivision , and notification of several sects among Jews , as there are different denominations of Christians ( the more the pity ) which divide unity , but use not new baptismes , to discriminate them , I am sure contradict the Apostle if they doe . His 2d observation is , that the holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs proselytes , but his disciples , that , saith he , we might not confound the notions of these terms ; But I answer , 1. that those texts that expresse the Christians entring into discipleship , by coming unto him ( of which there are good store ) do in effect call them proselytes , for a proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediatly from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto . And 2dly that if this word , whether in it self , or in the verb from whence it comes , had never been used in the New Testament , yet would it not thence follow , that we might not confound the notions of proselytes and disciples : The word Jehovah is never used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament , yet may we not thence conclude , that the notion of Jehovah and God are divers : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the known style of the Nicene Fathers , is never found used by the writers of the Bible , yet sure it no way follows thence , that the notion of that word , and of this phrase [ I and my Father are one ] are different and may not be confounded . T is pity to lose time on such fictions of scruple , and difficulty as these . What now is further said by him in this chapter , both concerning little ones coming unto Christ , and of their entring into covenant , Deut. 29.10 . is on both sides but a bare denyal of that which is competently proved in that 28 § . For t is there evident that infant children are and always were accounted capable of proselytisme and so of being entred disciples , and particularly of being entred into covenant with God , and so of being baptized , and there is no reason imaginable , why the infants which were capable of coming to Christ , were blessed by him were affirmed by him to be qualified for the kingdome of heaven , should be denyed water to be baptized : The holy Ghost being fallen on the Gentiles that came with Cornelius , Peter durst not deny them baptisme ; And with what equity can the Christian Church do it to those , who are qualified for the receiving pardon of sin , for being blest by Christ , for being received into Covenant with him , and may afterward be instructed in all things which are needful to be learnt , For that still they are unqualified , till by hearing they own Christ as their Master , this is a begging of the question , without any the least tender of proof . As for entring into covenant , when by the force of Deut. 29.10 . he is forced to yield it competible to infants , yet he will do his best to escape the conviction which it offers him , 1. by modifying the sense , then by invalidating my inference from it . First , though he yield that they may enter into Covenant , yet this , saith he , but in some sense , by their fathers act ingaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs , in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into covenant , Deut. 29.15 . But if we examine the place , it will be most clear , 1. that the Covenant is entred into by the infants , just as by the rest of them , the wives and the strangers or proselytes : On their part , Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord , that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord ; and on Gods part , that he may establish thee this day for a people . 2dly Here is in the text no mention of any act of the fathers ingaging them under a curse or oath , but only of Gods oath which he maketh to them . v. 12. 3dly If they had thus adjured , or laid oath or curse upon their children , yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entring into Covenant ; we by the oath of baptisme which is laid on the childe ( by him to be performed when he comes to ability , unlesse he will forfeit all the benefits of his baptisme ) do in like manner adjure our infants , though whilest they remain such , they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did . 4thly Whereas from v. 15. he cites that the posterity then unborn thus entred into Covenant , there is no such word in the text ▪ no mention of [ posterity ] or of [ unborn ] but of them only , who were not that day with them , i. e. ( I suppose ) were at that time of assmbling absent from the Congregation . I wonder why Mr. T. should attempt thus to impose upon the reader . As for our inference ( which is this , that by parity of reason , infants may be entred into discipleship , and accordingly baptized , as well as they then might be entred into the covenant of God ) he simply rejects it , without any farther notice of his reason again , save onely this , that in baptisme such a discipleship is injoyn'd as is by preaching the Gospel , and they onely are disciples that are believers , and the onely are appointed to be baptized , who in their own persons do enter into Covenant and ingage themselves to be Christs followers , and this is again but a pitifull petitio principii , a denying our conclusion when the premises cannot be denyed , and so invincibly inferre the conclusion , viz. that those may be brought to and received into discipleship , covenant , baptisme , which in their own persons are not yet able to come to Christ , as those Criples may be born by others to Christ , who wanted strength to addresse themselves , and be as really partakers of his healing miracles , as those who came to him on their own legges . And so much also for the 25th Chapter . CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter . Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12 . vindicated . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Sanctification used to denote baptisme , the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture . Tertullians testimonie : designati Sanctitatis . Origen . Author Quaest : ad Antiochum . Cyprian . Chrysostome . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there , infant children , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistles . S. Augustines words examined . IN his last Chapter he proceeds to the view of those §§ . which set down the positive part of our basis , evidencing the opinion and sense , which the Apostles had of Christ's institution , and of his intention to include , and not to exclude infants from baptisme . The Apostles sense must be judged by their own usage ▪ and practice , and that is testified to us two waies , 1. by one considerable remain and indication of it in S. Paul , 2. By the practice of the first and purest ages of the Church , receiving infants to baptisme , and so testifying the Apostolical usage , and farther affirming that they received it by tradition from the Apostles . The remain , and indication in S. Paul is in the known place of 1 Cor. 7.12 . where speaking of the believers children he saith v. 14 ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . but now are they holy , i. e. it is the present practice of the Church ( that Apostolical Church in S. Paul's time ) to admit to baptisme the infant chldren of parents , of whom one is Christian though not of others . That this is the meaning of [ holy ] is there made evident , as by other arguments , so by this , that the antient Fathers who knew the sacred dialect , call baptisme Sanctification , Eum qui natus est , baptizandum & sanctificandum , in Cyprian , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sanctifyed when they have no feeling of it , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , let him be sanctified from the infancie , i. e. baptized then , in Gregorie Nazianzen . To which testimonies , and the rest which is there produced out of the agreement of the Jewish style ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for baptismes , to which agrees Maecarius's saying of the Jewish baptisme , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it sanctifies the flesh , Hom. 47. p. 509. ) because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein , I sh●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 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 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 , Catechumen● si non fuerit baptizat●● , non ei valet ad in●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 ●ffici 〈◊〉 fidele● . 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 unbelieving husband hath been sanctified , but also that there is hope they will , and so it should note not only some example past , but also some to come , of which there can be a lesse reasonable account given then of putting it in the present tense in English . 2. That the Enallage or change of tense is frequent , c. 11.14 ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense for the future , and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and in the next verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter for the present , and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here , not , hath been , but is sanctified , or if in the preter tense , yet that to be understood of a past thing yet continued , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3.18 . notes an act still continued in force . To these two I reply briefely , and first to the former ( the same which he had mentioned before , and excepted against as an excesse in my paraphrase , but both there and here without the least cause ; ) For in my paraphrase , I look upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verbe of the preter tense , and as such onely adapt the sense to it , referring it not to future hopes but to past experiences or examples ; Onely because examples are rhetorical syllogismes , and what hath been frequently experimented may also reasonably be hoped , I suppose that the Apostle so meant these examples , as grounds of hoping the like for the future , not making this of the future any part of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter , but explicating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rational importance ( which is somewhat more then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of the Apostles speech , and supposing this conclusion to ly hid under this premisse , as it is ordinary in all discourse to set down the premisses distinctly , leaving the conclusion by every ones reason to be drawn from thence , without setting it down explicitely . Wherein that I was not mistaken , I had all assurance from v. 16. where the argument is prest , and the conclusion inferred more explicitly , For what knowest thou , ô wife , whether thou shalt save thy husband — and the like mentioned in the Paraphrase from 1 Pet. 3.1 . And herein I have the authority of S. Hierome ; as for my rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman ( so I find it , per mulierem , in his 7th Epist . ad Laetam , and so Marianus Victorius in his Scholia assures us , all the Copies antient and printed , read it ) so also for this part of my Paraphrase , exemplum refert ( saith he on the place ) quia saepe contigerit ut lucrifieret vir per mulierem , Vnde & Beatus Petrus ait , ut siquis non credideret verbo , per mulierum conversationem sine verbo lucrifierent , id est , cùm viderint eas in melius commutatas , cognoscant omnes Dei legem ita confuetudine inveterata potuisse mutari , He produceth an example because , saith he , it hath often happened that the husband hath been gained by the wife , according to that of S. Peter , that if any man believe not the word , he should without the word be gained by the conversation of the wife , that is , that when they shall see them changed to the better , all may know that the Law of God might have been taken in exchange for so inveterate a custome . And so again Ep. 7. ad Laetam , speaking of the like example , Bene , saith he , felicitérque expectavimus ; Sancta & fidelis domus virum sanctificat infidelem , we have well and happily expected ( i. e. not mist of our expectation ) an holy and faithfull house sanctifies an unbeliever , adding his conceipt , ipsum Jovem , si habuisset talem cognationem , potuisse in Christum credere , that Jupiter himself if he had had such a kindred , might have been brought to the faith of Christ . As for his 2d answer , I acknowledge such Enallages to be ordinarie in the Hebrew , and sometimes , but more rarely found in the Hebraizing Greeks , or Hellenists , and consequently that where the context will not bear the sense of the tense which is used , there may be place for this Grammatical figure , which yet is not to be made use of unnecessarily . Accordingly , if there were any convincing reason offered , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter tense ] could not be born , I should not then doubt to interpret it by this figure , either in the present or some other tense : But when ( as here it is evident ) there is no such necessity , then 1. I cannot think fit to do so , ( t is dangerous to forsake the literal sense , when it may be commodiously reteined , and fly to either a Rhetorical , or Grammatical figure ) and having no motive to do so , I am next to consider , what is the properest importance of that phrase in that tense wherein it is used , and then I could not ( I believe ) have fallen upon any thing more natural , then that the preter forme of speech referred to the past experiences , &c. This is a full satisfaction to his answer , yet I may in the 2d place ex abundanti adde thus much more , that the utmost that he can pretend to by the enallage ( whether of the preter for the present , or of the preter understood of a past thing yet continued ) is as commodious for my interpretation , as the preter is : For if it be in the present , then the importance will be , that it is a matter of present daily experience ; if in the past continued , then that it is matter both of past and present experience that the unbeliever is thus wrought upon by the believer , and brought into the Church by baptisme , and this a just ground of hope , that so it may be again in any particular instance , and so a competent motive that the believing wife should abide with the infidel husband , and not depart as long as he will live peaceably with her , and this sure was S. Hieromes understanding in the words newly cited , exemplum refert , quia saepe contigerit &c. the Apostle makes instance , produceth example , that this hath ( and doth ) ordinarily come to passe ; And to that also exactly agrees the 16th verse , For how knowest thou &c. As for Mr. T. his instances of Euallage , though now I may safely yield them all , and rather gain then lose by them , I shall yet in the last place adde my sense , that no one of them is any way convincing ; that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not , c. 1. l. 24. for his passion was now so neer approaching , that it might very fitly be represented as present , and so that be the force of the present tense . That of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is not pertinent for certainly [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is not for [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , was ] which is the enallage of tenses , nor is there any necessity it should be for [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] ( the enallage of modes ) the rendring is proper , else are your children unclean , and exactly all one with else were , the change of the mode not changing the sense in this matter ; which was the cause why I followed the English rendring , and made no change in that translation . As for his 3d instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. which he saith is manifestly put in the preter tense for the present , I cannot be convinced of it , The context will well bear the preter tense yet continued [ no Law of Christ hath or doth thus inslave her ] or the preter tense simply [ she by entring the bonds of marriage hath not thus inslaved her self ] that she should think her self bound to do any thing contrarie to her religion in order to continuing with her husband . As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Joh. 3.18 . I wonder it could be thought fit to be produced to the prejudice of the preter sense , when the [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , already ] which is present , is an evident proof of the preter sense , and if it be continued as well as past ( he that hath been condemned remaining still under condemnation ) this is still perfectly agreeable to my notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the unbeliever oft hath been , and daily is converted , and brought to baptisme by the believer . And so much for all the grounds of his first exception , and his two answers to my inference from [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Sect. 3. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman ] defended , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latine author , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16 . 1 Pet. 1.5 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Psal . 68. My proof of the interpretation from the context . THE 2d concernes the rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which I read , [ by the woman ] but he [ to the woman ] as [ to ] is a note of the dative case , and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redundant . And the reason , saith he , that he still adheres to his way , is , be - because this seems to him the fairest , easiest , and most congruous sense thus to expound it , The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow , For though he be an unbeliever , and in himself unsanctified , yet in or to his wife he is as if he were sanctified , it 's all one in respect of conjugal use , as if be were sanctified . To this reason I have many things to answer , 1. That the very rendring it , is the begging the question , which is onely this ( in this matter ) whether this be the fairest , easiest , and most congruous sense , and must not be here supposed , when it should be proved . 2dly . That if it were the fairest sense , yet if the words bear it not , it must not be affixt to them , if it be more capable of another ; and whether they will bear it or no , is the question again , on occasion of which this inquiry is made into the use of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and to suppose again that it will signifie [ to ] in the dative sense , before it is proved it will , is a second begging the question , a paralogisme in stead of a reason . 3dly . The fairenesse of the sense ( simply taken ) is not attempted to be proved , which yet doth stand in great need of it ; For beside the redundance , or unusual sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , some other parts of the rendring are none of the fairest , As 1. the believer may abide ] as if it were simply free to abide or not abide , whereas in the present case ( when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer ) the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least , if not commanded ( and that is more then a liberty , that he may ) To him the Apostle saith ( and his sayings have sure authority with them ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , let him not put away . Nay the interdict of Christ belonging to all , but that one case of fornication , Mat. 5. and Mat. 19. it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever , that is guilty of no more but unbeliefe ; And accordingly the preface , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — But for the rest ( or , for the other questions , v. 1.6.8.10 . ) say I , not the Lord ] must be applied not to the immediate consequents , of the believers not putting away the unbeliever , that will stay with him ( for that had been determined by Christ in the Negative ) but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart , i. e. if the unbeliever wlll not dwell with the believer , except the believer forsake his , or her religion , what shall be done then ? And to that the Apostles counsel is , that mariage inslaves not the believer so far . All which is a competent prejudice to that part of Mr. T. his sense , The believer may abide , For if that be it , even when the unbeliever is willing to abide , then she may also depart , if she rather choose , which will be found contrary to Christ's precept , and so may not be admitted . 2dly . In this rendring , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is englished ( not by is or hath been sanctified , but ) by [ is as if he were sanctified ] which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not truely ( in any respect ) sanctified , and then sure this will be a strange construction , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbeliever ( is not sanctified but ) is as if he were sanctified , when yet literally it must be rendred the unbeliever hath been , or ( to gratifie Mr. T. ) is or continues to be sanctified : For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation , he is sanctified , by he is not ? for so assuredly he is not , if he onely be as if he were . With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given , the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer , i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbeliefe , and this sense inforced by the interrogation , v. 16. For what knowest thou , ô woman , whether thou shalt save the man &c. and by S. Peters aphorisme of daily observation , 1 Pet. 3.1 . the husband that obeyes not the word , i. e. the unbeliever , may probably be gained by the conversation of the wife , and then let him impartially passe judgement , which is the fairest and easiest rendring . His 2d reason is , because though the Dr. deny it , yet ( saith he ) I averre , that the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to , as a sign of the dative case , is found more then once in the New Testament . The truth of this I must now examine by the proofs offered for the affirmation . And his first proofe , is from Mat. 17.12 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , This , saith he , cannot be eluded , because the same speech is Mar. 9.13 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendred by Beza in the former place , fecerunt ei , they did to him , 2. Whereas the Doctor saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , upon him or against him , It had been meet the Doctor should have given one instance at least of such construction , which , saith he , I do not believe he can do . To this I answer , 1. By two ready instances in one verse , Lu. 23.31 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; If they do these things ( our ordinary English reades in a green tree , but the sense and propriety directs us to ) on the green tree , what shall be done on the dry ? here is the very phrase that is used in that place of Matthew , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and then for S. Markes using ( in the parallel place ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] that proves not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was redundant in S. Matthew , or that it was a bare sign of the dative case , it being free to S. Marke to use any other expression , different from S. Matthew , so he reteined the sense , as it is clear in this place he doth , doing injuries to him , being all one in effect with upon or against him , though the phrases are not the same , which no way inferres that when the change of the phrase changes the sense , it were lawfull so to varie it , as in the place we have in hand ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) 't is on both sides supposed to do . A 2d instance which he conceives cannot be eluded , is Col. 1.23 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which was preached to every creature , and this he proves to be the onely rendring ▪ 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach , is commonly with a dative case of the object , and though , 1 Tim. 3.16 . it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yet our translators , and the vulgar , and Beza read it unto the Gentiles , as if there it noted onely a dative case , and if it were among the Gentiles , there , yet here Col. 1.23 . it cannot be so , because the object is in the singular number , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , when it is for among , is joyned still with a noun of the plural : and 2. That which , saith he , puts this out of all doubt , is , that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mar. 15.16 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But to all this the answer is ready , by observing the exact notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole creation ( as we render it Rom. 8.22 . ) as that signifies the whole , but especially the Gentile world , and accordingly is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. and farther explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole world , to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go , when they were thus to preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to this whole creation . Now of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this notion it is clear , that though it be in the singular number , yet that hath the power of the plural , as the word [ world ] and the like , which every body knowes , is a noun of Multitude , and so is creation , when it is thus taken for the whole created world , meaning this world of men , the nations or people of the world . And then there can be no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is most exactly thus to be rendred , preached in , or among the whole creation , as Gal. 1.16 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , preach in the nations , or among the Gentiles , and so 1 Tim. 3.16 . also , though the sense being no way altered by rendring it unto the whole creation , or every creature , and to the Gentiles , it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendred in all these places , which yet must not prescribe for other places , where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendring , as in this case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is observable , where therefore the literal rendring being retained , we are not reasonably to conclude any more from it , then that literal rendring will afford us . As for the parallel phrase Mar. 16. that doubtless can prove nothing , 1. Because the places are not , nor can be thought parallel , 2. Because if they were , ( as of Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. hath been granted ) yet the parallel lying onely in the sense , and that being all one , whether they preacht to or among the Gentiles , this no way concludes that the phrases are the same , or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one redundant , which is the onely thing for the proving of which this parallel is produced , but of that I have formerly spoken . His third instance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Act. 4.12 . which he cannot yet conceive , but that it is better rendred , to men , then among men . And his reasons are , 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath most regularly and consequently a dative case of the person after it . 2. Because if it had been among men , it had been to be placed after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , other , there is no other name among men , given , but being placed after given , it is to be expounded as referred to given , not to other , and so must be read , to men , not , among men . 3. It seems no good sense , nor true , that Christ was a name given among men , for though he were among men , yet he was given from above . To all which he addes the judgement of Irenaeus , l. 3. c. 12. cited by Beza , and a parallel phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Act. 7.44 . To these I answer , 1. That t is true that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath any case of the person following and governed by it , that is constantly the dative , but that is no way applicable to this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for there the persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are governed by the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . To the 2d. That the construction by among , is very good , placing it after given , there is no other name given among men , i. e. no means of salvation afforded by God , and continued among men . To the 3d. That Christ's being given from above , no way prejudges his being given among men , both because the benefit of this gift is as a common donative , distributed among men , and also because this gift is dispenst in forme of humane flesh , Christ is become man , and to be found and seen among men . And to the last , for the place of Irenaeus , t is strange that neither Mr. T. nor Beza whom he transcribed , should remember that Irenaeus wrote Greek , and that as the Latine translation [ datum hominibus ] is not written by Irenaeus , so there is no question but Irenaeus's Greek was the same with the text in the Acts , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and then the Translator ( barbarous enough through that whole book ) is to be reformed by the Author , and not the Author judged of by the Translator ; Or if he were , and Irenaeus's Greek did really read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] as the Translator doth [ hominibus ] without [ in ] then I must resolve , that the copie of the Scripture , which he followed , did so read before him [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] and if so , then what proof can Mr. T. have from thence that in other places or phrases , where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in all copies , it shall be redundant , and signifie no more , then if it were not to be found there ? As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it must certainly be rendred , among the Fathers , thus , the tabernacle of witness was among our Fathers in the wilderness : T is pity the reader should be exercised and detained with such debates as these , with which yet in obedience to Mr. T. I must farther importune him . For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16 . and 2 Pet. 1.5 . That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith , that he was pleased to reveale his own sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and when I had rendred that by , or through me , to others , This exposition , saith he , makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly . This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared , for certainly there was little temptation for it : why , I pray , might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure , say , God was pleased through me to reveal his sonne , and by way of explication , ( and withall to denote the designation of that Apostle to his peculiar province , as the Apostle of the uncircumcision ) adde , that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles . Certainly every explication of an obscurer or narrower , by a clearer or larger phrase , is not inept tantologie , but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly , have always been full of . And yet 2dly the latter part here ▪ of his preaching the Gospell to the Gentiles ( he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles , as Peter and John were of the Jewes wheresoever dispersed ) is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and paraphrasing the former part of it ; for in that those others had not been defined , who they were , or limited to the Gentiles . This Mr T. adverted not in his objection , I desire he will now take notice of it . For that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I need adde no more to what I had before said , that it is most fully rendred thus , unto or over and above your faith superadde virtue , or fortitude . Two places , he saith , he had formerly produced out of the old Testament , Deut. 28.60 . and 2 Kin. 7.27 . and now addes one more , Psal . 68.18 . But besides that three onely places in the whole old Testament , would never inferre that so it must be in this place of the new , there being many more to preponderate for the contrary , and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it must be here , besides this , I say , it will be found , that these three will be of no availe to him . Of the two former the 2d is not , there be but 20. vers . in that Chapter , and therefore no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 27th : and for the former we well read it , unto thee , where the 72. reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the ordinary way of acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And lastly , for his new sprung testimonie , Psal . 68.18 . of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for which saith he the Apostle hath Eph ▪ 4.8 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which he takes to be more then enough to refute the Doctor , t is presently visible that it hath no manner of force in it ; For though those two places are perfectly parallel , as to the matter , yet for the expression t is evidently very different , in one [ thou hast received ] in the other [ he hath given ] and so [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or among men ] must of all necessity differ from [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to men ] For how could it be sense to fay , thou hast received gifts to men ? yet so it must be , to make good Mr. T. his observation , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to , or is redundant , or the note of a dative case . And so he never had a more improper season for his triumphs ; never lesse cause to tell others of taking ad randum , when he himself was so far removed from all appearance of demonstration . And so much for the Grammatical notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , very unfit to have exercised us thus long , but that Mr. T. would have it so , and words are the meanes of conveighing realities unto us , and mistakes in them ( though minute ) may be of substantiall importance . My 3d proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt , by comparing it with the reason subjoyned , For what knowest thou , ô wife , whether thou shalt save thy husband ; or how knowest thou , ô man , whether thou shalt save thy wife ? ] he comes next to examine , and hath many exceptions against it , all which ( without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally ) will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to ly , Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordinary observation , that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and baptisme by the believing wife , therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever , in case the unbeliever be willing to stay , v. 13. for this reason , v. 16. because what hath been so oft , may very probably be hoped again , and consequently upon the premises the believer hath ground to hope , that she may in time gain the husband to the faith , and that , being so fair a reward in her view ( the saving or rescuing him from infidelitie , to Christ ) may well inforce the counsel of the Apostle , not to depart from him , as long as , without sin , she is permitted to stay . By which it appeares that this v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. ( on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally depend ) but an application of the argument formerly proposed , but now more signally brought home to them , under the forme of [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what — ] by this means to reinforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelitie : If the reader will but observe what is thus visible , he will want no more help , to get out of the intricacies , and toiles , which Mr. T : hath here spred for him in this matter , which is in it self so manifest , as nothing can be added to it , if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self . Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense . The argument à genere ad speciem . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . How the husband is said to be baptized by the wife . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings . The proportion betwixt legal holyness , and baptisme . Difference between relative and real sanctification . The testimonies of the antient , for and against my interpretation . HIS exceptions to the former part of my paraphrase being now ended , I must attend what he hath to say against the latter part of it , that which concernes our matter in hand more neerly ; The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for else were your children unclean , but now are they holy , i. e. upon that score it is that 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 pr●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 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 . 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 beginning , and yet doth it with great incitation , First , saith he , it is false that Christ founded his institution in the Jewish practice . But this I suppose in Mr. T. to be no other then a mentiris Bellarmine , or that most inartificiall thing , the denying a conclusion which had been inferred by competent premisses . And for the reason added to his negation , that it would utterly overthrow all baptisme after the first conversion of progenitors , that hath been largely answered here , and grounds laid for it in the resolution of the Quare , by the Jewish practice of baptizing the children of natives , as well as of proselytes , and so of those that are born never so many ages after the first conversion . And I must not again so often repeat the same thing . In the same causelesse fit of incitation , he farther goes on , 2dly . saith he , It is false that there is any evidence in the Apostles words , 1. Cor. 7.14 . of such a Custome of baptizing Christians and their children . But that I humbly conceive , is the denying my conclusion again , having all this while laboured to clear this evidence in the tract , and here vindicated it from all objections , which seemed to have the least force in them : And whereas he here addes no other reason to his negation , but his own not thinking that ever any of the Fathers did interpret the Apostles words as this Doctor doth , adding that Tertullians words de Anima , c. 39. are not an exact parallel to the Apostles speech ( which I must suppose I have now shewed it is ) that Ambrose and Hierome interpret them of legitimation in birth , Augustine what way soever , not to baptisme ( of each of which I have spoken already also ) all that I shall need adde , is onely this . 1. That still if this argument were exactly true , yet it is but a negative argument à testimonio , which never was availeable in any dispute : 2. That if the Fathers do not fully interpret this place as I now do , yet I have brought some suffrages and other competent grounds out of the Fathers for my way of interpreting it : 3. That what he hath said for the invalidating the Testimonie out of Tertullian , hath certainly no force in it , as shall now briefely appear by this view of what he saith . It is this , 1. That the termes candidati sanctitatis , or designati sanctitatis , or candidati fidei in Hieroms Epis . 153. to Pauliniu , do note not that they were baptized , but that they were in designation of being believers and baptized , intended to be holy by the parents , to be bred up to the faith and so baptized . 2. That what the Doctor talkes of Tertullian as saying they were holy , i. e. baptized , ex seminis praerogativâ , it is a manifest mistake , for 1. The holynesse he ascribes to believers children was not onely by prerogative of birth but also ex institutionis disciplinâ by the discipline of their instruction which is afore baptisme . 2. The prerogative of birth the very words of Tertullian shew to be no more but this , that believers children were born without those idolatrous superstitions which were used in the birth of infidels children , which he there principally recites . To this I answer by degrees , 1. By viewing the place in S. Hierom , to which he referres me for the explication of the phrase , candidati or designati sanctitatis . That Epistle to Paulinus is hastily written in answer to two questions of Paulinus his proposing . To the later , being this , quomodo sancti sint qui de fidelibus , i. e. baptizatis nascantur ( which plainly referres the matter to these words of the Apostles , how the children born of believing parents are holy ] he gives a very short solution , being taken off by the hast of the post and the multitude of other letters , he had to write . All that he is permitted to say is this . De secundo problemate tuo Tertullianus in libris de monogamiâ disseruit , asserens sanctos dici fidelium filios quòd quasi candidati sint fidei , & nullis Idololatriae sordibus polluantur . Simúlque considera quòd & vasa sacra in tabernaculo legimus , & caetera quae ad ritum ceremoniarum pertinent , cum utique sancta esse non possint nisi ea quae sentiunt & venerantur Deum . Idioma igitur Scripturarum est ut interdum sanctos pro mundis & purificatis & expiatis nominent , sicut & Betsabee sanctificata dicitur ab immunditia sua , & ipsum templum sanctuarium nominatur . Of your second probleme Tertullian hath discoursed in his Books de monogamia , affirming the children of believers to be called holy , because they were as it were candidates of Faith , and not polluted with any of the filth of idolatrie . Withall consider that also we read that the vessels in the tabernacle are holy , and the other things which belong to the rite of ceremonies , when yet nothing can ( really ) be holy but what have sense , and worship God. It is therefore an idiome of the Scriptures to use the word holy for those that are clean , and purified and expiated , as Bathseba is said to be sanctified from her uncleannesse and the temple is called the Sanctuary . And so he is abruptly broken off , meaning to have said much more on that subject , this , as he solemnly protests ( testis est mihi conscientiae meae Deus ) being but the procinctus & exordium , the preparation and beginning of his interpretation . If he had gone on to have perfected his answer to Paulinus's quaere , he would probably have more perfectly cleared the whole difficulty . As it is , here is nothing in the least wise to our prejudice , nor to the proving that which Mr. T. undertakes , that Tertullians words de Anima do not affirme the baptizing of the believers children . For 1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierome referres to , but some other in his Bookes de Monog . that one Book which we now have under that title affording us no such discourse on that subject , as S. Hierom mentions . 2dly . All that S. Hierom cites out of that ( not this ) place of Tertullian , is very reconcileable with what Tertullian saith in this place , and with his opinion that the infants of Christians were baptized , for , saith he , they were quasi candidati fidei , as it were candidates of faith , Candidates were they that stood for any office qui candida sumptâ veste consulatum ▪ praeturam &c. postulabant , who putting on white garments sued for any office , and so candidates of faith , they that sue , for this condition in the Church of God , that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers , to which by baptisme they are assumed , and accordingly were to be brought to the font , like such candidates , in white garments as they that were to be sanctified , i. e. baptized , among the Jewes , Exod. 16.10 . were also to wash their clothes or put on clean garments . Again when he saith of them that they were holy as the vessels of the Temple were holy , though they had no sense , this is the clear laying 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 quàm 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 of the antient Christian writers , no nor any of those the Doctor cites , ever derives it from the Jewish practice . But certainly this is of no force ; for 1. So long as none of all these deny it , to be so derived , and when the matter it self speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jewes , there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion , that Christs institution of baptisme was founded in the Jewish practice of baptizing their natives and their proselytes , and that their custome being to baptize infant children , Christs institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant childrens baptisme was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy , and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian . What he addes from several antient testimonies , shortly pointed at , that they shew that the Fathers took the baptisme of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice , but in the conceit they had that baptisme did regenerate , give grace and save , and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdome — hath nothing of weight in it , For 1. Their conceiting that baptisme had this force from Christs institution , no way prejudges Christs founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice . T is as if he should thus argue , the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be usefull for the confirming of our faith , therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jewes . They conceived imposition of hands to conferre a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders , therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custome of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands . The foundation of the institution is one thing , and the benefits of it being instituted is another , and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing . 2dly . Their very opinion that baptisme did regenerate , and was necessary to enter into the kingdome , as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again , v. 3. and that of water — v. 5. ( by baptisme ) he cannot enter into the kingdome of God , so was that speech of Christ , taken from the customary doctrine of the Jewes , among whom baptisme was said to regenerate , and to enter into the Church , as that was the portal to the kingdome of God , and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it , Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition , Art thou a Ruler , a Master in Israel and knowest not these things ? and therefore again those perswasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcileable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptisme . Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Jewes ( and so might as well found the baptisme of Christian infants there , the Jewes baptisme , as hath appeared , belonging to such ) hath formerly been evidenced from Gregorie Nazianzen , Orat. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — and so from others also . What he now addes of womens baptizing among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us , of private baptisme , of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous , of the sureties answering in the childs behalf , and expressing their desire to be baptized into the faith recited , of the custome of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsontide , of sprinkling or powring water on the face , of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed antiently before they were baptized , is all amast together , if it might be , to make up one accumulative argument , but is utterly insufficient to do so . All that he concludes from the mention of all these , is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alledged from the Fathers , to prove that Infant baptisme was an Apostolical tradition . His words are these , upon the mentioning of those particulars ▪ [ And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptisme brought by the Doctor , because having said so much . Here indeed by his [ therefore ] I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelesly and unseasonably , viz. by way of diversion ( as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties ) to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers . But I must not thus farre complie with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this , the doctrine of the antient Church in this matter , For. 1. baptisme being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion , and 2. The forme wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels , and so 3. The Apostles practice being our onely guide for the resolving such difficulties as these , whether infants were admittable or no to baptisme ( the foundation thereof among the Jewes visibly belonging to infants , but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christs institution ) it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age ( 1600 years after those times ) to discern Christs institution in this matter , but by the words or actions of ( or some kind of intimation from ) the Apostles , how they understood Christs institution . Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally , speaking to another matter , and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough , and defines for the baptizing of infants in those dayes ; But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words , how fair and easy soever , there is but one possible method remaining in this , as in all other questions of fact ( as evidently this is , whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptisme or no ) viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter , who by succession and tradition , the one from the other , had the Apostles practice , the interpreter of their sense of Christs institution , conveyed and handed down unto them , and are to us , their late posterity , the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact , and so are in all reason to decide the controversie , and give a final conclusion to the debate between us . This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere , I professe to have laid the most weight upon it ( according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies ) and consequently must still insist upon it , and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexteritie , and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence , I shall again resume it , and give him a competent series of testimonies , some formerly mentioned , and now put more into forme of evidence , and others added to them , so 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 , quàm 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 , 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that we affirme of this the same things which our divine officers of the Church , being instructed by divine tradition , have brought down unto us , and again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — our divine guides ( i. e. the Apostles , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saith Maximus ) considering this , appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner , nothing can be more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this antient and elegant writer vouched for the baptizing of infants , as a sufficient account of that matter , against the reproaches and scoffes of profane , or heathen men , who deemed it unreasonable . And so there is a most convincing testimonie for that time , wherein that author wrote , which must needs be in the fourth Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him , but most probably more antient , and so to be placed in this third age . In the midst of this third age , An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bishop of Carthage , and ten years after he suffered martyrdome , i. e. 158 years after the age of the Apostles . In the year 257 he sat in Councell with 66 Bishops ( see Justellus in his Preface to the African Canons p. 21. ) and their decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem , which is now among his works . Pamel . Edit . p. 80. The Councell was in answer to some questions about baptisme , and accordingly ▪ he there sets down his own opinion , together with the decrees of that Councell of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him ; And so this , as it is an antient , so it is more then a single testimonie , that of a whole Councell added to it ; and yet farther , to increase the authority of it , S. Augustine cites this Epistle * more then once , and sets it down almost intire , as a testimony of great weight against heretikes , and so t is cited by S. Hierome also , l. 3. dial . contr : Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus , whether infants might be baptized the 2d or 3d day , or whether , as in circumcision the 8th day were not to be expected , he answers in the name of the Councel , Vniversi judicavimus , t was the resolution or sentence of all , nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei & gratiam denegandam , that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denyed to any humane birth , to my child , though never so young , ( by that phrase [ mercy and grace of God ] evidently meaning baptisme , the rite of conveighing them to the baptized ) adding , that t is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized , pro atate accipientium vel minor vel major tribuitur , is given to them in a greater or lesse degree in respect of the age of the receivers ; and that God as he accepts not the person , so nor the age of any , confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean , and that if any were to be kept from baptisme , it should rather be those of full age , who have committed the greater sins , and that seeing those when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptisme , quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans , qui recens natus nihil peccavit , nisi quòd secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit ? qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso faciliùs accedit , quòd illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata , how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden , who being new born , hath no sin upon him , but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born , who therefore should more easily be admitted to pardon , because they are not his own , but others sins which are then remitted to him . Concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptisme , tum magis circa infantes ipsot & recens natus observandum atque retinendum , so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new born children . Thus much and more was the sentence of that antient Father and that Councel , and as the occasion of that determination was not any antipaedobaptist doctrine ( there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church , that we can hear of ) but a conceit of one , that it should be deferr'd to the 8th day , which was as much infancy as the first ( and so both parties were equally contrary to the Antipaedobaptists interests , the condemned , as well as the Judges ) so that it was no new doctrine that was then decreed , or peculiar to S. Cyprian ( who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptisme ) appears also both by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him , and by the expresse words of Saint Augustine Ep. 28. ad Hieronym : Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens novum sed ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans — mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit , Blessed Cyprian , saith he , not making any new decree , but keeping the faith of the Church most firme , decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops , that a child new-born might fitly be baptized . Which shewes it the resolution of that Father also , that baptizing of Infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time , not onely the opinion , but the Faith , which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles . In the next or fourth Century , about the year of Christ 370. flourished Gregorie Nazianzen , and dyed in the year 389. who though he be by Mr. T. affirmed to dissuade from it but in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death , will yet give an evident testimonie of the doctrin of the Church of that age in this matter . In the * 4th oration written on this subject of Baptisme having gone through all the ages of man ( to demonstrate a proposition premised by him , * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it belongs to every age and sort of life ) he at length comes to the consideration of infancy , in these words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If thou hast an infant , let not iniquity get time , * let it be sanctified ( certainly baptized ) in infancy , let it in the tender age be consecrated to Gods spirit , and whereas the heathens use amulets and charmes to secure their children , * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , do you give it the Trinity ( the Fathers the Sonne and the Holy Ghost in baptisme ) that great and good phylacterie , or preservative . A plain testimonie of the Churches doctrine at that time . Afterwards in the * same oration he returns to this matter again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , what , saith he , will you say concerning those that are yet children , and neither know the losse nor are sensible of the grace of baptisme , shall we also baptize them ? And his answer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Yes by all means , if any danger presse , t is better they should be sanctified ( baptized ) when they have no sense of it , then that they should dy unsealed , uninitiated , adding for proof of this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumcision on the eighth day , which was , saith he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an initial seal , and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , used to those that had no use of reason , and ( in a lower degree ) the anointing of the posts , which were insensible also , was yet a means of saving the first-born . After this , t is true that he proceeds to consider those children , that are not in any danger of death , and of them he gives his opinion ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the style which S. Paul useth , when he speaks his own sense , as that is other from the revealed will of Christ ) that staying about three years , at which time they may be taught to answer somewhat , though they understand it not perfectly , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by this means they may be baptized , souls and bodies , by this great Sacrament of initiation . But of this , 1. It is is clear that it no way prejudges the doctrine and practice of the Church formerly set down , and approved by him , that infant children , indefinitely considered , might be baptized , and if danger approched , must , how young soever they were ; which is as contrary to the Antipaedobaptist , and so to Mr. T. as any thing . 2dly . That it is but his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that , or former ages to authorize it . 3dly . That the state of children being so weak and uncertain , that t is hard to affirme of any that they are not ( for the first three years ) in any danger , his counesl for deferring will hardly be ever practicable to any . 4thly . That the deferring , of which Nazianzen speaks , is most probably to be understood of those whose parents are newly converted , and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptized or no , for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Lastly , That the deferring till three years old , if it were allowed , would no way satisfie the Antipaedobaptists praetensions , and so still the former passages ought be of force with all , and no heed given to the whispers of Mr. T. and others , as if this holy Father dissuaded baptisme in any age unlesse in case of danger , when he clearly saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , let him in the tenderest age be baptized and consecrated to the Spirit . In the same Century S. Ambrose must be placed , being a writer about the year 380. he in his 10th Book , Ep. 84. ad Demetriad . Virg. speaking of those that made Adams sin no otherwise hurtfull to posterity , then by the example ( exemplo non transitu no●uisse ) he presseth it with this principal absurdity , Hinc evacuatio baptismatis parvulorum , this evacuates the baptisme of infants , which should then be capable of adoption onely , but not of pardon . And in like manner on Luke , by Jordans being driven back , saith he , are signified the mysteries of baptisme , per quae in primordia naturae suae qui baptizati fuerint parvuli à malitia reformantur , by which the little ones that are baptized , are reformed from their malignity to the first state of their nature . In the beginning of the next or fift age , flourished S. Chrysostome , that famous Bishop of Constantinople whose death is placed in the year of Christ 407. he in his homilie to the Neophyti hath these words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause ( i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptisme , there recited , ten in number ) we baptize children , though they have not sins . Which words are the more worth remembring , because they had the hap to be made use of by the Pelagians , and consequently vindicated by S. Augustine , The Pelagians urged them in this forme , Hac de causa etiam infantes baptiz●mus , cum non sint coinquinati peccato , for this cause we baptize infants , when they are not polluted with sin , understanding it of original sin , but S. Augustine appealing to the Greek , shewed that the right rendring was , quamvis peccata non habentes , although they had not sins , i. e. propria , their own or actual sins , of which these infants were not supposed to have any . So in his * 4th Homilie on Genesis , speaking of baptisme as of the Christian circumcision , among other things he affirmes of it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it hath no determinate time but 't is lawful both in the first age ( the childhood , so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies , with him , * else where applied to the time of circumcision on the 8th day , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — ) and in the middle , and in old age it self , to receive this circumcision made without hands . In the same Centurie , very few years after , if not before Chrysostome , S. Hierome must be placed , born in the year 342. and deceased in the year 420. And he in Ep. 7. to Laeta telling her that whilest the child was yong and not come to Pythagoras's Y. the bivium or two wayes , the knowledge of good and evil , tam bona ejus quàm mala parentibus imputantur , his good or evil deeds are imputed to the parents , addes that this must needs be acknowledged , nisi forte existimas Christianorum filios , si baptisma non receperint , ipsos tantùm reos esse peccati , & non etiam scelus referri ad eos qui dare noluerint , maximè illo tempore quo contradicere non poterant qui accepturi erant , sicut è regione salus infantum majorum lucrum est . Vnlesse , saith he , you believe that Christians children , if they receive not baptisme , are the onely persons that are guilty of the sin , and that the offence is not charged on them which would not bring them to baptisme , at that time especially , wherein they that were to receive could not contradict , as on the other side the salvation of infants is the gain of the elder , adding that the parent which was thus to prepare his child for the Kings i. e. Christs embraces , si negligens fuerit , punietur ; shall , if he be negligent therein , be punished . Words of no very conformable aboad to the opposers of Paedobaptisme , I wish Mr. T. who thinks fit to make use of S. Hieromes name ( it now appears how luckily ) would be at leisure to consider them . So lib. 3. contr : Pelag. the question being asked by Crito , Quare infantuli baptizentur , why infants are baptized , the answer is made by Atticus , Vt eis peccata in baptismate dimittantur , that their sins may be pardoned in baptisme , and again , qui parvulus est , parentis in baptismo vinculo solvitur , the infant is freed in baptisme from the band of Adams sin . Paulinus , we know , was his Contemporarie , and from him we have this testimonie , Ep. 12. Inde parens sacro ducens de font● sacerdos , Infantes niveos corpore , corde , habitu — The Priest brings the infants out of the font white as snow in body , in heart , in habit . Next to these succeeds S. Augustine , who died in the 30th year of this 5 t age , and was the great champion of the Church against all the invaders of the depositum committed to it . His passages on this subject are to many to be enumerated , and some of them have already been set down in the Resol . of the Quaere p. 217. making it the perpetual doctrine of the whole Church of all ages before him , and expressly including that of the Apostles . So de Bap : contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli infantes baptizantur , qui certè nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam , & ore confiteri ad salutem — & tamen nullus Christianorum dixerit eos inaniter baptizari . This is held as tradition by the Vniversal Church , when little infants are baptized , which are sure yet unable to believe with the heart or to confesse with the mouth , and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose : ( a severe sentence again for the Antipaedobaptist ) adding the Ecclesiastical rule by which to judge of Apostolical tradition , and evidencing the benefit of infant baptisme by the example of circumcision , that as in Isaac , circumcised the eighth day , the seal of the righteousnesse of faith preceded , and the righteousnesse it self followed in his riper age by his imitating his Fathers faith , ita & in baptizatis infantibus praecedit regenerationis Sacramentum , & si Christianam tenuerint pietatem , sequitur in corde conversio , cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore , so also in baptized infants the Sacrament of regeneration praecedes , and if they hold fast Christian piety , conversion in the heart followes , the mystery whereof had been formerly received in the body . So De verb : Apost . Serm. 14. being come to handle this subject of the baptisme of infants , he begins thus , sollicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ summâ authoritate fundata , sed disputationes quorundam — The doctrine it self gives us no trouble , being long since founded in the Catholike Church by the highest authority ( that sure must be by Christs and the Apostles ) but the disputings of some men — and again , Non enim quaestio est inter nos & ipsos , utrum parvuli baptizandi sint , Baptizandos esse parvulos nemo dubitat , quando nec illi hinc dubitant qui ex alterâ parte contradicunt — the question betwixt them and us is not , whether infants are to be baptized ; Let no man make doubt of this , seeing neither do they doubt of this which contradict us in the other question concerning the benefit of it . And again , in a farther process with those disputers , Dic mihi , obsecro te , parvulis baptizatis Christus aliquid prodest , an nil prodest ? Necesse est ut dicat prodesse , Premitur mole matris Ecclesiae . Doth Christ profit infants that are baptized , or doth he not ? He must needs say that he doth profit , he is prest with the weight of the Church our mother . And again , authoritate reprimuntur Ecclesiae , si enim dixerint Christum nihil prodesse baptizatis infantibus , nihil aliud dicunt quàm superfluè baptizantur infantes . They are represt by the authority of the Church , for if they say that Christ profits not infants baptized , they plainly affirme that infants are superfluously baptized , but this those very heretikes ( the Pelagians ) dicere non audent , dare not say , and so were faine to secure their hypothesis by another evasion , viz. that they were baptized not for salvation but for the kingdome of heaven . And yet farther , Hoc habet authoritas matris ecclesiae , hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon , contra hoc robur , contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur . Fundata ista res est , ferendus est peccator errans in aliis quaestionibus — non tantum progredi debet , ut & fundamentum ipsum ecclesiae quatere moliatur . This the authority of our mother the Church is possest of , this the grounded Canon of truth holds fast ; against this fort , this invincible wall whosoever makes assault , is broken to pieces . This is a grounded thing : Hee is to be born with who erres in other questions , but he must not proceed thus far ( as the Antipaedobaptist certainly doth ) as to indeavour to shake the very foundation of the Church , i. e. certainly a doctrine laid by the first planters of the faith , Christ and the Apostles themselves . So Ep. 89. Non est superfluus baptismus parvulorum , ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt , per regenerationem ab eâdem liberentur . The baptisme of infants is not superfluous , that they who by their birth are bound to that condemnation which came by Adam , should be freed from it by regeneration , and more to the same purpose in that place . So in Enchirid. c. 42. à parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem , sicut nullus prohibendus est à baptismo , ita nullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo . From the infant new born to the decrepit old age , as none is to be kept from baptisme , so there is none who dyeth not to sin in baptisme . Which words are soon after transcribed by Leo ( ad Episc . Aquileg : ) who was advanced to the Papacie about the year 440. About this time was the Epistle of the Councel of Carthage written to Innocentius ( made Bishop of Rome about the year 400. ) In which these words we find by way of Decree , Quicunque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi à perditione liberari & salutem percipere sempiternam , anathema sit . Whosoever denyes that Infants are by the baptisme of Christ freed from perdition and receive eternal life , let him be anathema . About the same time , whilest Innocentius lived ( and to the same purpose ) was the Milevitan Canon , at which S. Augustine was present , a Bishop in that Councel . This hath been set down in the Resol : of the Quaere , p. 219. and is an evident testimonie that this doctrine was such as Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit , the Catholike Church every where diffused , alwaies understood and asserted , and so it is that Councels witness of the Apostolicalness of it . To these it were easy to adde Theodoret also , and Leo ( already cited ) soon after him , both falling within the former part of that fift Centurie , and in every age after this , store enough . But the question is not , and in any reason cannot be extended to those times , the clear definitions through all those first ages , being all that could be required to decide the controversie concerning the matter of fact , whether it were practised or not practised by the Apostles . And having so largely deduced them , it is not imaginable what should be now wanting to the completing of the evidence , when I have onely added , that there is no one testimonie of dissent , either pretended or producible from the writings of all those first ages , nor consequently the least appearance of obstacle , why the receiving of Infants to baptisme should not be resolved the doctrin and practice of the first and purest ages of the Church , avouched and testified to be delivered to them by the Apostles of Christ , who could not mistake his meaning in the Institution . What artifices the Antepaedobaptist can make use of to cast a mist before our eyes , in the midst of so much light , I can no way divine : sure I am that the prejudices which Mr. T. hath in few words indevoured to infuse ( as that some are counterfeit authors , some suspected , some misinterpreted ; that some maintained infant baptisme but in case of danger of death , that others which avouched this , avouched either Rebaptization or Communion of Infants also ) are all of them unjust and causeless , and have severally and punctually been prevented in one or both of these discourses , and so there remains not the least scruple of difficulty , that I can foresee in this matter , to adde to the bulke of this vindication . God assist it with his blessing to the disabusing those that are seduced , and regaining them to the waies of Peace . The End. ERRATA . Page . Line . Read. 13 8 then it 17 21 Alphes 20 32 the whiteness 28 ult . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 32 17 continuing   21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 40 25 of receiving 42 35 in to 44 11 heed to 48 21 of pers : 61 13 So Cyrill in -   18 they that 64 20 infants 67 15 crediderit 79 36 after infants adde being 80 5 ministry 83 3 then this 84 24 now to 91 2 but if 102 34 to be The CONTENTS of the severall Chapters and Sections contained in this BOOK . CHAP. I. OF Baptisme among the Jewes . page 2 Sect. 1. 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 . page 2 Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptisme depending on the positive part of probation . The several sorts of Anabaptists . Tistimonies the onely proof of Institutions . page 6 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 . page 8 Sect. 4. The conceipts of Pe : Alfunsus and Schickard of the Jewish baptisme . Raf : Alphes : Mr. T. his conclusion not inferred . The original of the Jewish Baptisme ( the onely doubt ) vindicated . Jacob's injunction to his family . Sanctifications Exod. 19.10 . differ from washing garments . page 17 Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea. The defence of my notion of it . Learned mens affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies . Christ's baptizing of Iewes as well as Gentiles , no argument . Christ's vouching Iohns baptisme to be from heaven , no argument . No more , the pretended no intimations of it . The no conformity . The proselytes children baptized , continually , not onely at the first conversion . The baptisme of a woman with child , serving for the child also , not argumentative . The Canon of Neocaesarea about it . page 23 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 . page 30 CHAP. II. Of Christ's words . Mat. 28.19 . pag. 34 Sect. 1. The Doctors pretended concessions examined . Christs institution of baptisme not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time . page 34 Sect. 2. Making disciples all one with receiving into discipleship . Baptizing the act of the Baptist . Instruction subsequent to discipling . The pretended parallel between Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Johns discipling by preaching excludes not infants . No more the Apostles , Mat. 10.5 . The notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Mat. 13.52 . Act. 14.21 . Infants both said to come and to believe . Instruction subsequent to baptisme . page 40 Sect. 3. Discipleship before instruction . What knowledge of the Master is required to discipleship . Two sorts of disciples , Some come , others are brought . page 50 Sect. 4. The difference of a Disciple and Proselyte examined . Christian as well as Jewish proselytes . Priviledges of proselytisme . Disciples of the Pharisees . The Holy Ghost's not using the word Proselyte of Christians , concludes nothing . Jehovah . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Infants qualified for baptisme . As for entring into Covenant Deut. 29. Gods oath . Infants adjured . Criples capable of Christ's cures . page 53 CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter . pag. 58 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 . page 58 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 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . page 66 Sect. 3. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman ] defended , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latine author . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16 . 1 Pet. 1.5 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Psal . 68. My proof of the interpretation from the context . page 69 Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense . The argument à genere ad speciem . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . How the husband is said to be baptized by the wife . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings . The proportion betwixt legal holyness , and baptisme . Difference between relative and real sanctification . The testimonies of the antient , for and against my interpretation . page 77 CHAP. IV. An answer to Mr. Tombes's view of my Conclusion and therein the sense of Antiquity in this Question . pag. 84 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 . page 84 Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptisme , and the Apostolicalness thereof . page 96 Books written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol. 2. The Practical Catechisme , with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4º 3. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to Practise , by H. Hammond D. D. in 12o. Several Books of Controversies relating to the present times , by the same Author in two large volumes in 4 to viz. 1. Dissertationes quatuor , quibus Episcopatus Iura ex S. Scripturis & Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur , contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum ▪ Authore Henrico Hammond , in 4o. 2. A Vindication of the Dissertations concerning Episcopacy from the Exceptions offered against them by the London Ministers in their Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici in 4o. 3. An Answer to the Animadversions on the Dissertations touching Ignatius Epistles and the Episcopacy in them asserted , subscribed by Iohn Owen servant of Jesus Christ , in 4o . 4. Of Schisme . A Defence of the Church of England , against the Exceptions of the Romanists , in 12º 5. A Reply to the Cathol . Gent : Answer to the most materiall part of the Book of Schisme , together with an Account of H. T. His Appendix to his Manuall of Controversies &c. 4o. 6. A Letter of Resolution of six Quaeries , in 12o. 7. An account of Mr. Cawdreys Triplex Diatrio . concerning Superstition , Will-worship , and Christmass Festivall . New. THE END . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A45397-e130 * De Bapt. contr : Donat : l. 4. c. 23. * See G. Cassan . in Praes . ad Duc. Jul. Cliv . ex Nichol. Blusdick de Orig Sect. Anabapt . * Tom. 2. p. 426. p. 41. See §. 12. E● : ad Smyrn : Edit : Voss : p. 6. l. 6. §. 2. In Rom. l. 5. * Tom. 2. p. 377. D. * Ep. 59. Edit . Pam. p. 80. * Ep. 28. ad Hieron . * Edit . Savil. Tom. 6. p. 854. l. 16. * Ibid. l. 19. * Tom 1. p. 27.31 * Tom. 2.18 . C. * In Iliad . Basil . Ed. p. 944. p. 333. * Ep. Eccl. Smyr . ap . Euseb . l. 4. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Hieron . Ep. 29. Apostolicorum temporum vir . * Doctrinarum omnium accuratissimus explorator . Tertul. advers . Valent. * Biblioth lod . 1 * Edit . Morel . p. 233. p. ●19 . p. 234. * Ep. 28. ad Hieron . l. 3 de Pec● . mer. & Remis . c. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9. l. 4. contr . duas Ep. Pelag. c. 3. l. 2. contr . Julian . c. 3. p. 339. * Paris Edit . Tom. 1. p. 648. * p. 647 , D. * ( Just as Tertullian de Ani. had observed . ) * p. 643. C. * p. 658. A. * Edit . Eton. Tom. 1. p. 328. l. 5. * T. 1. p. 322. l. 11. So again . p. 327. l. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉