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. Chil∣dren sinners.
[ 1] 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.
[ 2] To this he begins his Reply with these words, I like the Do∣ctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect wayes of proving In∣fant Baptisme, viz. the example of circumcision, Gen. 17. of bapti∣zing 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.
[ 3] To this introduction of his I shall make some Reply in a gene∣rall reflexion on the Treatise which he undertakes to answer, and begin with disclaiming his good words and approbation of my in∣genuity, 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 Page 3 Baptisme, which belonged to all, both Jews, and proselytes chil∣dren, females as well as males, whereas circumcision belonging to males onely, was in that and some other respects a less perfect basis of it.
[ 4] Meanwhile, for the clearing of this whole matter, it must be remembred that probations are of two sorts, either less or more per∣fect, 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.
[ 5] I shall apply this to the matter before us. The instituting of the Sacrament of circumcision among the Jewes, and the express com∣mand 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 per∣sonally 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 cer∣tainly 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 trans∣gressors 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 Chri∣stians with circumcision, Col. 2.11.12. In whom ye are circum∣cised — buried with Christ in baptisme, Isidor Pelusiote, l. 1. Ep. 125. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Jews used circumcision in stead of baptisme, whereupon S. Epi∣phanius styles Baptisme〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the great circumcision, and S. Augustine to them that require a divine authority, whereby Page 4 to prove the baptisme of Infants, renders this of the *Jewish circumcision, ex quâ veraciter conjiciatur quid valeret in par∣vulis 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 considerati∣on of the Angel coming, to kill Moses because of the childs not being circumcised, he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let us make haste to baptize our children.
[ 6] Yet because what is thus evidenced to be lawfull, and agree∣able to divine appointment in the old Testament, is not thereby presently proved necessary under the New (Christ might other∣wise have ordained, if he had pleased, and from his ordinance one∣ly, as that was understood by his Apostles and by them delive∣red to the Church, the necessity of our obedience, and so of Bap∣tizing 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 be∣ing 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.
[ 7] The same is appliable in some degree to the other waies of pro∣bation, 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 tis argumentative, § 22.
[ 8] Onely I now adde, that that other place of Mat. 18.6. where Jesus speaking of little children, useth these words, who so offen∣deth 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 impor∣tance and signification both of their coming to Christ, and of his commanding not to forbid them (such as will neerly concern Page 5 every Antipaedobaptist to take notice of) For as in other places of the New Testament, the coming unto God and Christ, is be∣lieving 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉little In∣fants (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.
[ 9] 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 King∣dome 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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. Augu∣stine 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 baptiza∣tos 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 'tis the profession of faith, and not the possession of it, which is requi∣red 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 per∣forme no other, in lieu of a personal profession.
Page 6 [ 10] 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 con∣tains 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 tis evident §. 22. this was neither waved nor relinquisht by me.
[ 11] To this if I shall now adde, that it was my design in that re∣solution of the Quaere to insist more largely on that way of pro∣bation, which I discerned to be lesse considered or insisted on by others, and yet to have perfect evidence in it, if it were duely ex∣plained 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 wa∣ving 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.
[ 1] 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 com∣petent 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 Page 7 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 antipaedo∣baptist (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 con∣cluded 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 nega∣tive, doth not onely demonstrate it lawfull, but duty, to offer and receive our Infants to baptisme, the judgement and practice of the Ʋniversal 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.
[ 3] 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 Hab∣maier, Michael Satelar the Switzers, and so on to Michael Hofman the skinner in the Low Countries, to Ʋbbo and Men∣no of Friseland, and Theodorick Ʋbbo's son, and all their fol∣lowers, 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 Page 8 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 de∣ciding 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.
[ 4] In a word then, the customary baptisme among the Jews be∣ing 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 in∣fants 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 con∣sider 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Post∣coenium, yet in stead of their Passeover.
AND first he will abbreviate and give the Reader the sub∣stance [ 1] 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, Page 9 that his Epitome hath done some injurie to the Book, left out one considerable, if not principal part, viz. that which concer∣ned the Native Jewish children, who were baptized as solemnly, as the Proselytes and their children.
[ 2] 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 conver∣sion 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, men∣tioned by him in the pulpit, as ready to be publisht, that by de∣ducing the baptisme of Christians from the Jewish custome of baptizing of proselytes I had excluded all the children of Chri∣stian ancestors from our baptisme.
[ 3] 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 cu∣stomary baptisme of native Iewish infants, as I have done the bap∣tisme 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.
[ 4] Tis unreasonable to recite here what is there so visible, yet be∣cause 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:
[ 5] First then, Baptisme or washing of the whole body was a Iewish solemnity, by which the native Iewes were entred into the cove∣nant of God made with them by Moses, so saith the Talmud tr: Page 10 Repud: Israel or the Israelites do not enter into covenant but by these three things, by circumcision 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉but by circumcision and baptisme, and in Iabimoth, c. 4. Rabbi Ioshua said, we find of our mother that they were baptized (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and not circumcised, so Maimo∣nides 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and bap∣tisme 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?
[ 6] 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, be∣cause, 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 bap∣tized 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.
[ 7] 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Page 11Luke 1.6. one Law for moral duties, and one ordinance for ri∣tuals or ceremonies) shall be for you and for the stranger that so∣journeth with you. Thus the Gemara tit: Cherithoth, c. 2. foun∣deth 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.
[ 8] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉sanctifications) and the washing (or wearing clean) garments also.
[ 9] And now I may, I hope, assume, that not onely there is per∣fect 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 chil∣dren 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 plea∣sed 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 Page 12 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 offe∣red 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.
[ 10] 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.
[ 11] And 1. saith he, Baptisme, it seems, was a custome of all na∣tions as well as the Jewes, citing Grotius for it on Mat. 3.6. and Mat. 28.19.
[ 12] 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 evi∣dence, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 hea∣thens be borrowed from the Iewes, at least by both of them be de∣rived from the same common fountain, the sonnes of Noah, in re∣membrance of the deluge, according to that famous verse among Page 13 the Greeks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sea sweeps away all the evils of men, to which S. Peter alludes in making baptisme the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tom. 2. p. 426. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The first baptisme is that of the deluge for the excision of sinnes.
[ 13] 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 ei∣ther side) was thought fit to march in the front of them.
[ 14] 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 cu∣stome of baptizing, or baptizing infants was derived from the Iewes initiating proselytes by baptisme.
[ 15] 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?
[ 16] 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 for∣mer of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of it self evident, without farther probation, supposing one∣ly 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.
[ 17] 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 Excommu∣nication, 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 Page 14 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?
[ 18] In this matter 'tis easy and obvious to object (as M. T. here doth about baptisme) that excommunication was a custome a∣mong 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.
[ 19] 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 com∣petent 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 difficul∣ty 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 acknow∣ledging 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 oc∣casion of Nicodemus's objection against this v. 9. Iesus answered, Page 15Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? discer∣nibly intimating that this his institution of baptisme was so agree∣able 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.
[ 21] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.
[ 22] 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 bap∣tismes, then after this preface entring on the discourse, he thus be∣gins, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Repen∣tance to water, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iohn also baptized, but not Iudaically.
[ 23] So before him, Macarius Hom. 32. having mentioned the circumcision which was under the Law foresignifying the true cir∣cumcision of the heart, annexes thereto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the baptisme of the Law, which saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is a figure of true things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 un∣der the Gospel. 2. Circumcision, a type of that of the heart; 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, among Page 16 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.
[ 24] So in Athanasius's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: qu: 103. * numbring up seven sorts of Baptisme, the first even now mentioned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that of the flood for the cutting off of sin, the second that of Moses, in passing the Red sea, which he calls, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, figurative; the third is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the legall baptisme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Hebrews had, whereby every unclean person (so is every one by nature) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
[ 25] 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 se∣cond continued, and that so improved by Christ, as to have more then the whole virtue of both, and to be the onely initial Sacra∣ment, the Fathers might well learn of S. Paul to make this com∣parison or parallel betwixt the Jewish, and the Christian Sacra∣ment, 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, Page 17 not substituting somewhat else (as for circumcision it did) in stead of it.
[ 26] 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 be∣ing 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 ea∣ten) 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 bap∣tisme. 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.
[ 1] WHat he next addes from Mr. Selden, of some that con∣ceived 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 Page 18 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.
[ 2] 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.
[ 3] In his 5t. Chap. de Reg. Iud. he hath these words, ad diffe∣rentiam 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 Samari∣tanes, more then from all other men, but onely that when a prose∣lyte is received he must be circumcised, and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 pro∣selyte, 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 notwithstan∣ding 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.
[ 4] 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 Page 19 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 incli∣nations, at least if not with artifices, to reject one, or misinterpret the other.
[ 5] But, it seems, after all this, and to evidence to how little pur∣pose 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 house∣hold, Gen. 35.2. or from Gods command Exo. 19 10. for the Is∣raelites 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.
[ 6] Here are many weak parts in these few words; For 1. The ori∣ginal 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 super∣sedes and answers that whole difficulty, if indeed there were any such in this matter.
[ 7] 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 tis certain that every custome received universally into a Church or society of men, must have some originall or other, and consequently Page 20 this custome being by Mr. T. acknowleged, must not in any rea∣son be left 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without Father, without Mother, with∣out 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 rea∣sons of giving it the deference, upon which it should be prefer'd be∣fore them.
[ 8] 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. Tis true indeed he did before out of Grotius, mention Noahs flood, in memorie of which this custome arose a∣mong 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 memo∣rie 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.
[ 9] 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (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 Whit∣sunday was a special day for administration of baptisme▪ and the persons baptized wore rhetorically styled sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉starres rising out of the waters, sometimes Page 21〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their putting on white garments at the receiving of baptisme, Tract. de S. Pent. for which Jobius in Photius hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onely.)
[ 10] 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 Le∣vites portion, and so the latter of these was agreeable to the for∣mer, 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 a∣greeable 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.
[ 11] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sanctifications, for washing, either the whole, or some parts of the body, as is shew'd at large, §. 35.
[ 12] 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 Page 22 misguide the reader, left out the mention of Moses's sanctify∣ing 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.
[ 13] Lastly, For his reason against deducing the baptisme of prose∣lites 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 prose∣lyte. And so tis evident that of Exod. 19.10. being the original of baptizing native Iewes, may, and must be the original of baptizing the proselytes.
[ 14] And this in each part being thus manifest, Mr. Selden's au∣thority (if it should be, as is pretended) can be of no force a∣gainst 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 misad∣ventures 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 argu∣ment. 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 Ca∣non of Neocaesarea about it.
[ 1] 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 con∣ceive 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 omit∣ted to name the author of it) am not, he knows, concerned in that, but have from his rejecting Mr. Seldens authority, when tis 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 con∣ceive, as Mr. T. doth this of the sea not signifying the Red sea, which I acknowledge to be unconceiveable.
[ 2] 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 Page 24 were baptized as since proselytes were baptized among the Jews, but as Christians were baptized.
[ 3] But certainly this is no reason of exception to my interpreta∣tion; For 1. I compare not this baptisme of out fathers in the sea with the baptisme of proselytes among the Jewes, but annex it im∣mediately 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.
[ 4] 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 bap∣tisme continuing to all their posterity, as well as that of circum∣cision. And whereas this is said to be set down thus out of Mai∣monides 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 wil∣lingly acknowledge, but in a matter of antient storie, such as this is, neither he nor any else must be believed farther then the testi∣monies produced by him out of their writers exact, especially a∣gainst express testimonies to the contrary. And such he there pro∣duceth more then one, p. 34. out of Gemara 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What did our Fathers? truely they entred not into Covenant without cir∣cumcision 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 antiquityPage 25 then that of the time of giving the Law) were baptized and not cir∣cumcised, and p. 38. out of Maimonides, that the Israelites en∣tred 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 pro∣duced 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 af∣firmes it without proofe, and against expresse testimonies produ∣ced by him, have referred (according to custome) to that place.
[ 5] 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 bap∣tize proselytes, and not natives; therefore Christ, if he observed that custome, was not to baptize native Iewes; The answer be∣ing 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.
[ 6] Other reasons he hath chosen to annex for confirmation of his negative, that Christ baptisme was not in imitation of, or in con∣formity with the Iewish custome; for 2. saith he, Christ would Page 26 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 preach∣ing, 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, appoin∣ting them to do what they did, yet might the ceremonie of washing used by them be derived from the customes that were already fa∣miliar among them.
[ 7] Twere 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.
[ 8] His 3d reason, that it is likely some where or other some inti∣mation 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 wri∣ters, 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 DirectoriePage 27 for the Christians in the use of baptisme?
[ 9] 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 concer∣ned 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.
[ 10] 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.
[ 11] 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 in∣fancie, 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He wants the rite of a proselyte for ever, un∣less he be baptized and circumcised. Here baptisme and circumci∣sion are joyned together, as aequally necessary to a proselyte, and that for ever. And circumcision there is no doubt was to be re∣ceived 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.
Page 28 [ 12] So again in the same place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 in∣fancie, 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.
[ 13] Besides this, two things I farther adde, to remove all possible force of this suggestion; 1. That if it were granted in the full la∣titude wherein it is proposed, that the Iewes baptized no other infants of proselytes, but those whom they had at their first con∣version; 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 pat∣tern belonging equally to them as to the children of the first prose∣lytes, and the Iewish custome of baptizing their natives infants, being fully home to it.
[ 14] 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 in∣fants may, and ought to be baptized, then are all their preten∣sions 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.
[ 15] 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 tis born. And this I had cited, §. 109. out of the Rabbines, and so indeed I find it in Maimonides, tit. Isuri bia. c. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Page 29 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 begot∣ten to the proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptisme. And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Coun∣cel of Neocaesarea Can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jew∣ish hypothesis, viz. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the mo∣ther that bears the childe differs from the childe, or is not all one with it, and her confession in baptisme is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉proper or particular to her self, and belongs not to the childe in her womb, give the (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 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.
[ 16] Which as it is a cleer answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jewes in that point, so tis moreover an evi∣dence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own obser∣vation 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The rule of judging in this matter. Baptizing in the name of the Father &c. pre∣scribed by Christ. So dipping or sprinkling. The Pract▪ Cat. misreported. Mr. Marshals covenanting.
[ 1] THis grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mis∣take, I shall not need to attend his other instances of dispari∣ty, this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindica∣ted, being sufficient to my pretensions, and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm, that the parallel holds any far∣ther 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 na∣tural 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,*〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 cir∣cumcision was; And so in many other particulars.
[ 2] 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.
[ 3] And this is all the return I need make to his 14 lesser disparities,Page 31 and all that he hath at large endevoured to infer from them, sup∣posing and granting them all to be such.
[ 4] 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, tis 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 admini∣stration of baptisme.
[ 5] So parallel to the court of three Israelites, by the confession or profession of whom (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Maimonides) the in∣fant was baptized, we have now not only the whole Church, in the presence of whom tis publickly administred, and when more pri∣vately, 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 them∣selves 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.
[ 6] 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 de∣fine, 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 testifica∣tions 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 particu∣lar of infant baptisme (though in other lesser particulars they dif∣fer 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) Page 32 of the Doctors own pleasure, as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern.
[ 6] Of this score tis 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 con∣ceive it, yet, saith the Doctor Christs prescription must be indis∣spensably used.
[ 7] 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 Apo∣stles 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Ʋniversal Church of God through all ages, or from any one ancient Father, for his denying baptisme to infants.
[ 8] What in this place he addes farther from me, out of the Pra∣cticall 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 appoint∣ment whosoever should be thus received into his familie should be received with this ceremonie of water, therein to be dipt (i. e. ac∣cording to the Primitive anetint custome to be put under water) three times, or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it — where Page 33 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, tis 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, baptize yee.
[ 9] What ground the Church of Christ hath had to disuse immer∣sion, 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 re∣citing of my words, which had been so much misreported by him.
[ 10] And so I have done with his 24th Chapter. For as to the ob∣jection 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, 'twere not amiss he would consider, whether Episco∣pal government stand not on as firme a basis in the Church of God, as Infant baptisme is by him vouched to do.