The baptizing of infants revievved and defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes in his three last chapters of his book intituled Antipedobaptisme
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
Page  66

Sect. 2. The rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [hath been sanctified] defended. S. Hie∣romes testimonie. Enallages must not be made use of without necessity. No advantage from it here. Feigned instances of Enallage. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

[ 1] FIrst then, to my first evidence taken from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 ex∣presseth it, it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving hus∣band 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 put∣ting it in the present tense in English. 2. That the Enallage or change of tense is frequent, c. 11.14▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the present tense for the future, and here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the next verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the preter for the present, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Joh. 3.18. notes an act still continued in force.

[ 2] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a verbe of the pre∣ter tense, and as such onely adapt the sense to it, referring it not to future hopes but to past experiences or examples; Onely be∣cause 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the preter, but explicating the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or rational im∣portance (which is somewhat more then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of the Apostles speech, and supposing this conclusion to ly hid under this premisse,Page  67 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.

[ 3] 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 Para∣phrase from 1 Pet. 3.1.

[ 4] And herein I have the authority of S. Hierome; as for my ren∣dring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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, Ʋnde & 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 conver∣sation 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.

[ 5] And so again Ep. 7. ad Laetam, speaking of the like example, Bene, saith he, felicitérque expectavimus; Sancta & fidelis do∣mus 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 or∣dinarie 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.

Page  68 [ 7] Accordingly, if there were any convincing reason offered, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 neces∣sity, then 1. I cannot think fit to do so, (tis 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 im∣portance 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 experien∣ces, &c.

[ 8] 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 com∣modious 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 pre∣sent daily experience; if in the past continued, then that it is mat∣ter 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 be∣lieving wife should abide with the infidel husband, and not de∣part 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, pro∣duceth example, that this hath (and doth) ordinarily come to passe; And to that also exactly agrees the 16th verse, For how knowest thou &c.

[ 9] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not, c. 1. l. 24. for his passion was now so neer approaching, that it might very fitly be repre∣sented as present, and so that be the force of the present tense.

[ 10] That of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not pertinent for certainly [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is not for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was] which is the enallage of tenses, nor is there Page  69 any necessity it should be for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (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.

[ 11] As for his 3d instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 15. which he saith is ma∣nifestly put in the preter tense for the present, I cannot be con∣vinced 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.

[ 12] As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Joh. 3.18. I wonder it could be thought fit to be produced to the prejudice of the preter sense, when the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 condem∣ned remaining still under condemnation) this is still perfectly a∣greeable to my notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the unbeliever oft hath been, and daily is converted, and brought to baptisme by the believer.

[ 13] And so much for all the grounds of his first exception, and his two answers to my inference from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]