Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense. The argument à genere ad speciem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. How the husband is said to be bap∣tized by the wife. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 partial washings. The proportion be∣twixt legal holyness, and baptisme. Difference between relative and real sanctification. The testimonies of the antient, for and against my interpretation.
[ 1] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for else were your children un∣clean, but now are they holy, i. e. upon that score it is that Chri∣stians 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.
[ 2] This argument of the Apostles thus explained in my paraphrase (or if he yet will have it more plainly thus, The Church upon con∣fidence 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 hus∣band 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 substi∣tuted 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.
[ 3] But the reasons produced for my thus interpreting, he next pro∣ceeds to examine, and I must take care to vindicate them. My Page 78 first reason is, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 rea∣son be here noted by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉holy, as all visible professors, Ezr. 9.2. are the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 holy.
[ 4] To this he answers, that it being all granted, confirmes not the Doctors exposition, because tis no good argument à genere ad spe∣ciem affirmativè, and because infants are not visible professors.
[ 5] 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 ascen∣ding to any higher degree in the ministerie, will not then the ar∣gument hold; He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him, there∣fore sure he is a Deacon? Thus sure it is in this matter, the rela∣tive holyness belongs to no person, that is not baptized, bap∣tisme is the lowest degree of it, and all superior degrees of Apo∣stle, 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 pro∣fession, therefore if these that are said to be holy, are visible pro∣fessors, then sure they are baptized; And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason.
[ 6] My 2d followes from the notation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 10.14. for those that must not be received into the Church, as on the o∣ther 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.]
[ 7] 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 remem∣bred, that [holy and unclean] fitly expresse those that are re∣ceived, or not received to baptisme, and then I am sure I have Page 79 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 a∣gainst the rational importance of the words in that place (as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have) then I hope I am per∣fectly innocent in inducing my conclusion.
[ 7] 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that places signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by baptisme; and the holyness, on the contrary, re∣ception to that priviledge.
[ 8] My 3d reason being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 al∣ways immersions, but that sprinkling of some part might be suffi∣cient; 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 be∣lieve my self in it.
[ 9] 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 hus∣band 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 Page 80other (and so to apply the observation (as it is visible I did) to the latter, not former part of that verse.
[ 10] And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of [by] and ex∣pound [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by the woman] of the perswasion, that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptisme, and not of her myste∣rie in baptizing, we may very conveniently so interpret the for∣mer part of the verse also, that by the woman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptisme, viz. by being brought to faith, to which this priviledge belongs.
[ 11] As for his 2d exceptions to my conjecture, founded in the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉sanctifications for partial not total washings, 1. I an∣swer, 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 appoint∣ment was not terminated to either, and so satisfied by either.
[ 12] 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 cal∣led 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 with∣out 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.
[ 13] 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 un∣clean, 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 exclu∣sion and reception being the same on both sides, as also the unclean∣ness and holyness, and the proportion lying only betwixt the Jew∣ish tabernacle and the Christian Church, which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on.
Page 81 [ 14] As for his question of Cornelius, it is most vain, the whole dis∣course being not of real but relative sanctification, and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truely in him in re∣spect of his devotion, fearing, praying &c. and that outward pri∣viledge 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.
[ 15] These be pitifull sophismes, and in no reason farther to be in∣sisted on, And therefore it was but necessary that to amuse the rea∣der, he should here adde by way of close that Augustine aid dis∣claim this interpretation, Hierome and Ambrose gave another, and so did Tertullian De Anima, c. 39.
[ 16] The three former of these we must, it seems, take upon his word, for he cites not the places where they give that other interpreta∣tion, 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 per∣fectly to accord to my interpretation.
[ 17] 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.
[ 18] 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. Am∣brose's name, as I have not commoditie to examine them, so they are known and universally acknowledged to be none of S. Am∣brose's writings; And then it is competently evident how little he hath gained by this unseasonable appeal to testimo∣nies.
[ 19] The designe, I suppose, was to prevent the force of my alle∣gations, 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 na∣tus est baptizandum, & sanctificandm, and the two places out of Gregory Nazianzen, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being sancti∣fied when they are not (through want of years) sensible of it, and Page 82〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.
[ 20] 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.
[ 21] 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 A∣postles 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.
[ 22] 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 pro∣duced 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.
[ 23] 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.
[ 24] 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.
[ 25] Lastly, The text to the Corinthians beeing in Greeke, cer∣tainly Gregory Nazianzen was as great a Master in that lan∣guage, as any that can be pretended fit to be confronted against Page 83 him, and with that concurrence, which I have shewed he had of O∣rigen, 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.