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  58

CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter.

Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12. vindicated. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sancti∣fication used to denote baptisme, the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture. Tertullians testimonie: designati Sanctitatis. Origen. Author Quaest: ad Antiochum. Cyprian. Chrysostome. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there, infant children, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Epistles. S. Augu∣stines words examined.

[ 1] IN his last Chapter he proceeds to the view of those §§. which set down the positive part of our basis, evidencing the opinion and sense, which the Apostles had of Christ's institution, and of his intention to include, and not to exclude infants from bap∣tisme.

[ 2] The Apostles sense must be judged by their own usage▪ and practice, and that is testified to us two waies, 1. by one con∣siderable remain and indication of it in S. Paul, 2. By the practice of the first and purest ages of the Church, receiving in∣fants to baptisme, and so testifying the Apostolical usage, and farther affirming that they received it by tradition from the Apo∣stles.

[ 3] The remain, and indication in S. Paul is in the known place of 1 Cor. 7.12. where speaking of the believers children he saith v. 14▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but now are they holy, i. e. it is the present practice of the Church (that Apostolical Church in S. Paul's time) to admit to baptisme the infant chldren of parents, of whom one is Christian though not of others.

[ 4] That this is the meaning of [holy] is there made evident, as by other arguments, so by this, that the antient Fathers who knew the sacred dialect, call baptisme Sanctification, Eum qui natus Page  59 est, baptizandum & sanctificandum, in Cyprian, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to be sanctifyed when they have no feeling of it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him be sanctified from the infancie, i. e. bap∣tized then, in Gregorie Nazianzen.

[ 5] To which testimonies, and the rest which is there produced out of the agreement of the Jewish style (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉sanctifications for baptismes, to which agrees Maecarius's saying of the Jewish bap∣tisme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it sanctifies the flesh, Hom. 47. p. 509.) because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein, I shll now adde more, one very antient before any of these (within less then an 100. years after the death of S. John) Tertullian de Animâ, c. 39. where speaking of infants, and saying, ex sancti∣ficato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari, that when either the father or mother is sanctified (i. e. received as a believer by baptisme in∣to the Church, the children are holy &c. (clear evidences of the notion of the word) this he there proves by these very words of this Apostle, Caeterum, inquit, immundi nascuntur, else (so caeterum in Tertullian's style is known to be put for alioqui or the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) were your children unclean, adding in stead of these other words [but now are they holy] quasi designatos tamen sanctita∣tis & per hoc etiam salutis, intelligi volens fidelium filios, hereby willing that we should understand that the children of believers are the designed, or the sealed of holyness (in the sense, I conceive, wherein they that are baptized are by the antients frequently said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be sealed) and thereby of salvation also: And all this, saith he, thus urged by the Apostle, ut hujus spei pignora ma∣trimoniis quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinarentur, that this hope might be a pledge to ingage the believing wife or husband not to part from the unbeliever, And he yet farther addes (still to the con∣firming of this interpretation) Alioqui meminerat Dominicae defi∣nitionis, Nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ & spiritu, non introibit in regnum Dei, i. e. non erit Sanctus. Otherwise (or if this argu∣ment of the Apostle had not been sufficient) he would have men∣tioned the definition of Christ, that unless one be born of water and the Spirit (i. e. baptized) he shall not enter into the kingdome of God, i. e. shall not be holy, shewing still of what holyness he under∣stands the Apostles speech, that which the child of the believer is made partaker of by baptisme, concluding, Ita omnis anima usque Page  60 eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu im∣munda quamdiu recenseatur, Every soul is so long inrolled in Adam till it be inrolled anew in Christ, and is so long unclean till it be thus anew inrolled, which as it supposes every child of Adam to be impure, till he be thus by baptisme made a child of Gods, a member of Christ, so it gives a full account of that un∣cleanesse, and that holyness of which the Apostle speaks the former the state of a child of Adam unbaptized, the later of him that by baptisme is initiated and matriculated into Christ.

[ 6] *And to this agrees perfectly that of Origen (of the same age, a very few years after Tertullian) speaking of the Apostles (from whom, saith he, the Church received by tradition that in∣fants should be baptized) Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui deberent, They to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries or Sacraments were com∣mitted, knew that there are in all the connatural pollutions of sin, which ought to be washt away by water and the spirit, giving us to understand what uncleanness and holyness it is, that children are capable of, the uncleanness of their birth from Adam, and the cleanness or sanctity of Christian baptisme.

[ 7] So Athanasius*Quaest. ad Antioch. 114. (or whosoever it is under the name of that antient Father) where the salvation of the baptized infants is concluded by him upon force of those two texts, Suffer little children to come unto me; and, now are your chil∣dren holy, whereto he there sets parallel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the baptized infants of believers, as the plain paraphrase of the Apostles words.

[ 8] To these I farther adde another passage of *Cyprian, together with the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him in their Epi∣stle to Fidus, where speaking of the baptisme of infants and ex∣pressely forbidding that any such should be hindred or kept from it, he brings for proof of it the words of S. Peter, that the Lord had said unto him that he should count none common or unclean, where it appears what was that Holy Fathers notion of common or unclean, such as might be refused baptisme, and consequently they which are not such, but on the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉clean or holy (and such saith Paul here are the believers children) are to be admitted thither.

Page  61 [ 9] Upon which words of S. Cyprian* S. Augustine speaking saith, he made no new decree, but kept most firme the faith of the Church, & mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis coepiscopis censuit, and he and his fellow Bishops resolved that a child might duely be baptized as soon as born.

[ 10] So * S. Chrysostome in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to them that were to be baptized, speaking of the several titles of baptisme, applies unto it that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 6.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified:* and again, of those that were baptized, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Scripture pronounces them not onely made clean but just and holy also.

[ 11] So *Gregorie Nyssene in like manner, Glaphyr: in Exod. l. 2. speaking of him that deferres baptisme to old age, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. he is sanctified indeed, i. e. baptized, but brings in no pro∣fit to God. And *Comm: in Is. l. 1. Or. 1. speaking of bap∣tisme again, and the sufficiency to wash away sin, he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉But they are once sancti∣fied, i. e. baptized— But I need no more such like suffra∣ges.

[ 12] This I have both there (§§. 34, 35, 36, 37.) and here thus large∣ly deduced, because in this one matter all the difficulty consists, and if it be once granted that this is the meaning of [Now are your chil∣dren holy] then here is an evidence undenyable of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants, and consequently an irrefragable testimonie of their sense of Christs institution, including, not ex∣cluding infants.

[ 13] And so this is a short and clear way of preventing all Mr. T. his indevours and pains (so largely taken) to invalidate my con∣clusion from this place of the Apostle, and I need not now be far∣ther sollicitous for my paraphrase on all those 3. verses, wherein he would fain find out some excesses and defects, some insertions and omissions; If such there were (as I doubt not to evidence there are none) it would be little for his advantage, as long as the interpretation of the last words [but now are they (i. e. your chil∣dren) holy] appears to be this, [but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of baptisme] for this one part of that verse concludes all that I pretend, or he oppugneth: And this I Page  72 hope is now cleared to be no singular interpretation of mine, but that which (beside the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rational importance of the Con∣text concluding it) the style of Scripture and the uniforme attesta∣tion of the antientest writers assign to it, so that there can be no reason for doubting in it.

[ 14] Yet because this is one of the exuberancies objected to my pa∣raphrase (and the onely one which I can without impertinence take notice of) that the term [young children of Christians—] is more then is in the text, which hath onely [your children] which saith he, is not restrained to infancie, I shall briefely remove this exception, 1. By the authority of Tertullian just now produced, who interpreted it of their infant children, as appeared both by the express words [sanctos procreari] and the [caeterum immundi nascerentur] and by the occasion of that discourse in that place, which was the immunda nativitas ethnicorum, the unclean birth of heathens children, and the unlawfulnesse of baptizing them, un∣lesse one of the parents were Christian. To which may be added also Nazianzens phrase forementioned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being sanctified from infancie (for so sure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a child before or soon after birth, saith Hesychius, and Aristophanes the Grammarian cited by *Eustathius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a child new born) which in all probability referres to this place of the Apostle, and so renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their chil∣dren by their infant children.

[ 15] 2dly. Tis as manifest by the general doctrine of the Fathers, when they speak of the faith of parents profiting their children, meaning alwaies their infant children, brought to baptisme by the faith of their parents, before they are personally capable of having faith themselves.

[ 16] 3dly. By the inconveniences which must follow in case it be in∣terpreted of any other but infant children. For suposing them come to years of understanding, and capacity, they shall then either be supposed to have received the faith or to remain in infide∣lity: If they have received the faith & then be baptized, tis evident that this benefit comes not to them upon any consideration of the faith of the parent, but upon their own personal profession, and consequently that these cannot be spoken of by the Apostle in that place, where he makes the sanctification or baptisme of the Page  63children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever, and as Tertullian saith, patropinium, a plea to move the beleever not to depart. But if they have lived to years and not received the faith, tis then certain that they may not be baptized at all; And so tis manifest it must be understood of the infant (un∣capable) children, and none else.

[ 17] Tis true that Mr. T. also excepteth against the paraphrasing of [holy] by [admitted to baptisme] affirming this to be a sense of the word, no where else found. But this I hope I have cleared already, both from the usage of the word among the Jewish and first Christian writers, and might farther do it even by this Apostles dialect, who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches, calls all those to whom he writes, i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 holy, Rom. 1.17. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉sanctified, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉holy, 1 Cor. 1.2. and again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉holy, 2 Cor. 1.1. and Eph. 1.1. Phil. 1.1: Col. 1.1. among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified, then as all baptized Christians are capable of that style. But I shall need adde no more of that to what hath been already so largely said.

[ 18] And the parts of my interpretation being thus cleared, that their children] were their babes or infants, and their being holy] their being baptized, tis sure I cannot be concerned in his conclusi∣on, that he never read or heard any exposition antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth, nor do I think he can shew any] I hope now he will alter his mind, and acknow∣ledge that it was his own fault, that this interpretation seemed so new and strange to him.

[ 19] As for the one place of S. Augustine produced by him (it should be, l. 2. de Pecc. Mer. & remiss. c. 26.) to the seeming prejudice of this interpretation, Ac per hoc & illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus, ad istam de baptismo & peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omnino non pertinet] it will easily be reconciled to it, if we but mark what question it is, that there he speaks of, even that which he had then in hand, viz. whether baptisme were necessa∣ry to remission of sinnes, and entring the kingdome of hea∣ven.

Page  64 [ 20] That this was the question in hand appeareth by the words immediately precedent, which are these sanctificatio, Catechu∣men si non fuerit baptizat••, non ei valet ad inrandum regnum coelorum aut ad peccatorum remissionem, The sanctification of a Catechumenus (what that is he had mentioned before, Catechu∣menos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi & orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari, that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands, of which we sometimes read in the antients, as hath elsewhere been shewed) profits him not for the entring the kingdome of heaven, or obteining remission of sins, unless he be baptized. And therefore that sanctification of what∣soever kind it is, viz. if it be without baptisme, belongs not, saith he, to the question then in hand concerning baptisme and the original and pardon of sin.

[ 21] Here then I suppose is Saint Augustines meaning. The ad∣versaries with whom he disputes (the Pelagians) to maintain the no necessity of baptizing infants for the remission of sinnes, made use of that text, and concluded from it the sanctitie of the Christian infant birth, before, and without baptisme: To this he answers, without any strict examination of the importance of that text, that whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be, that the Apostle speakes of, except it be that of baptisme, it cannot avail to the remission of sinnes, &c. Some improper kind of sanctification, saith he, he may confesse, secundum quendam modum, in him that is not yet baptized, but that without baptisme non valet ad intrandum, is not of force for entring into the king∣dome of heaven, and therefore whatsoever sanctification that is (viz. Whatsoever without baptisme) it belongs not to his question then before him, and so the Apostles words can have no force a∣gainst him.

[ 22] This I suppose then to be in brief S. Augustines meaning in that place, that tis not the holinesse of the Christian infants birth, but of their baptisme, which stands them in stead toward the kingdome of heaven: And then that, as it is no evidence on my side, that he interpreted that place to the Cor. as I interpret it, so it affirmes nothing to the contrary, but leaves it in medio, having his advantages other wayes against the disputers.

Page  65 [ 23] However for the substance, his accord with us is evident and his conclusion firme both in that place, and l. 3. de Pecc. mer. & Remiss. c. 12. Illud sine dubitatione tenendum, quaecunque illa sanctificatio sit, non valere ad Christianos faciendos, atque ad dimittenda peccata, nisi Christiana atque Ecclesiasticâ insti∣tutione & Sacramentis ffici 〈◊〉 fidele. It is to be held without doubting, that whatsoever that sanctification be▪ it availes not to the making them Christians and to the obteining remission of sins, unlesse by Christian and Ecclesiastical institution, and by the Sa∣craments they be made faithfull.

[ 24] This is all that I can seasonably return for the vindicating of my paraphrase, It would be too immoderate an excursion to take notice of all his pretended objections to the former part of it, which concerns the cohabiting of the believer with the unbeliever, which I assure Mr. T. were easy fully to answer, and shew his mistakes in each particular, if the matter of our present dispute did require, or would well bear a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of that length, or if I thought it in the least degree usefull to the reader, that I should farther explain the grounds of my paraphrase, then as they are already laid be∣fore him, Sect. 31. &c.

[ 25] Yet because the reasons which I there tendred for the paraphrase taken from the notations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath been sanctified] and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not to, but) by the wife] and by the plain conse∣quents, what knowest thou ô wife, whether thou shalt save thy hus∣band — are by Mr. T. examined with an endeavour to confute them, and so to overthrow the whole paraphrase, it may perhaps be thought usefull that I should take a view of those his indeavors, and therefore that I shall now proceed to do, and shall there meet with by the way what was most material in his former exceptions against my paraphrase.

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 〉.]

Sect. 3. The rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the woman] defended, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Col. 1.23.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latine author, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16. 1 Pet. 1.5.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. 28.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Psal. 68. My proof of the interpretation from the context.

[ 1] THE 2d concernes the rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I read, [by the woman] but he [to the woman] as [to] is a note of the dative case, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redundant.

[ 2] And the reason, saith he, that he still adheres to his way, is, be-because this seems to him the fairest, easiest, and most congruous Page  70 sense thus to expound it, The believer may abide with the unbe∣lieving yoke-fellow, For though he be an unbeliever, and in him∣self unsanctified, yet in or to his wife he is as if he were sanctified, it's all one in respect of conjugal use, as if be were sanctified.

[ 3] To this reason I have many things to answer, 1. That the very rendring it, is the begging the question, which is onely this (in this matter) whether this be the fairest, easiest, and most congru∣ous sense, and must not be here supposed, when it should be proved.

[ 4] 2dly. That if it were the fairest sense, yet if the words bear it not, it must not be affixt to them, if it be more capable of another; and whether they will bear it or no, is the question again, on occasion of which this inquiry is made into the use of the preposition〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to suppose again that it will signifie [to] in the dative sense, before it is proved it will, is a second begging the question, a paralogisme in stead of a reason.

[ 5] 3dly. The fairenesse of the sense (simply taken) is not attempted to be proved, which yet doth stand in great need of it; For beside the redundance, or unusual sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some other parts of the rendring are none of the fairest, As 1. the believer may abide] as if it were simply free to abide or not abide, whereas in the pre∣sent case (when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer) the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least, if not comman∣ded (and that is more then a liberty, that he may) To him the Apostle saith (and his sayings have sure authority with them) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him not put away. Nay the interdict of Christ be∣longing to all, but that one case of fornication, Mat. 5. and Mat. 19. it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever, that is guilty of no more but unbeliefe; And accordingly the preface, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— But for the rest (or, for the other questions, v. 1.6.8.10.) say I, not the Lord] must be applied not to the immediate consequents, of the believers not putting away the unbeliever, that will stay with him (for that had been determined by Christ in the Negative) but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart, i. e. if the unbeliever wlll not dwell with the believer, except the believer forsake his, or her religion, what shall be done then? And to that the Apostles counsel is, that ma∣riage inslaves not the believer so far.

Page  71 [ 6] All which is a competent prejudice to that part of Mr. T. his sense, The believer may abide, For if that be it, even when the un∣believer is willing to abide, then she may also depart, if she ra∣ther choose, which will be found contrary to Christ's precept, and so may not be admitted.

[ 7] 2dly. In this rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is englished (not by is or hath been sanctified, but) by [is as if he were sanctified] which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not truely (in any respect) sanctified, and then sure this will be a strange construction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the unbeliever (is not sanctified but) is as if he were sanctified, when yet literally it must be rendred the unbeliever hath been, or (to gratifie Mr. T.) is or continues to be sanctified: For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation, he is sanctified, by he is not? for so assuredly he is not, if he onely be as if he were.

With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given, the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer, i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbeliefe, and this sense inforced by the interrogation, v. 16. For what knowest thou, ô woman, whether thou shalt save the man &c. and by S. Peters aphorisme of daily observation, 1 Pet. 3.1. the husband that obeyes not the word, i. e. the unbeliever, may probably be gained by the conversation of the wife, and then let him imparti∣ally passe judgement, which is the fairest and easiest rendring.

[ 8] His 2d reason is, because though the Dr. deny it, yet (saith he) I averre, that the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for to, as a sign of the dative case, is found more then once in the New Testament.

[ 9] The truth of this I must now examine by the proofs offered for the affirmation. And his first proofe, is from Mat. 17.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This, saith he, cannot be eluded, because the same speech is Mar. 9.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and rendred by Beza in the former place, fecerunt ei, they did to him, 2. Whereas the Doctor saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon him or against him, It had been meet the Doctor should have given one instance at least of such con∣struction, which, saith he, I do not believe he can do.

[ 10] To this I answer, 1. By two ready instances in one verse, Lu. 23.31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; If they do these things (our ordinary English reades in a green tree,Page  72 but the sense and propriety directs us to) on the green tree, what shall be done on the dry? here is the very phrase that is used in that place of Matthew,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then for S. Markes using (in the parallel place) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that proves not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was redundant in S. Matthew, or that it was a bare sign of the dative case, it being free to S. Marke to use any other expression, different from S. Matthew, so he re∣teined the sense, as it is clear in this place he doth, doing injuries to him, being all one in effect with upon or against him, though the phrases are not the same, which no way inferres that when the change of the phrase changes the sense, it were lawfull so to varie it, as in the place we have in hand (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 'tis on both sides supposed to do.

[ 11] A 2d instance which he conceives cannot be eluded, is Col. 1.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was preached to every crea∣ture, and this he proves to be the onely rendring▪ 1. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to preach, is commonly with a dative case of the object, and though, 1 Tim. 3.16. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet our transla∣tors, and the vulgar, and Beza read it unto the Gentiles, as if there it noted onely a dative case, and if it were among the Gentiles, there, yet here Col. 1.23. it cannot be so, because the object is in the singular number, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is for among, is joyned still with a noun of the plural: and 2. That which, saith he, puts this out of all doubt, is, that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mar. 15.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

[ 12] But to all this the answer is ready, by observing the exact nota∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the whole creation (as we render it Rom. 8.22.) as that signifies the whole, but especially the Gentile world, and accordingly is exprest by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Mat. 28. and farther ex∣plained by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the whole world, to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go, when they were thus to preach the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to this whole creation. Now of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this notion it is clear, that though it be in the singular number, yet that hath the power of the plural, as the word [world] and the like, which eve∣ry body knowes, is a noun of Multitude, and so is creation, when it is thus taken for the whole created world, meaning this world of men, the nations or people of the world.

[ 13] And then there can be no doubt but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Page  73〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is most exactly thus to be rendred, preached in, or among the whole creation, as Gal. 1.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, preach in the nations, or among the Gentiles, and so 1 Tim. 3.16. also, though the sense being no way altered by rendring it unto the whole creation, or every creature, and to the Gentiles, it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendred in all these places, which yet must not prescribe for other places, where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendring, as in this case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is observable, where therefore the literal rendring being retained, we are not reasonably to conclude any more from it, then that literal rendring will afford us. As for the parallel phrase Mar. 16. that doubtless can prove nothing, 1. Because the places are not, nor can be thought parallel, 2. Because if they were, (as of Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. hath been granted) yet the parallel lying onely in the sense, and that being all one, whether they preacht to or among the Gentiles, this no way concludes that the phrases are the same, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one redundant, which is the onely thing for the proving of which this parallel is produced, but of that I have formerly spoken.

[ 14] His third instance is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 4.12. which he cannot yet conceive, but that it is better rendred, to men, then among men. And his reasons are, 1. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath most regularly and consequently a dative case of the person after it. 2. Because if it had been among men, it had been to be placed after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, other, there is no other name among men, given, but being placed after given, it is to be expounded as referred to given, not to other, and so must be read, to men, not, among men. 3. It seems no good sense, nor true, that Christ was a name given among men, for though he were among men, yet he was given from above. To all which he addes the judgement of Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 12. cited by Beza, and a parallel phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 7.44.

[ 15] To these I answer, 1. That tis true that when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath any case of the person following and governed by it, that is constant∣ly the dative, but that is no way applicable to this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for there the persons,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are governed by the preposition〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

[ 16] To the 2d. That the construction by among, is very good, placing it after given, there is no other name given among men, i. e. Page  74 no means of salvation afforded by God, and continued among men.

[ 17] To the 3d. That Christ's being given from above, no way pre∣judges his being given among men, both because the benefit of this gift is as a common donative, distributed among men, and al∣so because this gift is dispenst in forme of humane flesh, Christ is become man, and to be found and seen among men.

[ 18] And to the last, for the place of Irenaeus, tis strange that neither Mr. T. nor Beza whom he transcribed, should remember that Irenaeus wrote Greek, and that as the Latine translation [datum hominibus] is not written by Irenaeus, so there is no question but Irenaeus's Greek was the same with the text in the Acts,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then the Translator (barbarous enough through that whole book) is to be reformed by the Author, and not the Author judged of by the Translator; Or if he were, and Irenaeus's Greek did really read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as the Transla∣tor doth [hominibus] without [in] then I must resolve, that the copie of the Scripture, which he followed, did so read before him [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and if so, then what proof can Mr. T. have from thence that in other places or phrases, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is found in all copies, it shall be redundant, and signifie no more, then if it were not to be found there?

[ 19] As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it must certainly be rendred, among the Fa∣thers, thus, the tabernacle of witness was among our Fathers in the wilderness: Tis pity the reader should be exercised and de∣tained with such debates as these, with which yet in obedience to Mr. T. I must farther importune him.

[ 20] For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16. and 2 Pet. 1.5. That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith, that he was pleased to reveale his own sonne〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when I had rendred that by, or through me, to others, This exposition, saith he, makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly.

[ 21] This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared, for cer∣tainly there was little temptation for it: why, I pray, might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure, say, God was pleased through me to reveal his sonne, and by way of explication, (and withall to denote the designation of that Apo∣stle to his peculiar province, as the Apostle of the uncircumcision) adde, that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Certainly Page  75 every explication of an obscurer or narrower, by a clearer or larger phrase, is not inept tantologie, but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly, have always been full of.

[ 22] And yet 2dly the latter part here▪ of his preaching the Gospell to the Gentiles (he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles, as Peter and John were of the Jewes wheresoever dispersed) is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and para∣phrasing the former part of it; for in that those others had not been defined, who they were, or limited to the Gentiles.

[ 23] This Mr T. adverted not in his objection, I desire he will now take notice of it. For that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I need adde no more to what I had before said, that it is most ful∣ly rendred thus, unto or over and above your faith superadde virtue, or fortitude.

[ 24] Two places, he saith, he had formerly produced out of the old Testament, Deut. 28.60. and 2 Kin. 7.27. and now addes one more, Psal. 68.18. But besides that three onely places in the whole old Testament, would never inferre that so it must be in this place of the new, there being many more to preponderate for the contrary, and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it must be here, besides this, I say, it will be found, that these three will be of no availe to him.

[ 25] Of the two former the 2d is not, there be but 20. vers. in that Chapter, and therefore no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 27th: and for the former we well read it, unto thee, where the 72. reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the ordinary way of acception of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

[ 26] And lastly, for his new sprung testimonie, Psal. 68.18. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for which saith he the Apostle hath Eph▪ 4.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he takes to be more then enough to refute the Doctor, tis presently visible that it hath no manner of force in it; For though those two places are perfect∣ly parallel, as to the matter, yet for the expression tis evidently very different, in one [thou hast received] in the other [he hath given] and so [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉for or among men] must of all neces∣sity differ from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to men] For how could it be sense to fay, thou hast received gifts to men? yet so it must be, to make good Mr. T. his observation, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to, or is redundant, or the note of a dative case.

Page  76 [ 17] And so he never had a more improper season for his triumphs; never lesse cause to tell others of taking ad randum, when he him∣self was so far removed from all appearance of demonstration. And so much for the Grammatical notation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very unfit to have exercised us thus long, but that Mr. T. would have it so, and words are the meanes of conveighing realities unto us, and mi∣stakes in them (though minute) may be of substantiall importance.

[ 18] My 3d proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt, by comparing it with the reason subjoyned, For what knowest thou, ô wife, whe∣ther thou shalt save thy husband; or how knowest thou, ô man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?] he comes next to examine, and hath many exceptions against it, all which (without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally) will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to ly, Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordina∣ry observation, that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and baptisme by the believing wife, therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever, in case the unbeliever be willing to stay, v. 13. for this reason, v. 16. because what hath been so oft, may very probably be hoped again, and consequently upon the premises the believer hath ground to hope, that she may in time gain the husband to the faith, and that, being so fair a reward in her view (the saving or rescu∣ing him from infidelitie, to Christ) may well inforce the coun∣sel of the Apostle, not to depart from him, as long as, without sin, she is permitted to stay.

[ 19] By which it appeares that this v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 14. (on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally de∣pend) but an application of the argument formerly proposed, but now more signally brought home to them, under the forme of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉for what—] by this means to reinforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelitie: If the reader will but observe what is thus visible, he will want no more help, to get out of the intricacies, and toiles, which Mr. T: hath here spred for him in this matter, which is in it self so manifest, as nothing can be added to it, if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self.

Page  77

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 prmisse, 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.