But the wise men say, is he baptized, and not circumcised? Or, Is he circumcised, and not baptized? He is not a Proselyte, until he be circumcised, and baptized.
But Baptism was sufficient for women so far forth, as this held good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One baptizeth a Heathen woman in the name of a woman, we can assert that for a deed rightly done. Where the Gloss is thus, To be baptized in the name of a woman, was to be baptized 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the washing of a woman polluted, and not with the baptism to Proselytism. But we may nevertheless assert her who is so baptized for a compleat Proselytess; because that Baptism of washing for uncleanness serves for Proselytism to her, for a Heathen woman is not baptized, or washed, for uncleanness.
V. They baptized also young children (for the most part with their Parents.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They baptize a little Proselyte according to the judgment of the Sanhedrin; that is, as the Gloss renders it, If he be deprived of his father, and his mo∣ther brings him to be made a Proselyte, they baptize him (because none becomes a Proselyte without Circumcision and Baptism) according to the judgment, or rite, of the Sanhedrin, that is, that three men be present at the Baptism, who are now instead of a father to him.
And the Gemara a little after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If with a Proselyte his sons and his daughters are made Proselytes also, that which is done by their father redounds to their good. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Joseph saith, When they grow into years, they may retract. Where the Gloss writes thus, This is to be understood of little children, who are made Proselytes together with their father.
An Heathen woman, if she is made a Proselytess, when she is now big with child, the child needs not baptism: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Baptism of his mother serves him for baptism. Otherwise, he were to be baptized.
:〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If an Israelite take a Gentile child, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or find a Gentile infant, and baptizeth him in the name of a Proselyte, behold he is a Proselyte.
We cannot also pass over that which indeed is worthy to be remembred. Any ones servant is to be circumcised, though he be unwilling, but any ones son is not to be circumcised, if he be unwilling. R. Johanan enquired, Behold a little son, do you circumcise him by force? Yea, although he be as the son of Ur••an. R. Hezekiah saith, Behold, a man finds an infant cast out, and he baptizeth him in the name of a servant: in the name of a freeman, do you also circumcise him in the name of a freeman.
We have therefore alledged these things the more largely, not only that you may re∣ceive satisfaction concerning the thing propounded, namely, how it came to pass, that the people flocked in so universal a concours, to Johns Baptism (because Baptism was no strange thing to the Jews;) but that some other things may be observed hence, which afford some light to certain places of Scripture, and will help to clear some knotty questi∣ons about Baptism.
First, You see baptism inseparably joyned to the Circumcision of Proselytes. There was indeed some little distance of time; For they were not baptized till the pain of cir∣cumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound. But certainly baptism ever followed. We acknowledge indeed, that Circumcision was plainly of divine In∣stitution, but by whom Baptism, that was inseparable from it, was instituted, is doubt∣ful. And yet, it is worthy of observation, our Saviour rejected Circumcision, and re∣tained the Appendix to it: and when all the Gentiles were now to be introduced into the true Religion, he preferred this proselytical Introductory (pardon the expression) unto the Sacrament of Entrance into the Gospel.
One might observe the same almost in the Eucharist. The Lamb in the Passover was of divine Institution, and so indeed was the Bread. But whence was the Wine? But yet re∣jecting the Lamb, Christ instituted the Sacrament in the Bread and Wine.
Secondly, Observing from these things which have been spoken, how very known and frequent the use of Baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easie, why the Sanhedrin by their messengers enquired not of John concerning the reason of Baptism, but concerning the authority of the Baptizer; not what Baptism meant, but whence he had a licence so to baptize, Joh. I. 25.
Thirdly, Hence also the reason appears, why the New Testament doth not prescribe by some more accurate rule, who the persons are to be baptized. The Anabaptists object, It is not commanded, to baptize Infants, therefore they are not to be baptized. To whom I answer, It is not forbidden to baptize Infants, therefore they are to be baptized. And the reason is plain. For when Pedobaptism in the Jewish Church, was so known, usual, and frequent in the admission of Proselytes, that nothing almost was more known, usual and frequent.
- 1. There was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when Baptism was now passed into an Evangelical Sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into Evan∣gelical use, as he found it, this only added, that he might promote it to a worthier end, and a larger use. The whole Nation knew well enough that little children used to be