Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Answ. 1. I granted the fitness of the expression only conditionally, if the holy Ghost had so thought good, but denied the holy Ghost did so, and therefore he may offend against the propriety of the words, notwithstanding my concession, and hath as much need of his horse to get to his journeys end, as if I had not yielded so much. 2. How much he hath offended against the rational importance of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14. is shown before. 3. Were the fitness of the expression absolutely granted, yet with the Drs. leave, I conceive he needs to contend about the use of the phrase in his sense, or else he will not be able to infer anything for his purpose, since it is not the fitness of an expression, but the use of words which must direct us in our expositions, as being vis & norma loquendi. 4. That the use of it Acts 10.14. is not for the Drs. purpose is manifest. For 1. the Dr. thus expounds common or unclean by not received to Baptism, now if this were the notion of unclean Ac • s 10.14. then when Peter saith [ I have never eaten anything common or unclean ] he means he never eat anything nor received into the Church by Baptism; and when v. 15. it is said [ what God hath cleansed that call thou not common ] the meaning is, what God hath baptized reject thou not from Baptism, which is too ridiculous an exposition to be urged. 2. If it be said that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or covered sense doth import it, neither is that true. For 1. it is certain that in the latent meaning, the Apostle discerned by the vision that which is common or unclean to be meant v. 28. of one of another nation, and the eating, keeping company, or going to, which is also gathered from Acts 11.3. where the thing objected was, that he went in to the uncircumcised, and did eat with them. So that from hence it is manifest, that the proper notion of unclean is (in that place according to the subsense which the vision aimed at) one that being uncircumcised might not be gone into to talk with familiarly, and and eat with, though he were one that feared God. Which cannot be meant of want of baptism, for so the clean, to wit, the unbelieving Jews were unclean, they were not baptized with Christian baptism, but of exclusion from familiar society and converse. 2. On the other side, by Acts 10.15. What God hath cleansed that call thou not common, Peter v. 28. shows he understood allowance to go to him, preach to him, eat with him, as one accepted of God, v. 35. So that the cleansing is the taking away of that restraint which was upon the Jews, of converse with the Gentiles. Which being considered, if unclean Acts 10.14. were to be expounded in the same notion which the Dr. imagines to be 1 Cor. 7.14. not admitted to the Church by Baptism, then when God bid Peter count nothing common or unclean, he bid him count no Gentile unbaptized, and when he said what God hath cleansed, it should be whom God hath baptized, or admitted by Baptism into the Church. And when the Apostle according to the Dr. useth unclean 1 Cor. 7.14. in the notion in which it is used Acts 10.14. he should mean, your young children were such as a man might not go into, converse with, talk with familiarly, eat with, which certainly being meant of infants as the Dr. conceives, is so ridiculus an exposition, as a sober man would not put upon any profane Author, much less on the sacred writers.

As for that which the Dr. saith, that the notion of not entering to, and eating with, contained under it this other of not baptizing, for sure he might not baptize those to whom he might not enter ; it is so frivolous, as that it is unfit for a man that takes on him to make Annotations on the New Testament. For if this were good reasoning, it would follow on the contrary, every ones going in to, and eating with one, were baptizing; and since others then Apostles or preachers were to go into or not, they were to baptize or not to baptize, and all that men might not go into or eat with, as excommunicate persons they must be unbaptized, and by the same reason, since sure a Minister may not admit to the Lord's Supper, nor a Bishop ordain him for a Priest, to whom he might not enter; the notion of not entering to and eating with, contained under it this other of not communicating and not ordaining, and consequently holy contains under it communicating, and ordaining, and so your young children are not unclean but holy, should be by this very reasoning expounded, they are admitted to the Lord's Supper, and ordained Priests.

And what he adds; And the baptizing Cornelius (and not only entering to him) being the end for which Peter received that vision, I still adhere that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that place, signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism, and the holiness on the contrary reception to that privilege, may as well serve to prove unclean hath the notion of one excluded from the Lord's Supper, or heaven, and holy on the contrary the reception to these, since these were the ends of Peters going in, as well as baptizing, and so to say your young children are holy, shall be as much as your young children are admitted to the Lord's Supper and to Heaven. These conceits of the Dr. go upon two gross mistakes. 1. As if unclean were used in a sense suitable to the Ecclesiastical practice in the Christian Church, whereas it is used according to the use and conceit of the Jews peculiarly. 2. As if the notion of a word did ex • end to the Concomitants and ends of the act expressed by it; which if true, then election, regeneration, should have the notion of justifying and glorifying, preaching the notion of adoption and sanctification. But enough of this raw conceit of the Doctor, he go • on thus.

Answ. This is no answer, but a grant that the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14. cannot be meant of Baptizing, since it is absurd so to expound it; and consequently, a yielding the argument from the calling the Jews washings sanctifications, to have no force. Nor doth he at all help himself by saying, it is most reasonable to apply it to the latter part of the v. For there is no reason in it, that because the Jews use the word sanctification for Baptism, therefore holy (which is another word, and in another predicament then sanctified, which is in Passion, and the other in quality or relation) and not sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14. is as much as Baptism, and because the word sanctifications hath other significations then washings, and may not be understood of Baptism in the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.14. therefore holy, nowhere proved to be as much as baptized, is as much as admitted to the Church by Baptism ▪ and because the Ancients mention infant Baptism to be received from the Apostles, as they do other unwritten traditions of observing Easter, L • nt, giving infants the Communion, &c. therefore holy 1 Cor. 7.14. must be without any example in Scripture or Father of that use of the word, be expounded thus [ admitted in the Church by Baptism. ]

But yet the Dr. is loath to confess his error, but adds. And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of [by] and expound [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the woman] of the persuasion, that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptism, and not of her ministry in b • ptizing▪ we may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptism, viz. by being brought to faith, to which this privilege belongs.

Answ. 1. The Dr. brings no example of such a notion of [ by ] or of such a use of the term [ san • tified ] anywhere else, and how ill it suits with the Apostles argument, is shown fully before. 2. But were it yielded him, 1. it would show that th • alleging of the Jews calling their washings sanctifications, to expound 1 Cor. 7.14, by was impertinent, the Jews sanctifications being not b • persuasion of another, but of themselves according to God's appointment, nor do they note first bringing to the faith, and then admission by another to baptism but washing themselves; and that is one reason why neither the use of sanctified nor holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. can be conceived to be allusive • o the Jewish sanctifications mentioned by the Dr. since in 〈…〉 high Priest washed himself, and but his hands and his feet 〈…〉 , but Christian baptism was by the ministry of another, by imm ••• sion of the whole body, and therefore this third reason of the Dr. is altogether in ••• bable. 2. If [ sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14.] be to be 〈◊〉 [ brought to the faith, and so to Baptism] [holy is in like sort so be expounded, and then we might allow the Drs. exposition of [ holy 1 Cor. 7 14.] wit • out any detriment to our cause, it being granted the children of believers were brought to the faith, and so to baptism.

Again saith the Dr. As for his second exceptions to my conje • ture, founded in the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 san • tifications for partial, not total • ashing • . 1. I answer, that I mention it only as a con • ecture, with a perhaps and lay no more weight u • on it. 2. That for Christian baptism I no whe • e affi • m that it was only by immersion, nor on the other side that it was always • by sp ••• kling but disjun • tively, either by one or the other (as by the word • cited by him from prac. cat. l. 6 • ect. 2 is clear) supposing indeed that Christ's appointment was not terminated to either, and so satisfied by either.

Answ. 1. The Dr. by putting in his conjecture, shown his willingness to have maintained by some color, the abuse of sprinkling instead of baptism, which his own words cited by me, made me f • ar he did against his own light, and the contrary is not cleared by this slight excuse. 2. The Drs. own words alleged by me, plainly shown that he knew the primitive baptisms were always immersions of the whole body, nor was any other use of water for baptism, till the corrupt use of the circumfusion of the Clinici in the third Century began. Nor do his words practic cat. l. 6. sect. 2. clear the contrary to be conceived by him; For when he saith By Christ's appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family, should he received with this ceremony of water, therein to be dipt, i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom, to be put under water three times ; and then a • ds, or instead of that to be sprinkled with it ; though he make Christ's appointment disjunctively the one or the other, yet he makes the primitive ancient custom, only to be by putting under water ; as in like manner p. 35. and this was indeed the ancient primitive custom, a Rom. 6.3, 4. Col 2.12. show, and the known sa • ing of Tertullian • er me • gitamur. And of any one, Dr. Hammond should acknowledge • it, who distinguisheth the sanctifications of a part from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is Baptism, and saith, the Jewish solemnity of Baptism ▪ which he would have the original and pa • tern of our Baptism, to be the washing of the whole body. As for his propounding Christ's appointmen • disjunctively, it discovers more of his audacious and corrupt dealing by ma • ing that appointment, which is but one way disjunctive, either that wa • w • ich is acknowledged to be Christ's, or another way instead of it, whic • cannot be shewn to have been practiced by the Apostles, or any Apostolical men in the primitive times. And in this thing it is necessary that • he •• il dealing of Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, and oth • rs, be shown, who do most presumptuously add to the ordinance of Baptism • when Christ h • th appointed onel • dipping, they add sprinkling; when Christ appoints only Disciples made by preaching the Gospel to be baptized, they add infants who are not such, and by a fictitious title ma • e them Disciples by their parents faith, who learn and profess • nothing themselves; (which he that read • considerately Mr. Baxter's arguments in his 2 • . disputation of the right to Sacraments, may see sufficiently refuted, and may think he could not write that Book without regret of conscie • ce for what he had written in his Book of Baptism ) and when the New Testament makes none members of the visible Church Christian, but professors of faith, they add infants of their own head; • nd when the Scripture and Fathers in setting down the institution and practice of Baptism, plainly express both so, as that they confess them to be only meant of the aged, yet would have them to include also infants, contrary to the pl • in words and their own confessions, and in their expositions so expound the texts, as expressing only what agrees to the aged, and yet in their arguments urge the same for baptizing of infants, which they could not do if they did not plead for infant Baptism against heir own light, or were not extremely heedless at one time of what they say at another: How ever it be with them, sure I am, no conscientious Christian hath reason to be satisfied by sprinkling, when Christ hath appointed no other then dipping, nor with infant Baptism▪ when as Mr. Baxter hath fully proved in his 2d. dispute. that there is a necessi • y of profession of repentance and faith before ▪ and none are to be baptized but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ ; and though he supposeth believers children Disciples, and the parents profession to be instead of their own, yet nowhere proves it, nor offers any proof, but what is merely conjectural, nor can any Pastors or teachers of Churches, without most arrogant presumption baptize or take for visible Church members infants, whom neither Christ, nor his Apostles did baptize or take for such. But I return to the Dr.

Answ. Were it so, yet it had been necessary to have proved the holy Ghost made them parallels, that from the answerableness a reason might be taken to prove thence the sense of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14. after the Drs. mind: For it is not the fitness of an expression, that must prove the sense we would, but the use and the matter of the speech, in which the Drs. expositions are defective. But the holy Ghost nowhere that I know resembles the mere visible Church by the tabernacle, but the invisible, in which the spirit of God dwells, or rather every believing Saint, 1 Cor. 3.16, 17. & 6.19. Heb. 3.6. 1 Tim. 3.15. or the body of Christ, Joh. 2.19. Heb. 8.2. or heaven, Heb. 9.24. and the uncleanness resembled by the legal uncleanness, is such as excludes, and the holiness such as admits into communion with God, union with Christ, entrance into heaven, 2 Cor. 6.16, 17. Revel. 21.27. and the sanctification resembled by the Jewish washings, is that which is invisible by the spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. not mere outward baptism, and therefore if proportion or agreeableness could prove a sense of those terms the sense would be fairer for the expounding of holiness rather of real then relative holiness.

The Dr. adds, As for his question of Cornelius, it is most vain, the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification, and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion, fearing, praying, &c. and that outward privilege of admission into the congregation of the Jews, which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denied Cornelius. These be pitiful sophisms, and in no reason farther to be insisted on.

Answ. All the discourse is not about mere relative sanctification, sure Dr. Hammond when he expounds sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14. by being converted to the faith, and the same with saved v 16. means it of real sanctification. But were all the discourse about relative sanctification, yet the question was not vain, but attains the end for which propounded, since Cornelius accounted unclean by Peter, Acts 10.14. was not out of the Church of God, no not out of the Church visible, being of good report among all the nation of the Jews, Acts 10.22. though he were not in the policy of Israel, and therefore uncleanness hath another notion then the non-admission into the visible Church Christian by Baptism, of which is enough said before. Nor are any of these things I allege sophisms, but plain answers, nor any otherwise pitiful, then that they meet with such a such a superficial and slight reply from the Dr. Of the different interpretatio • s from the Drs. of 1 Cor. 7.14. in Tertullian c. 39. de animâ, and Augustine l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remis. c. 26. and l. 3. c. 12. enough before. And Jerome's different interpretation, is that which is in the comment. on 1 Cor. 7.14. in these words left out by the Dr. Item ide • vir & uxor invicem sanctificantur; quia ex tradition Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae, mentioned here before sect. 92. And Ambrose or whoever was the Author of that Commentary under his name in locum operum tom. 4. sancti sunt] quia de conjugiis legitimis natis, both which agree with my exposition. The two testimonies the Dr. brings out of Cyprian and Nazianzen are impertinent, the former makes a distinction between baptizandum and sanctificandum, the latter if it call Baptism sanctification, yet it doth nor call Baptism sanctity, the word ascribed to children 1 Cor. 7.14. and therefore rather the first part of the v. is to be expounded if any thus, sanctified id est Baptized, which yields such a sense as the Dr. will not own, and is shown before not at all to be satisfied by him. Neither the antiquity of Cyprian, nor Gregory Nazianzen's skill in Greek assures us they understood the sacred Dialect. How much Tertullian, whom Cyprian counted his master, and how much Origen of whom Gregory Nazianzen learned, mistook the meaning of Scripture, and generally the Fathers, may be discerned by their writings remaining, or if any list to take a short cut to satisfy himself, he may see much in Sixt. senens. Biblioth. l. 5. and 6.

In the 4 th. ch. sect. 1. of Dr. Hammonds Defense there is little or nothing which at present I need reply to much of it being spoken to before. Only I have thought it necessary to go back besides my first purpose to Review the two first Chapters of his Defense, because he doth so often tell me, that I do inartificially deny his conclusion without answering to his premises.

SECT. XCVI. The Jewish custom of Baptism for initiation, was not the pattern of Christian Baptism; as Dr. Hammond would have it.

CH. 1. Sect. 1. of his Defense Dr. Hammond having excepted against my words about waving (though it were his own term qu. 4 §. 21.) the more imperfect ways of probation tells us; though infant Circumcision prove not infant Baptism a duty, Yet it evidences the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by analogy with God's institution of circumcision among the Jews, and so certainly invalidates all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist (i. e. of Mr. T.) 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, &c. And this the rather, because the Apostle compares • aptism of Christians with Circumcision, Col. • .11, 12. and then adds some savings of Fathers, which are of no validity for his purpose of the other there • nothing true. For the arguments drawn from incapacity, fore going necessity of preaching, qualifications, have their force from the institution of Baptism by Car • t, which lie not at all against the circumcising infants, which hath another institution, and hath no analogy with Baptism to acqui • infant Baptism for unlawfulness or unfitness, except the Dr. can prove (which I am sure he can never do) that the Church (as in the prelatical language he useth to speak) hath power to make that lawful and fit to be done in the Sacraments of Christ, which is otherwise th • n Christ hath appointed. The Apostle doth not at all compare baptism of Christians with Circumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. But these things are so fully argued Review part. 2 sect 5, &c. here sect. 8▪ that till these sections are better answered then Dr. Hammond doth here, the arguments will be valid against Infant Baptism.

The force of the Drs. urging Christ's actions to little ones, Mark 10.16. Matth. 19.14. is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. §. 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants, nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them, whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized, who had reason and charity enough to have done it, if th •• had judged i • fit to have been done.

That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age, is demonstrate Review part. 2. sect. 17. Augustine's saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero, and his reckoning infants baptized among believers, is besides the Book, I mean the Scripture, and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit. The lawful b • ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites, is no color • o baptize non professors of faith. 'It is rightly done, that that which contains no relation of Christ's or his Apostles baptising infants, is put by him among the more imperfect probations, and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14. is already shown to be.

That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testify the receiving our infants to Baptism, to be received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself, is so manifestly false, that, the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch. 18. dissuades it and useth arguments against it, and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers, whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants; whereto might be a d • d the case of Nazianzen, together with his judgment forementioned, as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgment and practice o • the universal Church for 1600. years. The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholar, and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it : and therefore the Dr▪ doth very much exc • ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term [ son of the Church ] used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by • anonists, and others, and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother, and by the Church the prelates are usually meant, and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 . But it is no Scripture term: in it the Elders, Apostle, 〈◊〉 • ermed Fathers, 1 Cor 4 • .5. all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 • hurch being no other then a company of B • ethen and Sisters, it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother, and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church, nor do I acknowledge that the judgment and practice (i • there were any such) of the universal Church for 1600 years (letting aside the Apostles of Christ) ha • h any force or authority over me, nor do I fear the incurring of God's displeasure by oppugning or contemning it, but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7. tells me, that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work, and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d. Century, and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after, together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. • . the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself, the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Ap • stles, the exceptions against the histories of the Church, the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises, the co • rupting of authors, I think i • the safest way to avoid God's displ • assure, not • o rest on the practice or judgment of the universal Church (i • there were any such) after the Apostles, but only on the writ • ngs of the New Testament, it being highly unreasonable, as the Dr. saith, that • n institution of Christ's such as each Sacrament is should be judged of by any other rule (whether the phan • es or reasons of men) but either the word wherein the institution is set down, o • the records of the practice of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture, which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 c • ntroversie of faith and manners▪ and 〈…〉 to be ob • erved, and needs not the Drs▪ records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us, whether by unwritten tradition, or in the writings of Fathers, in which there is very much uncertainty, but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish, and Prelatical abuses and errors; yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths, if they be read with judgment, and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture.

Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of me,

Ans. But by the Drs. leave, in this no injury i • done him: For however he mentioned Letter of Resol. qu. 4 sect. 5, 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant, yet both the words I allege Review part. 2. sect. 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. §. 24. and all other passages I yet find in his writings, make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants, to be from the Jewish custom of Baptising Proselytes, and children as the pattern, basis or foundation of it, nowhere the Baptism of native Jews, is made the pattern of Christian baptism, though he say §. 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated, and wherein it was founded. Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect. 2. saith, that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entered, or initiated into their Church, they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former profane heathen practices (which did not agree to the native Jews) so by Christ's appointment, whosoever should be thus received into his family, should be received with this ceremony of water, therein to be dipt, i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom, to be put under water three times ; And in his Letter qu. 4. §. 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practice, in which Christ founded his institution, hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children, and to which the primitive Church conformed. To which I may add, that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christ's appointment, is thus expressed qu. 4. §. 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ, a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one, save only that the latter denotes a coming from other nation, &c. which shows, that he made the baptising of Proselytes and their children only, the pattern of Christian baptism.

Next the Dr. sets down his proofs out of the Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides, and then concludes;

Answ. It is a stranger infirmity in a Reply, that whereas I had expressly in the 2d. Part of my Review sect. 24. p. 307. said, after the baptism Exod. 19. • 0. the Jews did not baptize Jews but only Proselytes, the Dr. should not take notice, that I limited my denial of the baptizing the native Jews, to the time after the baptism Exod. 19.10. Now I think there is not one of his allegations prove, that the Jews baptized native Jews after the giving of the Law. I confess I was unwilling to rely on mine own judgment in this, or Mr. Seldens, because the Dr. excepts against it (though I thought and think still Mr. Selden was in the right in this, and of any man living I imagined his knowledge in things of this kind, to be most accurate and ample) and therefore did write a Letter to my ancient acquaintance Mr. Edward Pocock Professor of the Oriental Languages in Oxford, to inform me if I were mistaken: But whether by reason of his bodily infirmity, or miscarriage of Letters, or other cause▪ I have received as yet no answer. At present having not the 〈◊〉 cited by Dr. Hammond, I return this answer, that none of the words as he cites them, show that Baptism was to the posterity of native Jews 〈…〉 • he giving of the Law f • r entering the Covenant, not the 〈…〉 . tr. de repud. Israel do not enter into Covenant but by these th •• e things, by Circumcision▪ by baptizing, and by Peace offering. Nor these in Gemara ad tit. Cherithoth. c. 2. Your fathers did not enter into the Covenant but by circumcise • on and Baptism, and in Jabimoth c. 4. Rabbi Joshua said, we find of our mothers that they were baptized and not circumcised. Nor those of Maimonides tit Isu • bia. c. 13. By three things the Israelites entered into the Covenant, by Circumcision, Baptism and Sacrifice, and soon after, what was done to you, ye were initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision, and Baptism, and Sacrifice. For that out of Gemara, the very words (as the Doctor himself observes) speak of what the Jews did of old time, not what was a custom continued among the Jews in after times, and so I make no question but the words of the Talmud are to be understood, specially when the words of Maimonides counted the exactest of the Rabbins in the Jewish customs, set down thus out of Maimon. in mis. tom. 2. in Issurei biah ch. 13. §. 1, — 6, 11, 14, 15. do plainly show this to have been the meaning of the Hebrew Drs. as I find them in Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17.12. By three things (say the Hebrew Drs.) did Israel enter into the Covenant, by Circumcision, and Baptism, and Sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written, no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, [Exod. 12.48.] Baptism was in the Wilderness before the giving of the Law: as it is written, sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes [Exod. 19.10.] And Sacrifice, as it is said, And he sent young men of the sons of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, &c. [Exod. 24.5.] And so in all ages when an Ethnic is willing to enter into the Covenant, and gather himself under the wings of the Majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the Law, he must be Circumcised, and Baptized, and bring a Sacrifice. And if it be a woman, she must be baptized and bring a sacrifice; as it is written [Numb. 15.15.] as ye are, so shall the stranger be. How are ye? By Circumcision, and Baptism, and bringing of a Sacrifice: So likewise the stranger throughout all generations, by Circumcision, and Baptism, and bringing a Sacrifice. Out of which words this may be collected. 1. That the baptizing of Israel whereby they entered into Covenant, was that Exod. 19.10. 2. That there is not in these passages anything that shows, that the Jewish Baptism for entering into Covenant, was of native Jews after that time. 3. That the Baptism throughout all generations, according to the Jews, was of strangers. 4. That the Jewish baptism, which was the pattern of Proselytes baptism, according to Numb. 15.15. was the baptism Exod. 19.10. and not any baptism of native Jews after that time. Which if true, Dr. Hammonds reasons and allegations are plainly answered, that they prove not a custom of baptizing native Jews in successive generations, to the time of giving the Law at Mount Sinai. In which I am the more confirmed, because so learned a man as Mr. Selden l. 2. de Jure nat. c. 4. de Syn. ed. Eb • . l. 1. c. 3. doth so expressly say it, but also, 1. Because of the speech of the Rabbin mentioned here by the Dr. and in his Letter q 4 §. 11. who said, That they found that their fathers were circumcised, but not bapt • zed, that is ordinarily, which the Drs. parenthesis seems to limit to Abraham, Isaac, &c. but is to be understood of the Pa • riarchs generally, and other Jewish ancestors, who were circumcised and not baptized. 2. Because there is no other bap • ism in all the Old Testament, for entering into the Covenant of the Law, of originary or native jews mentioned. 'It is true there is mention of Ezek. 16.4. of washing an infant in the day of its nativity i • supple it, and in the Law many baptisms were Heb. 9 10. for purifications, none for entering into Covenant, that I find but that. 3. In the relation of the Shechemites being admitted to be one people with the Jews, Gen. 34.24. circumcision only was then required without baptism. 4. Where in the N. T▪ the Apostle ascribes to the Fathers baptism, he doth not mention baptism of water, but their passing through the Sea, and being under the cloud, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. for which baptism of water had been • pter to show correspondence to our Baptism, if such a custom of baptizing for entering into the Covenant native Jews had been then in use. 5. Dr. Hammond himself, pract. Catech. l. 6 se •• 2. saith, that among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entered, or initiated into their Church, they were wont to use washings, to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former profane Heathen practices, but this could not be an end in the baptizing of native Jews ordinarily, for they were not born in uncleanness, but sancti • y, according to the Hebrew Doctors, having not been polluted with idols, and therefore the end or reason of baptizing Proselytes not agreeing to the native Jews that baptism was not requisite to them, and therefore used not ordinarily of them. It is true when they had gotten strange God's among them, which defiled them, they were required to be clean and change their Garments, Gen. 35.2. and perhaps some defilement of the Israelites by idol • in Egypt, might occasion that command, Exo. 19.10. But there was no reason of this in the ordinary entering of the infants of Israel into the Covenant, who were not thus defiled. 6. The baptism of John the Baptist for remission of sins was distasteful to the Pharisees and Lawyers who thought themselves pure, Luk. 7.29, 30. therefore it is likely they us • d not such a baptism of native Jews, as imported an acknowledgement of such defilement as they took themselves and infants to be free from. 7. The Dr. saith Letter of Resol. qu. 4th. §. 18. They that were thus baptized were said to be born again, and that, as if born of a new mother, as it is oft said in the Talmud, to which our Savior refers, when he talks of regeneration (of which saith S. Paul, baptism is the laver) of being born again from above of water, &c. Joh. 3.3, 5. And this was so vulgar a notion among the Jews that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus, that he understood it not: Art thou a ruler in Israel and knowest not these things ? But if there were such a regeneration by water of native Israelites, which had been the pattern of the baptism of Proselytes, Nicodemus doubtless had known it and answered otherwise, therefore his wonderment was that Christ should require regeneration of him by water, who was a Jew by nature (who need no such regeneration) and not a sinner of the Gentiles, and consequently no such known custom ordinary of baptizing native Jews. 8. The Dr. ibid §. 17. saith, • hey that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism put off their former relations of kindred, &c. To which surely our Savior refers, when he talks of leaving father and mother Mark 10.29. And Tacitus the Historian, nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quàm exuere patriam, parents, liberos, fratres vilia habere; their Proselytes are first taught after renouncing the gods, to put off their country, parents, children, brethren, to despise them. And the later Jews have a saying, that he tha • hath married his own sister, or entered any the most incestuous bands, by becoming a Proselyte cease • h to have that near relation of blood to her, and may 〈…〉 with her as with a • ife: which false su • erstructure in them is ye • a testimony of • he truth, whereon it is falsely founded by them And this is a testimony also of this, that the Jews did not thus baptize native Jews, because they never allowed such incest, at they would have done, if they had by baptism regene • ated thus native Jews, and conceived of the effect of it, as they did of Proselytes baptism. 9. We read of the circumcision of Christ, John the Baptist, Timothy, Paul, but we read not of their baptism by water as the custom of the Jews was to enter into the Covenant Proselytes; therefore there was not a custom of baptizing native Jews infants. 10. There's no way mentioned of initiating Jewish females by any ceremony into Judaism, no description in the Talmud, Gemara, Maimonides, of observing any such thing as the Dr. sets down Letter of resol. q. 4. sect. 9. concerning Proselytes to have been used towards the Jews, sundry of the things done to the Proselytes at their baptism, were such as were proper to strangers; as namely, the baptizing into the name of a freed man or a servant, the limitation of the privileges of the baptized, which are evidences that this baptism was not used to native Jews, but only to Gentile Proselytes. All which being considered, there was neither unkindness, nor injustice to Dr. Hammond or his Reader in my discourse, and it is necessary for him to consider better the considerations which I have offered in this matter (unless he will become non-suit) which have certainly force in them, though this thing were omitted by me, which yet was not perfectly omitted (as his language is) by me, nor the contrary supposed without proof.

But the Dr. however refuseth not to attend me in all my motions, and I hope I shall at long running overtake him. To what I said, Baptism, it seems was a custom of all nations as well as the Jews, ci • ing Grotius for it on Matth. 3.6. and Matth. 28.19. the Dr. answers, Of the truth of this Observation I shall raise no question, only I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage, and then he falls to • onjecturing. But by my words he might have easily res • lved himself what I aimed at in this, to wit, to show the Jews baptism of parents and children is not undeniably proved to be the pattern of Christian baptism, and Christ's institution of baptism but a copy according to that pattern, i • i • be true that it were derived from the • ame common fountain, the • ons of Noah in remembrance of the deluge, according to that famous verse among the Greeks, the Sea sweeps away all the evils of men, to which S. Pe ••• alludes in making Baptism the ant • type • o Noah's flood, which the Dr ye • ds.

To this I added, that I knew not that Dr. H. or any o • her h • th alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers, that might evince that the custom of baptizing, or baptizing infants, was derived from the Jews initiating Proselytes by baptism. To this, saith Dr. H I answer, 1. By asking Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay th • t reverence to the authority of the Fathers, as to be concluded by their affirmations ? To which I say, I am ready to pay that reverence to the Fathers which is meet, but to be concluded by their affirmations is more then is fi • , t • e same liberty is to be allowed me, which learned men take usually to diss • n • from them, when Scripture or reason lead another way. He • aith, If he be wonder why the uniform consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevail with him? Answ. And I wonder 1. that the Dr. should pretend an uniform consent of the Fathers, that infants are to be baptized, when for the two first ages, there's not any just evidence of the consent of one Father for it; in t • e third there is a dissent of Tertullian, and in the 4th. of Nazianzen, and the rarity of its use; and tha • upon such erroneous grounds, as it was practi • ed with infant communion, which had alike consent, and in so ridiculous a manner, as to propound questions of its faith and devoti • n to an infant, who could not understand or speak, and put in others to undertake and answer for an infant, who could neither promise for them wi • h • ut arrogant presumption what was not in their power, no • profess their faith without apparent untruth argue it to have been a corruption. 2. That the uniform consent of the Apostles and Apostolical men, with Christ and John Bapti •• in Scripture, should not more prevail with a man who makes the Scripture his Canon, then Fathers of those ages, wherein ma • y errors and corruptions were received, and either hatched or fostered by them, but that he should not only dare to practice the corrupt innovation of infant Baptism▪ of which there is no instance in Scripture, but also omit the baptism of believers, and oppose it, and harden men in their conceits, as if they were baptized in infancy sufficiently, and for that reason to b • e reckoned among Christians, though mere strangers from the knowledge or practice of Christianity.

He adds, If he be not, why doth he mention this as useful in this matter?

Answ. To show how little credit is to be given to the Drs. dictates without proof.

The Dr. adds.

Answ. For p • esent, omitting the instances of the Lord's Supper, as d • ive fro • the Jewish post c • nium, and excommunication Apostolical r • sp • ct Jewi •• , it hath been yield • d by me, that Christian baptism was in 〈◊〉 of the rite like Jewish baptism of Proselytes, acknowledged to hav • been a custom among them for initiating them (not of native Jews 〈◊〉 the giving of the Law) into the Covenant, and it is probable that J • hn Baptist foll • wed in the external act that rite, though to another end, he b • ptizing with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins, they into he observance of the Law for righteousness, and other subjects; John the Baptist • ews by nature, not so Pharisees. And as John • aptist practiced, so Christ appointed, and his Apostles practiced Baptism with express mention of the Trinity or the name of Christ somewhat differently f • om John: and if the one be said to be derived from the other by way of accommodation, I shall not contend about it, nor do I de • y tha • Christ alluded to this baptism of Proselytes, Joh. 3.3, 5. in the manner I have expressed before, and the 2d. part of this Review sect. 16. Nor do I • eny that the Jewish, Christian, and Gentile baptisms may have their first ri • e from Noah's deluge, but that which I insist on • s, that the Jewish use was was not so conformable to the Christian, as that it can be true that the Jewish was th • pattern of the Christian. As for the Fathers▪ Nazianzen, Ma • arius▪ Athanasius, their words seem not to m • to make a comparison between the Bap • ism Jewi • h and Christian for initiation, but the Christian and Jewish which was occasionally renewed upon any legal defilement, or often ite • ated by the Priests for purification or sanctifying and so the words of Athanasius cited by the Dr. in • imate, which say, the 3d. is the Legal baptism which the Hebrews had, whereby every unclean person (not • very one who was so by natu • e, as the Dr. a • ds, but by accident) was baptized in water (as oft as he was defiled) had his garment • washed, and so en • red into the Camp ; whic • was ano • her baptism then that t • e Dr. makes the pattern of Christian baptism, to wit, that which was once only used for initiation, and of this I think the Dr. finds no mention in the Fathers, nor of the derivation of Christian baptism from it.

That which the Dr. saith sect. 4. p. 18. from the Talmud, That when a Proselyte is received he must be circumcised, and then 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 ; addi • g, A plain testimony (to the sense of those which we formerly produced) of baptising both Jews and Proselyte, (for else how could the Proselyte, upon receiving this, be said to be a Israelite in all things?)

Answ. Two ways; 1. In respect of the rite, he was circumcised and baptized, as the Israelites at the giving of the Law Exod. 19.10. (not after that time) were baptized; an • the Proselytes p • sterity were then not after this time of the first initiation into the Jewish people. 2. In respect of privileges and profession, as it is said Ester 8.17. Many of the people of the Land became Jews. Neither this then nor the other, are plain or obscure testimonies of baptising native Jews, for ini • iating into the Covenant af • er the giving of the Law.

That which I said that I alleged, that Mr. Selden de Syned. Ehra. l. 1. cap. 3. p. 40, 41. mention • some, who have conceived that t • e Jewish baptism in initiating Proselytes, was in imitation of Christ's example, though he do not believe it; and that Schickardus conceives, they added a certain Baptism to C • rcumcision, to difference them from Samaritans, to show that notwithstanding Dr. Hs. supposition, that the whole fabric he frames of Baptism, is discernible to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the • ews, yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers, is a conclusion drawn out of the premises in the first figure, thus; That is not so discernible but that many will conceive it needs m • re proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers, which was not so conceived by Schickard, and some others mentioned by Mr. S • lden. But the Drs. supposition was not so conceived by those, Ergo. The ma • or rests on two things; 1. That experience shows, what some others who had understanding to conceive did not conceive to be so, many its likely will not discern▪ 2. That the later Jewish writers are not such certain proof of the ancient Jews customs, but that more proof may be justly required then the bare recital of passages in them. It is not unknown that some have excepted against Ainsworth's allegation of Rabbins, and that in his apology for it he himself saith, Some things I note from them, not as approving them myself absolutely, but leaving them to the further consideration of the prudent. Preface to his annot. on Gen. Nor is it unusual for Rabbins to dissent one from another, and Christian writer from Jewish about their custom. Though I have no engine to draw many out of two, nor were two only mentioned by me (for though Mr. Selden cite only Petrus Alfunsus for the first, yet he cites him a • ascribing the thing to more then one, nec defuere ex Judaeis Christiani aliquot, &c.) yet from the instance of two such which have so conceived, I might • rationally infer the likelihood, that many would not be satisfied with the passages of the writers cited by him, much less with the inference of the Dr. makes from thence.

But he tells me, to evidence to how little purpose I said thus much, I confess my conceit of such a custom of baptising Proselytes afore Christ's incarnation among the latter Jews. Yet I think it was to much purpose notwithstanding this my conceit, since thereby the foundation of the Drs. fabric is in • imated to be such, as though I pull it not down others may.

I said, that either that custom should begin from Jacob's injunction to his household Gen. 35.2. or from God's command Exod. 19.10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving of the Law (though the Jewish Doctors allege these for it) I do not conceive (not as the Dr. misre • ites me he cannot ) those places speaking of washing Jews by nature, not Proselytes, whereas the Jews baptized not Jews by nature, as Selden de jure nat. &c. l. 2. c. 4. saith, but by profession.

Here, saith the Dr. are many weak parts in these few words. For 1. the original of the cu • tome among the Jews is but an accessory wholly extrinsical • o the matter in hand▪ and in no respect necessary to be defined by us. If the custom be acknowledged we need ask no more, for on that and not on that particular original of it, it is that we superstruct our whole fabric, as far as belongs to infant ba • tism.

Answ. Be i • so, yet it was no weak part to examine the original of that custom; nor impertinent, since if the o • iginal come from unwritten tradition of Elders, it is somewhat the less likely Christ would make it the pattern of his baptism, who neglected the traditions of the Elders, and excepted against them. Mark 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

But then secondly, sai • h he, 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.

Answ. Neither was this any weak part, • ith the originals of such customs ar • so obscure, that there are few of them, whose head is known. The Dr. I suppose cannot show the original of the post coenium among the Jews, of giving milk and honey to the newly baptized among Christians, and yet I su • pose the Dr. counts not this a weak part Yet Mr. • oseph Mede in his diatr. on Tit. 3.5. find • nother original, to wit, That custom of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb, when • hey are first born, mention • d Ez • k. 16.4 5. and gathered from the answer o • an Oracle in a story related by Plutarch in his quaestiones Romana, not far from the beginning.

Hence (saith he p. 272.) the • ews before John the Baptist came amongst them, were wont by this rite to initiate such, as they made Proselytes, (to wit) as becoming infants again and entering in • o a new life, and being, which before they had not. W • ich derivation of its original suits better with the opinion of regeneration by it, in allusion to which as a vulgar notion among t • e Jews, the Dr. conceivs Christ spake John 3.5. and the Jews imagined old kindred to be lost, and this is a good evidence, that they baptized not native Jews, who were not by them conceived to be born again, nor to have any need as being born in sanctity, not in uncleanness Matth. 3.9. John. 8.33.

Answ. Be it so, yet Jewish Writers and others derive it from Gen. 35.2. and therefore there was no weak part shown in my intimation of my dissent.

Answ. Neither in this do I think I shown weakness or deceit, though I did it wittingly, following herein Mr. Selden, • . 1 de Syned E • . c. 3. p. 25, &c, where I think he hath proved by the washing of the clothes is meant the washing of the whole body, and that thereby is exp • essed the Baptism whence the later Jews say they took the use of baptzing Proselytes, and not by the term [ sanctify them: ] which was to be done by Moses not only once, but two days together, and seems to be from v. 15. by his keeping them from their wives, and perh • ps some other ways whether offering sacrifice, or anointing (by which way also sometimes persons are said to be sanctified as Exod. 40.13. and here the Priests are bid sanctify themselves, Exod 19.22.) or some other way. To me it is improbable that by sanctifying, Exod. 19.10. is mean baptising, though I think it a general term comprehending that and some other acts. And thus I hope the Reader will perceive I neither intended to disguise anything, nor misguide any man.

Answ. But neither doth it yet appear to me there is any weak part or v • nity in this reason, nor hath the Dr. proved the custom of baptising Jews by nature, nor do I find the evidences the Dr. brings to opp •• e Mr. Selden, or that I made any misadventure in my few words, sect 5. Dr. H. thinks reason not to be tied to Mr. Seldens authority, which I reject when • tis not for my turn; which I grant when the Dr. gives such reason of dissent as I did in my rejection of Mr. Selden 's interpretation of 1 Cor. 10▪1. And for the Drs. interpretation, neither hath he cleared it by his showing my mistake of his meaning. For neither were the native Jews wont to be initiated by Baptism, nor is my reason avoided against his interpretation. For if the sense of the Dr. be, our Fathers were baptized into Moses as native Jews are wont to be initiated by baptism, yet the Dr. errs from the Apostles meaning, which is, that our Fathers the Israelites were baptized into Moses, as well (not as the Jews in after time by their Baptism, but) as we Christians by Christian Baptism into Christ. Whether the Jews custom was to baptize native Jews after the giving the Law, hath been argued before; I proceed to my main position, and the Drs. answer to it.

I set down my position thus; Nor do I think it true that the customary use of the Jews in baptizing Proselytes and their children, was the pattern of Christ's institution of Baptism, and the Apostles and first Churches practice. For according to the custom of the Jews, John the Baptist, and Christ's Apostles should have baptized no native Jews, which was not so, but of all nations as Christ appointed, Matth. 28.19. To this the Dr. answers 1. by asserting they did baptize native Jews. To this the Reply is by denial of this, and reserting to the proof before.

2. Saith the Dr. Nay so they might, though the Jews had baptized none but Proselytes, for to that it would bear just proportion, that they should baptize both Jews and Gentiles, in case both of them came in as Proselytes.

Answ. But this answer is a fallacy a little too gross to deceive any man of common understanding. For if the Jews baptized no native Jews, but Proselytes (not to Christ) but to the Jewish people, and their baptism was the pattern (which was the Drs. word) of Christian baptism, then Christ should have appointed, and John the Baptist and the Apostles practiced baptism to no Jew, though a Proselyte to Christ; For each thing ought to be appointed and done according to the pattern, and no otherwise, that which is otherwise is not according to the pattern, though it bear a proportion with it. My argument was not as the Dr. makes it, The custom was to baptize Proselytes and not natives; therefore Christ if be observed that custom was not to baptize native Jews, but thus; therefore if Christ had made their custom his pattern, he would not have appointed them to be baptized. If Moses had varied from the pattern shown him in the Mount, he had not made it his pattern, so it had been in this, if the Jewish baptism had been Christ and his Apostles pattern.

2. I said, Christ would not have avouched the baptism of John to be from heaven and not from men, if it had been in imitation of, and conformity to the Jewish custom. To this the Dr. saith,

Answ. I grant it, but then the appointment of God is the pattern by which it is to be regulated, not men's custom; I do not conceive that can be said to be from heaven or God but from men, which is derived from, founded in and regulated by as its pattern, a custom of men; as the Dr. saith of the Christian baptism, that it is derived from▪ founded in and regulated by the Jewish baptism (not pretended to be an institution of God but an human invention) a • the pattern whence it is copied out even by Christ, according to the Dr. Letter of resol. q • . 4. §. 24.

3. If it had been the pattern I said, it is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given, as the Directory for Christians in the use of Baptism. This, saith the Dr. is too frivolous to require reply; for besides that, the negative argument were of no force, if it were 〈◊〉 is pretended; It already appears that there are in the Jewish writers more then intimations of this custom, and some indications of it even in the Scripture itself; as Joh. 3.5, 10. And for any plainer affirmations, what need could there be of them, when both the matter itself speaketh plainly, that there was no need of words to those that knew the Jewish customs, as the first writers and readers of the New Testament did, and when Christ's sole authority and practice of his Apostles were sufficient Directory for the Christians in the use of baptism?

Answ. The Dr. might more truly have said, this reason is too weigh • y to be removed by his reply. For 1. the thing itself is of very great moment to tender consciences, who know of what moment it is that the great solemn ordinance of Baptism should not be profaned, but rightly used. 2. Without a certain Directory, no person can with peace seek Baptism, nor Minister give it. 3. The Apostle saith for want of right observing the Lord's Supper (and there is the like reason of Baptism) God's judgment overtook the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.30. 4. That an abuse is to be rectified by Christ's appointment, 1 Cor. 11.23. Though the Dr. say, the Lord's Supper was derived and lightly changed from the Jewish observance of the post. c • nium, yet did the Apostle not make their custom the Directory to regulate it by, but Christ's appointment and example; and therefore such a negative argument is of invincible force in this case, if it be as I pretend; there is no intimation given in Scripture of that custom as the Directory for Christians in the use of Baptism, therefore that custom is not the pattern by which it is to be regulated, For otherwise it were very tyrannous, for Christ to impose a Law on men's consciences, to practice a rite after a pattern altogether unknown, and not so much as directed to. To say the first writers and readers of the New Testament knew the Jewish customs, is nothing to us, unless they had told us what they were, and that we are to follow them. And if they did not tell us, they dealt unfaithfully in not doing that which was necessary to be done for our information. 5. The declarations in the Jewish writers cannot be our Directory unless we were directed to them as our rule, or they were as the Canonical Scriptures to us. 6. The Jewish writers which mention this custom are later writers then the Apostles time, and therefore they could not be the Directory, except we were referred to them by prognostication. 7. The Jewish writers could not be a Directory, except they could be had and read by those that need information from them. But how few of those millions of Christians and Preachers, who have need of direction in this thing, have heard much less have read, the Jewish writers, the Talmud, Gemara, Maimonides ? 8. How uncertain are their determinations, even to those that read them, how cross one to another, appears somewhat by what is said before. 9. Their intimations of this custom are but obscure, and their declarations in sundry of the points in difference with so little evidence, that such as Dr. H. and Mr. Selden d • ffer about them. 10. The indications in Scripture Joh. 3.5, 10. are not such but that (as hath been shown) it may well be doubted, whether they point at the custom of baptizing for initiating into Covenant, or another usage at the birth of infants. 11. The matter itself speaketh not at all to us who know not the usage. 12. The Dr. himsel • saith p. 8. here, It is highly unreasonable that an institution of Christ's, such as each Sacrament is, should be judged of by any other rule, but either the words wherein the institution is set down, or by the records of the practice, whether of Christ or the Apostles, therefore it is highly unreasonable that the controversy of infant Baptism should be judged by Jewish writers. 13. If Christ's sole authority, and practice of his Apostles, be sufficient Dire •• ory for Christians in the use of Batism, as the Dr. saith here, he doth very ill to make the Jewish custom not known but by Jewish writers of dubious credit the pattern of it, and to expound Christ's institution by it, as if the Dial were to be set by the clock, and not the clock by the Dial; and all the Drs. pains about the Jewish custom of baptising is superfluous, and so one • ous to the reader; and his way of probation of infant Baptism, which he counts more perfect then other ways, is found to be most imperfect and of no validity, but merely delusory.

I added 4. The institution and practice would have been conformable to it. The Dr. tells me, And so I say and have made it cleur that it was, as far as to the controversy in hand we are or can be concerned in it. To which I return▪ 1. That if the Jewish custom were the pattern whence Christ copied out Baptism, it was so in all things, or else it was not the pattern, no man calls that the pattern, which having many particuiars in it, is followed but in one. 2. The Dr. hath not made it appear by any testimony of Scripture or Father, but only by his own confident speeches, that ever Christ copied out his institution of Baptism from the Jewish custom, or if he did, it is most evident both from the Commission Matth. 28.19. and from all the practice in the New Testament, if he altered it in anything he altered it in this thing; though the Dr. would face us down, He hath made clear (by nothing but his own sayings) that the institution and practice of Christ and his Apostles have been conformable to it, as far as to the controversy in hand he is or can be concerned in it. Yet he hath so much ingenuity as to add, But saith Mr. T. the contrary appears, adding one main instance of the inconformity, and 14. lesser disparities; The main disparity, saith he, is in their baptizing no infants of the Gentile at their first conversions, whereas the Jews baptized only the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting, not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy. For the former of these he offers no manner of proof beyond his own affirmation, and therefore it is sufficient to deny it▪ a • he knows we do, and evidently begs the question in assuming and not offering any proof to the contrary.

Answ. This is refuted so fully by all the fore going Sections of that Book of mine to which he answers, and the confessions of my Antagonists, and the story of the New Testament all along, besides what is said in this part of the Review, sect. 52.94. that I think the Dr. hardly could say this without reluctancy of conscience. That he denied, that at their first conversions no infants of the Gentiles were baptized by the Apostles I did not know, yea I had reason from his own words Letter of resolut. qu. 4. §▪ 21 • to conceive he did not deny it, forasmuch as if any place did evince the baptizing of infants of Gentiles at their first conversion, they must be those places Acts 16.33. 1 Cor. 1.16. Yet the Dr. saith, the mention in Scripture of the Apostles baptizing a whole household at once, Acts 16.33. is not of itself demonstrative or convincing: because that wider phrase may possibly be restrained to those that heard and believed in that family, and it is not certain of either of these, the Go • lers or Stephanus household, that they had any so young as infants in their family; therefore it is confessed, that no concluding argument can be deduced thence. If he deny it now he affirms the contrary, and so is to prove it, which that he either hath done or ever will, I do not imagine. A negative argument from Divine testimony in this case is demonstrative, till the contrary be made good.

The Dr. adds, 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. But I have already shown how groundless that affirmation of Mr. S. was, as to the native Jews children, who were still baptized after the giving of the Law. And the same I now add for the children of those Proselytes who had been baptized in infancy there appears not the least proof of this from the Jewish writers, who are the only competent witnesses in it.

Answ. If there were no more proof brought then what hath been, that the Jews baptizing the infants at first Proselytism, and the Apostles no infants at first conversion, it were proved; that the Apostles practice of baptism was not conformable to the Jewish custom: And for the other point, Mr. Seldens affirmation is in the judgment of such as knew both, as good as Dr. Hammonds negation. I confess I have not those Jewish writers he refers to, nor some Books of Mr. Selden de succession in bona defuncti, c. 26. lib. 1. de succession in Pontificatu cap. 2. in which by his reference I guess he hath more • ully handled this point, yet do I imagine, that knowing the accurateness of the writer, any Reader will conceive that he had clear evidence for what he wrote, or else he would not have so often and so plainly avouched it, that the children of Proselytes after the first baptizing were not baptized, but only circumcised according to the Jewish custom.

But the Dr. saith,

Answ. It were very strange that Mr. Selden should in the same chapter in which he cites those words, lib. 1. de Syn • d. c. 3. p. 35. assert p. 28. before, and p. 41. after, that neither Jews children after the giving the Law, nor Proselytes children after their first Baptism, should be baptized, if the words there did import the contrary. And therefore though I want the book to consider it, yet I doubt not the sense of the words is plain thus, that the Gentile who is not baptized at first as well as circumcised, wants forever, not only a little while, the right of a Proselyte, and is the very same which both Selden there p. 39. cites out of Maimonides Issuri • ia. c. 13 and Ainsw. annot. on Gen. 17.12. A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized, or baptized and not circumcised, he is not a Proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptized. So that the sense is not as the Dr. would, that no Proselytes child shall have the right of a Proselyte, unless that child be as well baptized as circumcised, but this, that he that at his first Proselytism is only circumcised and not baptized, shall still want the right of a Proselyte as if he were not circumcised at all, till he be baptized as well as circumcised. And that to be the meaning, is plain out of the words that Selden cites from the same Book p. 35. a little after, where R. Eliezers opinion being that a person may be a Proselyte if circumcised though not baptized, because so were their Fathers; and Rabbi J • shuah's that he was a Proselyte who was baptized and not circumcised, because so were their mothers ; it is said, that the wise men nevertheless have pronounced, that if any have been baptized and not circumcised, or circumcised and not baptized, he is not a Proselyte till he is as well baptized as circumcised ; and the same is the sense of the other speech. So that those words do not speak of any other then the first Proselytes Baptism of that race, not of the posterity, nor of the conjunction of Baptism and Circumcision but at the first entrance into the Covenant; and therefore to the Drs. question I say, the posterity of a Proselyte were Israelites not Pagans, though they were not baptized in their own persons by virtue of the parents baptism, if they were not born before it.

The Dr. proceeds thus;

Answ. The Dr. having tried to prove the posterity of the Proseselytes born after their proselytism, to have been won • to be baptized by the Jews, but distrusting it's likely it would not hold, yet thinks to use another engine, though it be as weak as the rest. For 1. he supposeth, the Jews baptized native Jews infants after the giving the Law, which is not true. 2. That Christ imitated the Jews in baptising Proselytes children at first proselytism, and so baptized the children of Christian Proselytes at their first conversion, which is manifestly false. 3. That the Jews baptism was the pattern before Christ, which is the thing in question. 4. That some children are born in the Church Christians, which is a mistake. 5. That he made some light change in that of not baptising Proselytes posterity, and farther then the pattern before him afforded, baptized all the posterity that should succeed them, and were born in the Church in their infancy also. Which is a palpable falsehood, it being certain that Christ baptized none, nor appointed the baptizing of any Christians infants, and is against the Dr. For 1. if the custom were changed by Christ, then it was not the pattern. 2. The same proofs which show a change in this, show as much a change in the other. 3. This change is ill called a light change, which made so large a perpetual addition. 4. If the pattern did not belong equally to all the Christians posterity, as to the children of the first Proselytes, then the reason did not belong to them, since the pattern according to the Dr. is all or the main reason, basis or foundation of infant Baptism with him. 6. It is also false, that the reason of baptising the after children of Proselytes, or the native Jews infants after the giving of the Law was as before, since the reason of Baptism given by the Rabbins is the uncleanness of the baptized, which they deny of native Jews after the giving the Law, and of proselytes posterity born after their baptism. So that it may be easily perceived, that the Dr. hath not avoided the force of my objection against the Jews baptizing being Christ's pattern, but heaped up many mistakes, and some against himself.

Answ. It is so, for thereby I perceive the inconsiderateness and va •• ty of the Drs. writing. • grant the one confutes me as well as the other, that is not at all. For what consequence is in this, I grant the Jews baptized Proselytes children at first proselytism, and this they did according to their custom; therefore • must grant that some infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized by Christian baptism? Did I ever grant that the Jewish baptism of any infants is to be our pattern, or was Christ's pattern? Yea, do I not dispute against it? What a frivolous reason is this of so famous a Dr. For by that very baptising of the infants at their first proselytism, it appears that infants may be baptized, for I hope those Proselytes infants are infants? How doth it appear that what the Jews did we may do? Were infants of Proselytes to be baptized because they were infants? or are our infants to be baptized because infants, as the Drs. reason intimates? To omit his non sense of hoping that infants are infants, I tell him that I have considered this, and that I find it of no force to remove my suggestion, that my pretensions are not destroyed, but that he hath shown more futility in this passage, so seriously presented to my consideration, then I should easily have imagined in such a man as he is.

But yet the Dr. adds, The only way Mr. T. hath to confirm this of the Jews not baptising any infants of Proselytes born after their fi • st conversion, and baptism is the resolution of the Jews, that if a woman great with child became a Proselyte and were baptized, her child needs not baptism when 'tis born. And this I had cited §. 109. out of the Rabbins, and so indeed I find it in Maimonides▪ tit. Isuribia. c. 13. But I cannot think that (whether true or false) a sufficient proof to infer the conclusion; For the Jewish Drs. might probably thus resolve upon this other ground, because the mother and the child in her womb, 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 needful to repeat it after the birth, which yet (by the way) it seeems they would have done, if they had not deemed the child all one with the mother, and consequently they must be supposed to baptize those children which were begotten to the Proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptism. And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Council of Neocaesare • can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis, viz. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the mother that bears the child differs from the child, or is not at all one with it; and her confession in baptism is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proper or particular to herself, and belongs not to the child in her womb, give the ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) the woman that is with child, and is then converted to the Faith, leave to be baptized when she pleases, supposing that the child which then she carries, shall, notwithstanding her baptism, then be its self baptized after its birth. Which as it is a clear answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jews in that point, so 'tis moreover an evidence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own observation, 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.

Answ. The Dr. hath a strange fancy, to think he can conclude the contrary to what I infer from those words of the Jewish Drs. that when they resolve the child needs not be baptized, therefore they were wont to bap • ize the children of Proselytes born after their proselytism, As if the Jewish custom were contrary to their Drs. resolution, when they say it needs not, yet they should do it; if so, how vainly doth the Dr. talk but a little before, that

But let's heed his reason;

• ect. 6. The Dr. writes thus;

Answ. Dr. H. had expressly asserted the • ewish custom of Baptising Proselytes, to be the pattern, whence Christian Baptism was copied out, and what is set down in the N. T. i. e. in the words of Christ's institution, or in his or the Apostles practice, he calls a copy of their custom as the pattern, Letter of resol. qu. 4. §. 24. And what was the Jewish custom, he proves only from the Talmud, Gemara, Maimonides, or other Jewish writers▪ and says p. 27. they are the only competent witnesses in it, which if so, his pretensions are made void if there be one, much more if there be one main one, and 14. lesser disparities. For sure what is a pattern must be followed, and is in all, or else it ceaseth to be a pattern. Had Moses made that which was shown him in the Mount his pattern, if he had only done according to it in two, or three, or one thing and not in the rest? Besides, how doth or can the Dr. prove the one to have been the pattern to the other, but by the universal conformity▪ To say, it is a pattern when they agree in one or two things and differ in 14. is all one as to say, a woman's coat is the pattern of a man's double • , because they agree in having sleeves, or a Temple is the pattern of a dwelling house, because they have both doors and windows. The Dr. therefore doth in my apprehension pull down what he hath all this while been erecting, by his acknowledging both the Jews bringing in many things of their own devising otherwise then Christ appointed, and Christ's changing their Oecomy in many things, and making the accordance no further 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. then it will follow, that infant Baptism c • n never be proved to be from Christ or the Apostles, since it can never be proved that they practiced it or appointed it to be practiced according to the Jewish custom. 2. The Dr. hath merely abused h • s Reader, endeavoring to possess him, as if infant Baptism might be better p • oved • rom the Jewish • ustome in their writ • rs, then from the Scripture; and yet in the conclusion, the Jewish custom is disclaimed as a pattern, any farther then the Scriptures or ancient Church tell us was the practice of him or his Apostles, and by pretending that to be p • t • ern, which is not to be followed any farther then we may judge by another Directory Christ was pleased it should hold. I let pass what the Dr. saith, of Christ's commissionating his Disciples to baptize, and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop, and those to whom he should commit it, as not pertinent to the present business, though otherwise many things might • hence be gathered, to show that Bishops were not such in late days as they were anciently, or they were very negligent in committing this great business of Baptism to so many ignorant drunken Priests (who often did it in their drink) which should have been done by themselves, and consider what follows.

But yet, saith the Dr. it is evident that some of them are not such; As when he saith, the Baptism of males must be with Circumcision and an offering, it is clear that, though 1. Circumcision be laid aside by Christ, and 2. when it was used it had nothing to do with Baptism, yet as to the adjoining 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 administration of Baptism.

Answ. 1. If Circumcision when it was used had nothing to do with Baptism, how could the Dr. (as he doth here ch. 1. sect. 1.) take on him from Circumcision to prove (no • the duty, yet) the lawfulness of infan • Baptism. 2. The sacrifice which was required at the initiating a Proselyte, was a burnt offering of a beast, or two Turtle Doves, or two young Pigeons, both of them for a burnt offering; so Maimonides tit. Isuri • i • . c. 13. as Ainsworth annot. on Gen. 17.12. Selden de syned. l. 1. c. 3. • ite him, but that is not prayer, nor is it anymore agreeable to the Jewish custom to use prayer without it, then to use circumcision of the heart, Col. 2.11. without the outward, or the answer of a good conscience towards God without baptism with water; and yet the rubrick of the Common Prayer Book in private Baptism allowed (if time did not suffer) it to be done without so much as saying the Lord's Prayer.

The Dr. adds.

Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tolerated, and been taken for currant Baptism, and the terming the Governors of the Church the Church, be language not like the Scripture, but the Canon law, and the use of Gossips be a vain device, and the Minister commissionated by the Bishop, with the Gossips sometimes so ignorant of the knowledge of Christ, that they are not fit to be among Christians, nor to be taken to represent a Church of Christ, nor do they stand under that notion at the usual baby sprinkling, but as sureties or proxies to the child; and in private Baptism there's none of these sometimes, yet were all the Dr. saith yielded, this is not according to the Jewish custom, which required a kind of court of three Israelites skillful in Law to approve it, or else it is vo • d, and so as Judges of the Baptism, of which sort the other are not.

The Dr. adds;

Answ. 1. To call Cyprian, Augustine, &c. Fathers of the Church, which is elsewhere styled their mother, is scarce consistent. 2. To yield all authority to the practice of the Apostles of Christ, by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known to us there is no reason; this is due only to the holy Scripture: they testify sundry things as the Apostle practice, which was not so, they speak sometimes in these things confidently upon false reports, this would be an inlet to many superstitions, the Canons of Councils, and Rituals of Churches are so full of weakness and blemishes, as that they would be counted most useless writings • o direct in faith or worship, did not their age make some men dote on them▪ T • at all Churches accord in infant Baptism cannot be true. The Common Prayer book is not justifiable in the allowing that which is termed private baptism, in the use of sureties their mimical or falls answers, saying they desire to be baptized, when it is not so. The Drs. exposition Letter of resol. q 4 §. 116. I believe, i. e. this child stands bound by by th • se presents to believe, &c. is so ridiculous (and Augustine's tom. 2. Ep. 28 ad • oni • acium is like it) as that did not prejudice, o • preingagem • nt, or some other like reason prevail with Dr. H. he would never defend it. That which the Dr. makes a competent ground of his action, doth not justify his tenet of infant Baptism to be according to rules of reason and sound doctrine, whether he vary or not in his determinations from that which he makes the pa • tern as he pleaseth, or the Bishops Canons order, let the Reader ju • ge by what is said, and that which follows.

Answ What grounds we can produce • rom Christ, and Apostles for denying infant Bapt • sm, may be se • n in 〈◊〉 Part of this Review sect. 5, &c. what from Fathers in this, and some oth • r of my writings▪ that which Christ prescribed is indispensably to be used, to baptize in •• the Name of the Father, Son and Holy, but all the question is about these words [ I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ] whether Christ have prescribed them to be indispensably used; so as tha • if any say, I baptize thee in the name of Christ, or the Lord Jesus, or be thou baptized, or a • the Greeks use it [Let this servant of Christ be baptized] into the Name of Father, Son and Spirit, or, This p • rson is baptized by • e into the profession and owning of the Father of Christ the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, and the Comforter whom he sent as his Lord and Master, this be not agreeable to C • rists prescription. I conceive it is, and that neither did Christ prescribe those very words the Dr. se • s down, but the thing (of which Grotius • nn • t. in Matth. • 8.19. may be seen, where the Dr. may see, that to be baptized into the Name, is not all one with bap • izing with the express naming of each o • these, but another thing, and how the ancients varied in their expressions, and how Iren • us lib. 3 c. 20. saith. In nomine Christi subauditur qui unxi • , & ipse qui unctus est, & ipsa unctio in q • a • nctu • e •• . ) Nor the Apostles when they prescribed Baptism into the name of Christ, without mentioning the other persons, Acts 2.38. & 10.8. & 8.16. Lu •• bard l. 4. sent. dist. 3. • ui baptizat in nomine Christi baptize • t in nomine • rin • tatis, quae ibi intelligitur ; and this Ambrose before spake, i • lib. 1. de s • ir sanct. c. 3. • iscat. schol. in Matth. 28.19▪ But it is not to be thought that in these words, Christ commands Misters o • Pastors of the Church, that in baptizing they should pronounce these words, baptize thee into the Name of the Father, &c. For neither do the words of Christ so sound? nor may this be concluded from them by necessary co • sequence. But he only commands, that they baptize in the Name of the Father • c. which may be done although those word • be not • ronounced in baptizing And therefore tha • which I • aid, needed not be somewhat st •• nge in the Dr. And for the words of the Drs. Practic • l catech. l 6. §. 2. the words do show what I said the Dr. confessed, to have been no mis •• eporting of his words; who did not say, he affirmed the putting under water (used by the primitive Church to be appointed by Christ, exclusi • ely to sprinkling, but t • at by Christ's appointment the baptized was to be d • pt in wa • e • ▪ i.e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under wa • er, and said expressly be allowed of sprinkling, and yet varied from the J • wish pattern which requir • d immersion; and from Christ's appointment (which though he propounded d • s • junctively, yet I knew it could • ot • e so understood) and from the primitive custom, and yet in another thing n • t so prescribed, will have it to be indispensably used, which shows his variableness.

SECT. XCVII. Matth. 28.19. Infants are excluded from being subjects of Baptism, notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions.

TO what Dr. H. Defense of infants Baptism ch. 2. sect. 1. saith, I reply. 1. That his writing for the Common Prayer Book, is evidence of ascribing more then was meet to the Canons of Prelates, since th • Common Prayer Book stood as well by the Prelates Canons, as the Act of Parliament, and those that are for the one are for the most part for the other. 2. It appears to me that he hath offended much against the Sacrament of Baptism, in his Defense of infant Baptism, the use of sureties, sprinkling instead of Baptism according to the Common Prayer Book, all which are mentioned before. 3. This to me is a sign that the Dr. ascribes too much to the Canon which enjoined subscription and conformity to the Common Prayer Book, in that he hath opposed, as much I think as any man of his rank, the reformation of these and such other faults as were in it. 4. If there were a Catechesis in the term allegation, then my use of it proves not my signification that the Dr. did produce Matth. 28.19. as a proof of his pos • tion : yet when I consider how the Dr. Letter of resol. q. 4. sect. 14, 25. doth make the Jewish baptism the pattern whence the Christian is copied out, and saith; Christian baptism hath nothing in the Copy to exclude Christians children, which copy is set down in the N. T. i e. in the words of institution, and these words §. 25. are no other then those Matth. 28.19. which he endeavors to prove not only not to exclude, but also to include Christians children, as he speaks §. 121. Christ's baptism being founded in the Jews custom of baptizing of Proselytes, and the custom among them being known to be this, to baptize the Proselytes and their children, the indefinite command of baptizing all nations, was all that was needful to comprehend the children also of those that received the faith of Christ. I do still conceive he did allege Matth. 28.19. as a proof of his position, though not by itself▪ yet with his imagined pattern of the Jewish custom, and that though he would not openly, yet by his contending so much for the equivalency of Disciple and Proselyte, and the extent of the term Proselyte, and his acknowledgement of these words to be the copy in the N.T. he did tacitly yield, that if those words Matth. 28.19. include not infants under the discipled▪ then there is something in the N. T. which excludes infants from Baptism Nor is he at all relieved by what he saith that whatever were the notion of Discipling there, yet • ee could not deem infants thereby excluded from Baptism, whom by another medium, viz.▪ the Apostolical practice he supposed to be admitted to it by Christ's institution ; for that very medium is to prove it to have been Christ's institution, and Matth. 28.19. comprehends the words of institution, and is the copy of the original, and therefore it's tacitly implied, that if infants be no • proved to be included Matth. 28.19. there is something against infant Baptism in the N. T. nor is it true that in that which is not included, is not presently excluded, for in all such institutions or appointments, what is not included i • presently exclu • ed. Our Lord argues Matth. 19.5, 6. two shall be one flesh, therefore more then two are excluded; the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23. thus Ch • ist appointed the Lord's Supper, therefore no otherwise, wine is appointed therefore water is excluded, eating is prescribed therefore reservation is excluded, let the self-examiner eat, therefore infants excluded; the Dr. himself, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, prescribed Mat. 2 • .19. therefore that from indispensably to be used If the Dr. would look on such a despicable piece, he might see this further proved in that Book a part whereof he answers, Review part. 2. sect. 5. • f not he may find enough in Jewels Sermon at Paul's Cross 1560. and in all sorts of Protestant writers, which by reducing things to the primitive institution, exclude other things added by men as abuses. But the Dr. tells me, he that saith man is a living creature, doth not thereby deny • n Angel to be so also ; True, but this is impertinent, •• th this is a proposition not a command; and as impertinent is the other, when Christ gives his D • sciples po • er to heal diseases, Matth. 10.1. he cannot be deemed to with hold from them power of raising the dead, for that we see comprehended in their Commi • sion v. 8. for th • s is not an instan • e of an institution of what they should do, but a relation of what CHRIST gave them.

To my arguing from passages of the Doctors Letter of resol. q. 4. §. 55, 92, 94. pract. c • t l. 6. §. 2. that infants are not baptized according to Chri • ts institution, and Baptism no Sacrament to them, he tells me; 1. That Christ's institution of Baptism was not (nor is ever affirmed by 〈◊〉 to be) set down in those words of Matth. 28. that having been long before instituted and practiced, as appears by plain words, Job. 4.1, 2. Whereto I answer; 1. The first is not true, for in his Letter of resol q. 4. § 24. he mentions, the copy of Baptism set down in the N. T. i. e. in the words of institution, which §. 25. shows are those Matth. 28.19. and §. 29 having as he thinks avoided the exclusion of infants, from the command Matth. 28. • 9. he saith▪ Nothing is discernible in Christ's institution of Baptism, which can exclude infant children of Christian • from it, and again he terms them, that institution of Baptism for all nations. 2. His reason i • as frivolous. For though it were instituted before, yet it was set down Matth. 28.19. as the institution of the Lord's Supper was before the Epistle to the Corinthians, yet is set down 1 Cor. 11.23.

Answ. 1. It is to be observed, that here the Dr. makes Christ's will, institution, and commission, to be expressed in those words Matth. 28.19. and yet in the next words before he said, Christ's institution of Baptism was not (nor is ever affirmed by him to be) set down in those words Matth. 28.19. Quo teneam nodo? 2. That he acknowledgeth Christ's will and institution for baptizing infants, is not so manifestly expressed in those words Matth. 28.19. as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gain-sayer. Now sure i • not there, nowhere. As for his other proof from other places, it is so fully proved here to be vain, that if the Dr. do not, others will see it to be so.

Yet he adds▪ Secondly that the infant when he is to be ba • tized, doth though not by his own voice personally, yet by his lawful proxies, which the Church accepteth in his stead, profess the believing in three, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, deliver himself up to three, &c.

Answ. How comes any man • o be a child's proxy, who doth not make hi • so? By w • at law becomes he a lawful proxy? Where did God allow him to become a proxy or su • ety for an infant? How dares any take upon him to be a surety of the Covenant, which i • Christ's office Heb. 7.22? With what face can any Christian say the child b • lievs, or desires • o be baptized, when the child at that very instant, by its crying shows its unwillingness thereto? How dares any undertake it shall believe, when it is not in his power to give fai • h, and so many do not believe, but oppose the faith, who are thus baptized? What warrant hath any parent, or (as Mr. Bax • er terms the Gossips) proparent, to profess the faith of Christ in behalf of an infant, and to desire Christian baptism for it? What is the Church the Doctor means, that accepts a proxies profession in st • ad of the child? Who gave them or that person the name of the Church? What Commission, whence have the Church power to exchange and commute ones profession for another's? Who gave the Minister authority to alter Christ's institution, and to accept of that which Christ never appointed instead of that which Christ appointed? It is undoubtedly a most high presumption, derogatory to Christ's peculiar office▪ forbidden Matth. • 3.8. for any Minister, or Bishop, or Council, or Congregation, who are all to be subject to Christ, and to follow his prescriptions, to take on them instead of the persons own profession before Baptism to accept of another • , as • proxy, parent, or proparent his confession, instead of the baptized per • ons profession? Th • ugh I marvel not that Dr. Hammond a man Prelatical, who too much favors corruptions in Fathers, Counci • s, and Prelates, disguising them under the name of the Church, which is a pre • ence for many supersti • ions, should thus determine: yet I wonder how Mr. Baxter and those who have opposed the use of the Cross in Baptism, and other abuses of Papists and Prelates, should having proved in his 2d. Disputation of right to Sacraments, that none but Professors of saving faith and repentance are to be baptized, yet without the least proof or shadow of proof, but a parents or proparents pro • ession instead of an infants, and without any institution or practice in the New Testament, dar • to teach and accordingly to pra •• ise 〈…〉 and to require parents or others to profess the faith to that • nd, and in their stead. Just zeal to the glory of God and honor of Christ, and his truth, makes me thus earnest; no man can justly blame me in inveighing against, if not the hypocrisy of such men, yet certainly the iniquity of them who oppose human inventions in one thing and no • in another, and the wickedness of them who either by Consistorial sentences excommunica • e as Heretics, or by exciting Magistrates against them persecu • e, or in preaching exclaim, or otherwise oppose those that will not yield to such corruptions, though obtruded under the name of the Church.

I had said, yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of Baptism, they usurp upon Christ's prerogative, who baptize otherwise the •• Christ hath appointed, and then if the precept of Christ doth not nec • ssarily infer infant Baptism (which the Dr. ingenuously acknowledgeth) it doth by manifest consequence deny it, since he forbids that to be done otherwise then he hath appointed when he hath determined how it should be done. The Dr. when he saith above, the words [I baptize into the Name of the Father▪ Son, and Ghost] must be indispensably used ; me think by the same reason should conceive Christ's institu • ion should be • nal • e • ably used in baptizing those only whom he hath appointed to be baptized; Hereupon the Dr. saith thus.

Answ. That the Apostles learnt infant Baptism from Christ, or Dr. Hammond from the Apostles, hath not been made appear as yet. What he hath produced from Tertullian and the Greek Fathers, from 1 Cor. 7.14. and from the Jewish custom, hath been already examined and shown to b • insufficient to that end. His grants are, that if Christ did not institute at first infants Baptism, nor the Apostles so understood it, it should consequently be deemed to deny it; and if he did otherwise appoint it, then infants are excluded; and what is Matth. 28.19. prescribed, is indispensably to be used; but he supposeth a fore • going insti • ution comprehending infant Baptism, notified otherwise then by Mat. 28.19. that Matth. 28.19. determines neither pro nor con: for no • against infants Baptism, that I infer illogically, because not in Matth. 28.19. instituted, therefore nowhere else. And I do acknowledge I d • so conceive, that the Dr. having made that the copy, and confessing infant Bap • ism not to be necessarily inferred thence, and that we must do no otherwise then Christ appoints he must tacitly deny infant Baptism▪ and this inference of mine is logical. What the Dr. saith to the contrary do • h not avoid it. For 1. it is not true that Matth. 28.19. the words are not any kind of direction to this matter of receiving and admitting infants or not infants. For 1. it expresseth who are to be baptized, when it saith, baptising them, now [ them ] must refer either to [ all nations ] without any other circumscription, and then he must appoint them to baptize every man in the world, believer or not. But that is ab • urd, Ergo. Or [ them ] must refer to [ Disciples ] included in the Verb [ Disciple or make Disciples ] but if so, no • only the Genti • es as well as Jews are pointed out, but also the qualification of them, whom they should baptize, they are to be Disc • ples, now infants are disciples and not disciples, there's no middle term between contradictory terms, therefore there must be some direction to baptize infants or not infants. 2. These words are the copy of the pattern as the Dr. saith ubi suprà, therefore if these words have no direction for infant Baptism, the pattern had not; For the Copy and Pattern do agree with each other, as the Decree and the Copy of it out of the Court.

2. It is not true that this is not the first institution we are to have directions from in our practice, who baptize Gentiles. For there is no institution concerning baptizing the Gentiles before that Matth▪ 28.19. and therefore hence must be direction for baptizing or not our infants, there being no institution precedent as concerning them. Nor did the Apostles follow any other, as is proved in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 5.

3. It is false, th • t the former institution did comprehend infant Baptism. The con • ra • y is proved, 1. From the place which sets down 〈◊〉 practice, Joh▪ 4.1. it is there said, they made Disciples and baptized ▪ Whence I argue. 1 Those only whom the Apostles baptized, Christ appointed to be baptized; But they baptize • d not in 〈◊〉 , ergo Christ did not then appoint th • m to baptize them. The major is out of doubt their practice only showing Christ's institution. • he minor is proved, 1. They baptize • none but whom they made Disciples, but they made no infants Disciples, as will be proved in t • at which follows, and may be further thus proved. Such persons were made disciples by Christ and his Disciple • , as were mad • disciples by John, But he made no infants d • sciples, as mi • ht be p • oved by the descriptions and acts of Johns disciples in the Gospels, Matth. 9.14. & 11.2. & 14.12. Luk. 7. • 8. Joh. 1.35, 3 • ▪ &c. 2 The Disciples baptized in the same manner and s • rt • s Joh • did his disciples, bu • John baptized penitent persons who were not infants, Matth. 3.6 all the • eople who were baptized by him, are said to hear him and to justify God, • uk. 7.29. but these were not infants, Ergo. 3. Dr Ha • mond saith Le •• er of resol q. 4. §. • 5. To make disciples, Joh. 4.1. and baptize, is all one wi • h disciple baptising, Matth. 2 • .19. But in this according to the Dr. there is not any kind of direction to that matter of receiving and admitting infants or not infants, therefore Joh. 4.1, is no mention of their baptizing infants, and so no infan • s baptized by them. 2. If Christ had instituted infant Baptism, doubtless he would have ap • ointed it, and the Disciples practiced it on those mentioned Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. Mark 10.1 • , 14 15, 16. Luk▪ 1 • .15, 16, 17. But he did not appoint nor they practice baptism on t • em, for it is said Matth. 9.15. that when he had put his hands on them he d • parted thence, which shows no more was done to • hem then was before set down, whereof none was their baptizing, Ergo

4. It is false, that direction to baptize infants was sufficiently notified to the Apostles by Christ. For 1. the common practice of the Jews could not notify it to them, C • rist • o where appointing them to baptize according to the Jewish manner, nor did they, For they baptized r • there a • ter Johns mann •• , Joh. 4.1. but that was not as the 〈◊〉 as appears by their excepting against and rejecting his Baptism Luk • 30. 2. The vulgar notion • f Baptism did not no • ifie it. 〈…〉 notion of baptism did not express one sort or other, yea • hey used to baptize other things Mark 7▪ 3, 4. besides persons. 2. If the vul • ar notion of Baptism did notify infant Baptism, then it did notify i • Ma • th. 28▪19. where it is expressed. But the Dr. saith, those words are not any kind of dire •• ion to that matter of receiving and admitting infants or no • infants, Ergo. 3. The special direction of Christ did not notify i • , if i • di • ▪ let it be shown▪ To say, the Gospels express not at all the words of the first institution of • aptism, nor do set that down, is against the Dr. For it is an high presumption in any man to assert such a special direction of Christ, as neither the Gospels nor other sacred writings set down, and if this may be done, Apocryphal traditions may be vented, as Papists and others have done, telling us all that CHRIST did and said is not written, John 20.30. Besides, Christ gave no other special direction to the Apostles towards the Jews about Baptism, afore that was done which we read John 4.1. then he did to them towards the Gentiles, Matth. 28.19. For that was a copy of the Pattern. But he did not there appoint infant Baptism as the Dr. acknowledgeth, Ergo. From all which I infer, that Christ gave no other direction about Baptism, then what is expressed Matth. 28.19. and that there he gave directions about in • ants bap • izing or not baptizing, and that the presrciption there is to be indispensably used, not only about the form of words in baptism, but also about the persons wh • m we may baptize; and that infants are excluded shall be proved in that which follows. Nor is this a pralusory 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Dr. terms it, but such a just dissertation as toucheth the main of the cause, and shows the Doctors usurpation on Christ's prerogative, in defending such Baptism as is otherwise then Christ appointed, nor hath he brought one proof for what he saith, he hath made evident that Matth. 28.1 • . was not the institution of Baptism▪ nor any intimation on either side whether infants should he baptized or not, but contradicted himself, and manifestly perverted the Scripture.

Sect. 2. The Dr. saith to my exception [that though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well rendered make Disciples, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not well paraph • ased by receive into Discipleship all Nations baptizing them, For by this the making Disciples is made the same with receiving into Discipleship or receiving Disciples, and Baptism the ceremony of receiving into Discipleship, which is as truly the act of the baptized, thereby professing or avouching his Discipleship] thus.

Answ. Either phrase would not have been equally to the Doctors purpose, making Disciples not being applicable to infants, a • perhaps it may be thought receiving Disciples may, but whether either serve the Doctors turn or no, and however the Dr. use them, or censure my di •• inction of them, yet I take his confounding them to be a gross mistake, and such as perverts the text, and should have been proved by him, afore he thus used it, And against it I thus argue. 1. Those terms are not perfe •• lie synonymous, whereof the one imports that which may be without the other, this I think none will deny▪ But making Disciples may be without receiving them. This is manifest. For a person is not a Disciple afore he is made, but he is made a Disciple before he is received, therefore the one may be without the other. 2. The agents may be divers in making and receiving Disciples, a woman may make a Disciple, but not receive him. 3. The means is different, the making Disciples is by teaching, as shall be shown in that which follows, and is an act of diligence; the receiving i • admission by authority. 4. Making imports an action, receiving rather a passion. 5. Making Disciples doth presuppose a privation of it, y • a perhap • averseness from it; receiving presupposeth a habit attained, and a willing offer. 6. The making Disciples may be to another, but receiving Disciples is to be ascribed to the master to whom they a • e D • sciples, as to himself receiving them. 7. Dr. Hammond acknowledgeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to import the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 J • hn 4.1. Letter of resol. q. 4. §. 25. but John 4.1. it cannot be rendered receive Disciple • , therefore nei • her Matth 28 19. 8. Nei • her Matth. 28.19 nor anywhere else hath any transl • tor I knew, rendered [ receive Disciples ] but many, make Disciples, and make it as the Dr. the phrase parallel to John 4.1. and therefore it is singular and absurd to render it here receive Disciples.

Secondly, saith • he,

Answ. I said not baptizing, but Baptism the Ceremony (not • s the Dr. mis • recites my words, o • receivers into Discipleship, but) of receiving into discipleship is as truly the a •• of the baptized, thereby p • ofessing or avouching h • s discipleship as of the Baptizer, and therefore the baptized is not merely passive in it, nor an infant doth unde • go it. And I prove it thus. 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptize • d as well as of the baptizer, as may be proved from Acts 2.38. where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and be baptized everyone of them, in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins ; Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty, is his own act. Ergo. I • any say it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the passive voice, he may understand that Luk. 11.38. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though it be the same sense and voice, yet notes the action of the baptized. 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul, Acts. 22.16. that baptism is the act of the baptized For first, it is a thing commanded to be done by him. 2. It is in the middle voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which though I deny not to have a passive signification, yet here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following, so neither can the other, both being enjoined as duties, and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them; baptism being the sign of his repentance, and both being to be joined together, Acts 2.38. and therefore Baptism being called, the baptism of repentance, Mark • .4. Acts 19.4. 3. Bapti • ing into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, notes the a •• of t • e baptized as well as the baptizer, and thi • is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic. cat. lib. 6. sect. 2. where he saith • • baptize thee into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost • being pr • scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used▪ and the meaning of them is double. 1. On the Ministers part, that what he doth he doth no • of himsel • , but in the Name or power of, or by Commission from the blessed Trinity (which by the way, I am sure none can 〈…〉 • pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants, much less when • hey only sprinkle them.) 2. And more especially in respect of the pe • son baptized. 1. That he acknowledges these three, a • d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment, which is in effect the sum of the whole • reed. 2. That as he acknowledges these three, so he delivers himself to them, as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion, and acknowledges no other as such (as to be baptized in the name of Paul signify • to say, I am of Paul, i. e. to pin my faith on him in oppos • tion to ••• has and all other) to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and no • hing else. 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master, a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity, and so the Greek phrase • into the name] doth import; and these th • ee acts of the baptized together, make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him ca • able of that grace, which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him. Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son, through the h • lie Spirit, as Acts 22.1 • . shows, where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself, calling on the name of the Lord, when baptized; and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21. and other 〈◊〉 Review part. 2. sect. 5. p. 8 • ▪ • 0, 9 • . So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well (or rather more) the ce • emony of th • baptized, 〈◊〉 •• the baptizer▪ Which might be proved from though • e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it, as Rom. 6.3, 4. Col. 2.1 • . Gal. 3 26▪27. 1 Cor. 12. • 3. in all which and sundry more the act of the ba • t • zed is noted, who d • th thereby signify his baptism into • hrists death, being 〈◊〉 by ba • tism into death, and his rising to newness of life, putting on Christ, • oyning into one body, &c. which I have cleared more fully in the same p • ace pag 6, 97 8, • 9. And this, the Dr saith 〈…〉 , i • more especially meant by ba • tising into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy spirit ▪ 〈…〉 their act as w • ll as the administrators▪ 4. I • baptism were not as truly the act of the baptized as the baptizer t • en it should be t • u • baptism, if the baptizer did d • p with • ut an concu ••• 〈◊〉 of the bap • ized, yea • hough he we • e forced to it, and against his will put unde • water, and this were warrantably done by the baptizer, For he should do what • s prescribed, But this is absurd, neither School men nor any other allow such baptism, vide Th. Aquin. sum. part. 3. qu. 68. art. 7, 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism, and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done, nor true baptism. Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19. doth comprehend not only the act of the administratour, but also the act of the baptized, in yielding to it and concurring with it. When Peter Acts 10.48. commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptized in the name of the Lord, there were three acts concurrent. 1. The Apostles command, by way of authority appointing it to be done. 2. O • the administratour by way of Ministry. 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water. Yet he is no • thereby a mere Sebaptist▪ as i • is reported some heretofore have been, but is partly passive in consent, and s • bmission to what the baptizer doth, and partly a • tive in concurring with him. So that my speech is cleared from being gross, as •• Dr. would.

Dr. H. adds. His second branch of exception is to those words of mine, Wherein I say tha • the making or receiving Disciples, supposeth not any precedent instru • tion, but looks wholly on it as subsequent. Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus. 1. That which is expressed in Matthew by, Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations, is in Mark, Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel • o every living creature ; which s • ews, how they should disciple all nations; now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel, are made disciples by precedent instruction, Ergo, the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19. supposeth precedent instruction.

Answ This doth rather confirm my major then oppose it. For if Mark express the same more briefly and Matthew more largely in this particular, and there is no other expression in Mark besides, Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, which answe • s to Matthews words, Go make Disciples all nations ▪ then what is expressed in Matthew is the same with that which is expressed in Mark. And indeed the time, occasion, and expressions 〈◊〉 so plainly evince this, that almost all editions and translations (which use marginal references) and commentators I have seen, expound the one by the other.

Secondly, saith the Dr.

Answ. It is most visible that the Dr. was in a dream when he wrote this; 1. Because he talks of an institution (which is only i • agined by him) of receiving infants, and as many as interposed no voluntary hindrance to baptize them (not excepting infidel • children, contrary to his own interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14. which declares them unclean, that is, not to be baptize • d in the Drs. sense) and to take infants into the School of Christ, as if the School of Christ were to nurse up infants, for that was all could be done to them, and to make good pro • ision for the future instruction of them, as soon as ever they should be capable of it. Which is so ridiculous a conceit, as no waking man me thinks should fancy it. For what provision could the Apost • es, who were to go and preach the Gospel to every creature, make for the future instruction of them, as soon as ever they should be capable of it, who were not to stay till they were able to speak, or receive any commands from them? 2. The Dr. as if he forgot his matter in hand, saith; All that he was then to manifest, was that this passage Matth. 28.19. hath nothing contrary to his hypothesi, but is perf ••• lie reconcilable to it ; whereas his business was to answer my argument against his position, that the making or receiving Disciples Matth. 28 19. supposeth not any precedent instruction, but looks wholly on it a • subsequentpunc; 3. The Drs. answer, that Christ's appointment to • reach the Gospel in S. Mark, doth no way infer the p • ecedent instruction of every single person that was received to Baptism, might be true, yet his position false, that the making Disciples Matth. 28.19. supposeth not any precedent instruction, but loo • s wholly on it as subsequent. 4. His reason why to preach the Gospel in S. Mark, doth no way infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to baptism, shows his talk to have been incoherent, like the talk of a man in a dream; For what consequence is in this, The phrase signifies, &c. Ergo, To preach the Gospel in S. Mark, doth no way infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to Baptism? Might not all this be true, that the phrase so signifies, they so publish, the thing set down be possible, the Apostles know Christ's mind, as the Dr. imagines, and ye • to preach the Gospel in S. Mark, infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to Baptism? So that in all this whi • h the Dr saith, there i • no answer to my argument. But the truth is, by the Drs. own grants my argument is m • de good. For if preaching the Gospel be instruction, and this be the way of making Disciples, which are not deni • d; then it must needs go before makin • or • eceivi • g Disciples, since the m • anes in order of actual b • ing, must be before the effect, and so the Drs. position fa • se: That the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not a • y precedent instruction, Matth. • 8.19. but lo • ks wholly on it as subsequent Again, if afore baptize • ng they were to publish the Gospel to all the World, to every creature, i. e. to the Gentiles univ • rsally as well the Jews, then afore any single person was r • ceived to Baptism, instruction wa • to be precedent, unless there were any single person which was not comprised under all the world, every creature, Gentiles universally as well as Jews: Yea the terms [ every creature and all nations ] comprehend every person that was to be baptized, and more; but they were everyone to be made Disciples, and that by preaching the Gospel to them, afore they were to be bapt • zed; Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15. therefore instruction of every single person was to be precedent to his reception to baptis • . Hereto agree the words of Athanasius, Jerome and others, cited by me, Review part. 2. sest. 5. p. 86, 87.

The 2d. saith the Dr. follows, that such as the making Disciples w • s, Joh. 4.1. such is the making Disciples Matth. 28.19. For by the Drs. confession they are all one. But that was by preaching, as is plain concerning John, Matth. 3.1, 2, 5, 6. and concerning the Apostles, Mat. 10.5, 6, 7. Ergo▪ Whence 3. I further a • gued, that way the Apostles were to Disciple all nations, by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but that was by preaching, Ergo, discipling supposeth precedent instruction.

Answ. It is so far from being satisfactory, that there is neither pertinency nor truth in this answer. For the Dr. answers, as if the thing I proved were not, that making disciples presupposeth instruction, because it is by preaching, but that i • fants might be made disciples, though making disciples b • by preaching; which is indeed not to answer to the argument, but to a consectary deducible from the conclusion of it, which though it were not infer • ed nor consequent, yet the conclusion might be true that discipling presupposeth some precedent instruction, and is not wholly subsequent to it. Nor is it true. For 1. supposing the Apostles should do as he speaks, and the hearers come in as he imagines, yet there is difficulty to imagine, tha • they that had thus made proclamation received all, and made all disciples, young and old, that either came or were bro • ght un • o them ; s • ecially considering how John received n • ne we read of but such as confessed • heir sins, and the whole people that were baptized of him justified God, Luk 7.9. believed him, Matth. 21.32. o • hers not, and the Apostles are said to make disciples afore they baptized, Jo • . 4.1. and a • o • e they bap • ized required repentance, Act. 2.38. those who were baptized gladly received the word, v. 41.2. It being granted that they made disciples by preaching, preaching being the instrum • nt to draw the parents themselves, and to move them to bring their children to discipleship, yet it is not very visible how children should be discipled ; For 〈◊〉 • ffection or conceit, might m • ve them to do that upon preaching▪ which yet might not take effect, nor be received by the Apostles. 4. Nor is Baptism consequent on such a discipleship, by offer or vow of p • rent • , wit • out profession of the party to be bap • ized, there being no institution for it, which is the only rule about bap • izing. 5. Neither i • it • rue, that Baptism is the constant ceremony o • discipling, though it be granted to be the ceremony of disciples, a person is first a disciple afore baptized, Joh. 4 1. they first made disciples then baptized them. 6. It is n • t • rue, that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) it might not very possibly be both in Johns and in the Apostles baptizing as the Dr. imagine • , since (if there be degrees of possibility) it is not very possible they should make any oth • r disciples and baptize them, then such as the Evangelists story relates they did.

But the Dr. tells us. 1. For John, 'tis true indeed that his Baptism attended his preaching, yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptized by him, but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching; For 1. why might not those that heard it, divulge it to others, and bring them before they heard him to desire to be baptized, and upon their confessing their sins, and professing amendment, he baptize them?

Answ. Not likely before he had preached somewhat to them, however if his preaching were brought to them by others, they were not baptized afore instruction.

Answ. Because it was not appointed to them. And this is a reason (which the Dr. may see if he will) to render it incredible that John should receive and baptize infants, though infants of Proselytes born afore their Proselytism were by Jews baptized, who baptized upon a far different reason, to wit, the pollution through idols, which did adhere to the Gentiles nativity, to wash away that, and to engage them to the observance of Moses Law for righteousne • s▪ whereas John the Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins, even native Jews, directing them to the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world, and that he might be known was to be baptized of him. We can therefore easily imagine, that the Jews that believed • ohn and came to his Baptism, did not bring infant children with them to save them from predicted evils, because we read that they t • at were baptized of him confessed their sins, Matth. 3.5.6. justified God, Luk 7.29. Nor was Baptism appointed to them as to Proselytes infants, nor do we read that John the Baptist gave any inkling of his mind to have infants brought. And it i • a sign to me that the Dr. is confident that he can lead men in a string, who adventures to • uggest such things as he confesseth the Scripture affirms nothing of it, and tradition as little, as far as he knows, and neither affirms nor believes anything in it, and only upon a supposition that infan • c • ildren would have been brought 〈◊〉 Noah's Ark if men had believed Noah, and Johns Baptism was as Noah's Ark styled the Kingdom of heaven, whereas Johns and Christ's Baptism are not made answerable to Noah's Ark in respect of the bare outward baptism, nor is it styled the Kingdom of heaven, but the answer or interrogation of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 3.21. and the preaching, believing of the Gospel throughout the world, Mar. 1.14, 15. which they who were baptized were to entertain, and not infants, and therefore not to be baptized till they did. And we may with better reason, then the Dr. gives of his fancy, conceive God's providence rather ordered there should be no infants in Noah's Ark, that we might not fancy infants baptism thence, then that we should as this Dr. or doatard supposeth.

Yet again, saith he, Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles, Ma • . 10. F • rst 'tis there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely, and sure that phrase comprehends the lambs also, the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men, by the addition of their actual to original sin? And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also?

Answ. Because we read of no such thing done or appointed to be done, nor do we know that baptism was appointed to be a remedy of original sin, though some of the Ancients talk so besides the Scripture.

The Dr. adds.

Answ. It was fit they should enjoy the benefit of others charity in their Prayers, and supply of • uch things as were meet for them, of which sort the Apost • es Baptism was not, nor did they understand it was Christ's mind that they were sen • to baptize them, for then they had baptized them, and not rebuked those that brought them to Christ, Matth. 19.13. Nor by bringing them to Baptism were children rescued from the wrath to come, but by reformation and new life.

Thirdly, saith he, after their preaching though there be no mention of ba • tizing (and so it was not fit to be produced to our present b • siness) yet other things are appointed to be done, wherein infants were concerned as well as others, as healing of diseases, &c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized, why should it not to their receiving cures ?

Answ. Because that they might be baptized, it was necessary they should be made disciples by preaching, not so that they might be cured of diseases. Nay I may add, saith the Dr. How should the dead in that place (who sure were as uncapable of understanding as the tenderest infants) be capable of being raised by those Apostles, which yet is there affirmed of them, v. 8.

Answ. And I may add, that after this rate of reason, if mere capacity of outward Baptism, and the charge of Christ to the Apostles to do acts of power on anything, without making it a disciple by preaching to it (as the Dr. here fancieth of infants) fit it for Baptism, then the dead are to be baptized, which was practiced of old, and the giving them the Eucharist, as appears by the prohibition of it in the third Synod of Carthage Canon 6. and Balsamous note thereon. But the Dr. it seems thought it • t in this reply to me, to write what came next to hand, whether it were fit to be produced to the present business o • not, of which sort also is that which he talks in answer to my third reason, of preaching to the nations, and receiving all that come in to the discipleship, whether on their own legs, or in others arms, whole families at once, the parents, and upon their undertaking their infant children also, which perhaps the Dr. might write early in the morning or late at night, between sleeping and waking, it is so like a dream.

The Dr. goes on thus,

Answ. How vainly doth the Dr. talk of his former sufficient saying, when he neither formerly nor now, give • one instance in the New Testament or any other Author▪ wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much to receive ad discipulatum, nor any Translator or Lexicographer that so renders it Matth. 28.19. or elsewhere! 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to disciple, Matth. 28.19. is confessed by the Dr. to be all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to make disciples Joh. 4▪1. Now sure the D • ▪ might well take his Readers for dunses, if they could not distinguish between making disciples and receiving ad discipulatum, to be made disciples, entering into a school that they might learn, and being made a disciple, which always notes learning of something an • eceden • . Nor is any termed a disciple, at least not in the New Testament▪ till he ha •• learned some of his Teachers doctrine; None were the disciples of the Pharisees, John the Baptist, the Seducers, Acts 20.30, till they learned some of their teachers lessons, nor do I think in the Jewish writers are any termed the disciples of their Rabbins, or said to be discipled till they learned. The terming youths scholars at their first entering is nothi • g to the purpose, since neither is a disciple and a scholar all one, the one being from learning, the other from vacation from other employment that he may learn. Nor is the use of words in our Universities and Schools, any rule whereby to expound the use of words in the N.T. but Scrip • ure is to be expounded by the use in Scripture, which the Dr. in vain attempts to evade thus.

Answ. Were not the Dr. a very bold paraphrast, he would never have dared to say, that this is all the im • ortance of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matth. 13.52. to be entered into a school for a subsequent instruction witho • t any precedent, which is or hath been entered as a disciple into the kingdom of heaven, who since his entrance hath been instructed, but this not by force of the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for still a disciple he may be before he learns. Hath the Dr. the face to say that the words might be so understood Every Scribe that is or hath been entered as a disciple unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old? Doth not our Lord Christ infer this as a consequent of their hearing, and understanding of the parables wherein he had instructed them in the foregoing part of the Chapter? Is there any Translator or Commentator afore him that hath thus expounded it? The vulgar Jerome, • igurine, read doctus, learned Beza, edoctus, well learned. Jerome expounds it thus, Instru i erant Apostoli, scribae & not arii salvatoris, qui verba illius & praecepta signabant in tabuli • cordis carnalibus regnorum c • lestium s • cramentis. Grotius annot. in locum, Doctor. inquit, been paratus atque eruditus ad tradenda praecepta regni c • lestis. Yea the Dr. himself here explains 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thus, a scribe discipled, a grown man and learned among the Jews, before he came to Christ ; though he doth grossly abuse the text by making as if the scribe were taken for one so termed among the Jews afore he came to Christ, whereas the term is used of Christian teachers, •• lusively to that orde • of men among the Jews termed Scribes, in which sense Christ saith, he would send them Wise men and Scribes, Matth. 11.34. which is Luke 11.49. Apostles, and that text Chrysostom in his Homily on Matth. 13.52. makes like to it, and Grotius annot. in locum, proprie autem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 respo • dent ii qui in Ecclesia Christiana dicti sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quod nomen in Actis & Epistolis Pauli aliquoties legitur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 58.6. and Prov. 30.24. It is no better then a whimzy which the Dr. here ven • s, as if the force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 noted not learning but admission to school, when the ve • y use of the word notes in this place one well learned; and to assert a man may be a disciple before he learns, being only obliged to learn, by his own or other susception, by his coming or being brought to be a disciple, w • en the very derivation is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ hath learned.

The Dr. saith f • r her.

Answ. This text was produced to prove that the D • s. position was false when he said, That the making or receiving disciples supposeth not any precedent instruction, but looks wholly on it as subsequent, since the word notes • eaching as our Translators, the Vulgar, Erasmus, read it, and the way of making disciples is expressly made in the text, the preaching of the Gospel. The Dr. saith, it signifies no more then having received or initiated i. e. (he sup • oseth) by Baptism, but this none else saith, and that it may be reasonably extended to infants, but he gives no reason, nor answers the objections to the contrary, but he keeps his wont of vain cracikng.

Answ. How well the Dr. hath vindicated the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men, may appear from that which goes before, in which it may be seen that he hath neither brought one place to show that ever it was applied to an infant, nor answered one objection to the contrary. And me thinks he here overthrows himself. He had said before▪ that Acts 14. • 1▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] signifies no more then ha • ing received, or initiated, i. e. (I suppose) by this rite of Baptism made and baptized many disciples, yet he saith here, those two places cited • y Mr. • . from Matth. 13. and Acts 14. do no way belong to that, they tell us not whether they received infants to Baptism or not, how then can they be reasonably extended • o them? How is the word vindicated from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men? Are not these cross caper • ? Again, if these texts tell • us not whether they received infants to Baptism, or not, it is because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not meant of infants, or because it imports precedent instruction, or Christ's precept Matth. 28.19. was not meant of infants, or the Apostles practice was not to baptize infants, or the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies more then receiving or initiating by baptism or some other reason▪ what ever it be it will overthrow the Drs. supposition, that the discipling Matth. 28.19. did not exclude infants. I would further ask, whether the Dr. imagines that the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to disciple, be as much as to baptize? If he say it is, then I would know how he can acquit the words Joh. 4.1. where he confesseth, that making disciples is the same with discipling, Matth. 28.19. and then the meaning must be, he baptized and baptized, and Matth. 28.19. baptize baptizing, from inept • autology? If he say it is more, then it is false, that Acts 14.21. it signifies no more, and if it signify more, let him tell us what it is except teaching, that we may practice it according to the command Matth. 28.19. If that be it, let him show how that's extended to infants, if he cannot, then the Apostles practice expressed Acts 14.21. is to be so understood; and the Apostles practice being indeed the means to discern how they understood C • rists precept, by that we may discern that the Apostles understood the discipling Matth. 28.19. of no other then making disciples by preaching the Gospel to each, and thereby teaching them, and consequently infants are excluded, which I was to demonstrate.

I added a sixth proof thus, A disciple and a believer appear to be the same, by comparing Matth. 28.19. with Mark 16.15, 16. For as the way of making disciples is more fully expressed by preaching the Gospel; so the Disciple to be baptized is expressed by [ the believer ] which is put before bap • ism.

Answ. Though the words are not exactly parallel, yet they being of the same matter at the same time, the one interpret the other, and then any man may easily perceive, discipling all nations, to be the same with preaching the Gospel to every creature, and thereby making disciples, and baptizing them, that is disciples, to answer to • e that believes and is baptized, and accordingly all along the Acts of the Apostles, disciples and believers are the same, and before Baptism believing is required, and they that were baptized were first s • id to believe, and so generally Commentatours expound the words as synonymous, nor doth the Scripture make one qualification to Baptism for infants, and another for grown men, nor anywhere term infants disciples; and if none of grown men can in reason be admitted disciples, which are not also believers, con • ent to be disciples of Christ, then infants by their susception and bringing, are not made nor to be admitted discipl • s of Christ, without act • all or personal belief▪ there being no such distinction of disciples in Christ's words, nor any such appointment of baptizing disciples by such bringing or susception▪ but in such actions there is great sin o • rashness in those that undertake, of profaneness in those that bri • g and admit nor is there any true charity, but error, arrogance, and folly in the Church, which shall thus presume to put one kind of disciples • ancied by themselves instead of another appoint • d by Christ, who is the only institutor of Baptism, and so the only r • gulator of it, and • he term [ disciple ] in grown men, being the same with [ believer ] nor any other termed a disciple but a believer, it is clear none are discipled, and conseq • ently none are to be baptized according to Matth. 28, 19. but actual and personal believers.

But the Dr. hath not yet done, but adds.

Answ. Comming imports only a local motion to a place or person, and may be by either a persons or things motion from an inward or outward principle in elder or younger persons, he that is carried in a coach, or on horseback, or by barge, is said to come to London or home, as well as he that goes on foot; but believing is an immanent act, which neither is, no • can be ano • hers a • t then the persons, nor by any others motion then his own, nor from any other principle without his own understanding. No where are infants in age termed believers, one of these little ones, Matth. 18.6. cannot be meant of little ones in age, for it supposeth then more li • tle ones in age then present, whereas there was b • t one present v. 2. and then it would be a very great sin to offend a little one in age; but the woe • ds following v. 10, 14. show the term