Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 24
SECT. XXIV.
Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptizing Proselytes children is shewed to be vain.
DR. Henry Hammond in his Letter of Resolution to six Queries, in the fourth Quere, Sect. 23. speaks thus, But there is no need of laying much weight on this, or any the like more imperfect ways of probation, (meaning the example of Circumcision, Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold, Acts 16. 33. Christs reception of little children, Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10 16.) The whole fabrick being sufficiently supported, and built on this Basis (the customary baptism among the Jews) and that discernible to be so, if we consider it first negatively, then positively. First negatively, that Christian baptism, which is an institution of Christs, lightly changed from the Jewish custome of receiving of Proselytes by him appointed in his life-time, and settled a little before his Ascension hath nothing in the patern, whence it is copied out, nothing in the copy it self, as it is set down in the New Testament, i. e. in the words of the institution, or in his or the Apostles practice, which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number, that ought to be baptized, or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ. That there is nothing exclusive of them in the patern (the Jewish custom of baptism) hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that already insisted on.
Answ. I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect ways of proving infant baptism he mentions, and doubt not to shew his own to be no better than those he relinquisheth. The substance of his proof is this, as I conceive. The Jews were wont when they admitted Proselytes to baptize them and their children, and this is discernible to be the patern of Christian baptism, and that Christs institution was but a copy according to that patern, and therefore infants to be baptized, the Apostles and the first Churches practise shewing it to be so. Concerning which I say, 1. It seems baptism was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews. Grot. Annot. in Matth. 3. 6. conceives that for as much as strangers washed, not circumcised, were obliged by those Laws onelyonly which God had given to all mankinde, it is easie to be understood that baptism was among old institutions arising, as I think, after the great deluge in memory of the world purged. Whence that famous speech among the Greeks, The sea washeth away all the evils of men. Surely we read even in the Epistle of of Peter, that baptism is answerable to the deluge. And Annot. in Matth. 28. 19. yea with prosane nations it was of old used, that they who would be initiated were first washed all over their body, no doubt testifying thereby their purpose of innocency. 2. By the passages cited by the same Author in Matth 28. 19. Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Augustin allegeth those nations custome for their practise; nor do I know that ever Dr. Hammond or any other hath alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers, that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating proselytes by baptisme, but some passages in the Fathers shew rather that they took it as instead of Circumcision. Mr. Selden de Syned: Ebrae. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 40, 41. mentions some who have conceived that the Iewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christs example, though he do not beleive it; and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Circumcision to difference them from Samaritans, which I allege to shew that notwithstanding the Doctors supposition, that the whole fabrick of baptism is discernible to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the Jews, yet many will conceive it needs more proof than the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers. I for my part conceive that there was a custom of baptizing proselytes afore Christs incarnation among the later Jews, but that either it should begin from Jacobs injunction to his houshold Gen. 35▪ 2. or Gods Command, Exod. 19. 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving the Law (though the Jewish Doctors allege these for it) I do not conceive, those places speaking of washing Jews by nature, not proselytes, whereas the Jews baptized not Jews by nature, as Selden l. 2 cap 4. de Jure nat. ac Gent. juxta discipl. Ebrae. Sayth, but by profession, nor do I conceive Mr. Seldens exposition in his Book de Syned, l. 1. cap. 3. that the sea was some vessel or receptacle of waters wherein they washed their bodies before the giving of the Law Exod. 19. 10. but the read sea. For as the drinking of the rock, is a relation of an accident of Gods providence for them, signifying to them the Lords supper, so their passing through the sea declares, not what they were injoyned to do, but what God did for them, that under the cloud they passed through the sea, to signify to them the same thing that baptism doth to us, our safe passage to life by Christ, nor do I think Dr. Hammonds exposi…ion sect. 7. pag. 181. right, that they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea v. 2 i. e. were (by these two great solemnities, the cloud that gave them light by night, and a guard by day, and the sea that was a wall to defend them, and a devouri…g deep to their enemies) received and initiated into Gods Cove…der the conduct of Moses, as since they are wont to be ini…ed by baptism: For when it is said, our Fathers were baptized, it is not mea…t were baptized as si…ce Proselytes were baptized among the Jews, but as Christians were baptized, even as when he sayth v. 3. and they did all eat the same spiritual meat, it is meant they did all eat the same spiritual meat, with us Christians, that is, they had Christ signified to them by the Manna they did eat, as we eat Christ spiritually in the Lords Supper. There's no more an allusion to a custom of the Jews in the one then in the other, bu a narration of what happened to them by Gods providence, which the Apostle interprets as signs to them of the same thing that baptism, and the Lords supper are to us Christians. And therefore I conceive that the Scripture doth not make the customary use of baptizing Proselytes by the Jews as a thing from God, or eyed by Christ as his pattern, but that the custom of baptizing proselytes was a tradition of the Elders as the baptisms mentioned Mark 7. 3, 4. and many other things they held. Nor do I think it true that the customary use of the Jews in baptizing proselytes and their children, was the pattern of Christs institution of baptism, and the Apostles and first Churches practise. For according to the custom of the Jews set down out of Maimony and other Jewish Rabbins by Mr. Selden l. 2. de Jure natur. ac gent. &c. cap. 4 lib. 1. de syned. Ebr. cap. 3. John Baptist, and Christs Apostles should have baptized no native Jews, but onelyonly Gentiles that embraced the faith, for after the baptism Exod. 19. 10. the Jews did not baptize Jews but onelyonly proselytes. Whereas not onelyonly John Baptist, but also the Apostles both before, and after the ascension of Christ did baptize Jews as well as Gentiles upon their profession of repentance and faith in Christ, as being agreeable to Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. 2. 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. 3. It is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given of that custom as the Directory for Christians in the use of baptism. 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it. But the contrary appears. 1. In their baptizing no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversion: whereas the Iews baptized onelyonly the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting, not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy. Selden l. 2. de Iure nat. &c. cap. 4. sed vero, non aliter at que Israelitae ipsi filii proselytorum circumcidendi tantum erant nec quemadmodum parentes sive illi sive filiae baptizandae. Nunquam enim solennis proselyti baptismus ille iterandus erat, nec in ipso qui primo baptizatus (tamet si apostata factus in ritus Iudaicos rediret) nec in posteris. So that if it be true that the Jewish baptism of Proselytes is the pattern of the Christian, then no infant of Christian race is now to be baptized, but such as were born when the first Gentile Ancestors were converted. Yea the Jews were so far from baptizing any infants of proselytes born after the…r first convesion and baptism, that they resolved, as may be seen in Selden ubi supra, and Dr. Hammond himself allegeth sect. 109. if a woman great with childe become a proselyte, and be baptized her childe needs not baptism when tis born. So that whereas the Doctor brings the Iewish custom as a pattern for Christian baptism so as that it may be reasonably thought to belong to all that among the Jews were usually baptized, his own arguing will prove that no infant of Christians now descerded from Christian Ancestors, or born of parents formerly infidels after the parents were baptized, should be baptized, because it is against the Jewish custom of baptizing any childe of a G…ntile infidel born after the parents were become proselytes, and baptized; But secondly besides this first and main thing wherein the Doctors patern is incorgruous to Christian baptism there are many more disparities, which shew that the Iewish baptism of pr…selytes was not the patern of Christan baptism, As v. g. 1. The baptism of males must be also with Circumcision and an offering. 2. There must be a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voyd, Dr. Hammond sect. 114. Among the Iews, saith the Gemara Babyl… ▪ the infants used to be baptized upon the profession or confession of the house of judgment, the consistory, and the Gloss saith, the Triumviri are set over baptism and are necessary to it, and so they become to him a father. and Maimonides, he must be baptized before the Triumviri. 3. It was not to be on the Sabbath or feast day, or in the night. 4. The body must be washed not in a made receptacle of waters as a vessel or font, but a natural one as a river, pool, well. 5. No part of the body but must be washed, if any scab, or blood hardned or filth f…ck on the body so as that water could not come to the whole supersicies it was not accounted right baptism, yet they allowed garments which separated not the water from the body. 6. While the proselytes stood in the water the precepts of Moses were recited by the three Israelites skilfull in the Law, and he was to take on him the observation of them all not one excepted, or else not accounted a Proselyte. 7. A woman proselyte was placed in the water unto the neck by women which baptized her, while the three Israelites stood after the manner observing the baptism, yet they were to turn away their faces, and go away when the woman came out of the water. 8. Elder Gentiles were made proselytes according to their own choice, younger as males before thirteen years and a day old, females before twelve and a day old according to the minde of their father or the court to which they were subject were admitted to Judaism. The same right was of a natural foole. Yet if a person under years when baptized did after as soon as he came to age renounce Judaism, then he lost what privilege he had by baptism either by assent of the parent or the court. 9. The baptism did give them interest in the policy of the Iews as other Israelites, except some things peculiarly reserved to natural Israelites. 10. Yet a servant without his Masters consent was not made free. 11. A blessing was to be used at baptism, but unless he were made free, not by the servant, but by the master. 12. A young one as an infant, whether taken or found, the Israelite that possessed it might baptize it, either into the state of an ingenuous person, or freed person, or a servant. 13. They taught that a person baptized was so born again, that lying with his own natural sister was no incest. 14 If the person be privily baptized, though before two, yet he was not counted a Proselyte. All which may be seen in Selden l. 2. de jure nat. & Gent. juxta discipl. Ebr. cap. 2, 3. 4. lib. 1. de Syned. Ebr. cap. 3. So that if the baptism of Proselytes among the Iews be the patern of Christian baptism, baptizing of women must be by women, no one single Bishop or Presbyter must baptize, but three at least, there must be no private baptism, no baptizing in Fonts or Basons, no baptism without the whole body be washed, and so as that no filth or scab hinder the water from coming to the skin, there should be no infants baptized but at the first conversion of the parent, no Iew should be baptized, none baptized in the night, on the Sabbath, or other Feast-day. In most of which Christ, Iohn the Baptist, and the Apostles varied from the Iews, and therefore they took not their baptism for their patern, and if they did not make the Jews baptism their patern in baptizing, neither are we to do so, but to follow the rule of Christs institution, and the Apostles practice, and not the Iews use, which is not delivered in Scripture, and much of it according to the superstition and dotages of their Rabbins, and was not a meet religious Sacrament, but a kinde of mixt rite partly religious, and partly civil, intitling to Civil as well as Ecclesiastical right, and done by persons Civil rather than Ecclesiastical, and so of a far different nature and use from the Christian baptism. I think Dr. Hammond were he a Bishop would censure such baptizing as the Iews used as irregular, and then he may well bear with Antipaedobaptists, though they reject his new conceit of making the Iewish baptism our patern, and thereupon grounding the baptizing of infants. Himself in his Practical Catechism lib. 6. Sect. 2. allows of sprinkling, though the Iewish custome was dipping, yea they so precisely require it, that it was not counted baptism, except the whole body were washed, and yet the Doctor confesseth, that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water, i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water, and the words [I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost] he sayth, Being by Christ prescribed to his Disciples must indispensably be used. So that when the Doctor pleaseth, the Jewish custom must be the patern, and when he likes it not, or the Bishops Canons otherwise order it, he may vary from it: in one thing which Christ did not prescribe, as the Doctor sayth, nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it, yet Christs prescription must be indispensably used, yet in another thing though appointed by Christ, and according to the primitive ancient custom, a dispensation is allowed by the Doctor, because later custom varies from Christs appointment and the primitive ancient custom. Such a Lesbian leaden Rule the Doctor dictates by, fit for such as have resolved rather to forgo Christs appointment than the Bishops Canons. It is conceived Christ instituted the Lords Supper, somewhat like the Jews Postcoenium after the Passover Shall then the Iews after-Supper be the patern to the Christians in the Lords Supper? If so, the Lords Supper must be in private, in the night, administred by the master of the house, no more to receive than were usually at the Passover, not many hundreds, &c. The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 11. 23. in the use of the Lords Supper, sets down what he received from the Lord, without mentioning the Iewish usage, which shews he would have Christians in that rite keep to what Christ appointed, not what the Iews practiced. And should it not be so in baptism also? It is conceived the use of laying on of hands in Ordination, and the term [Presbyters] were from the Iews: Must we then or may we take Rules from their practice in Ordination, and not ty our selves to the Apostles Canons and practice? One Presbyter or Doctor it's sayd, according to the ancient manner of the Iews, might create another, and sometime by an Epistle or Books an absent person might be created, as may be seen in Selden de Syned. Ebrae. vet. l. 1. c. 14. Must these usages of theirs be a patern to Christians? The use of Excommunication came from the Iews discipline into the Christian, yet so as that the same manner & effect was not retained in both, sayth the same Authorin the same book, c. 7. Out of all wch I infer that in the use of those rites which were taken from the Iews, and brought into the Christian discipline; yet our Rule according to which Christians are to observe those rites, is to be taken from the words and example of Christ and his Apostles, which I doubt not to make it appear do no whit serve for Dr. Hammonds purpose.
Mr. Marshall in his Defence, p. 170, 171. thinks, this to be a good Argument, that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men, because, baptism being in use before as an Ecclesiastical rite, though it begun to be a Sacrament of divine institution when Iohn was sent to baptize into the name of Christ, there arespecial testimonies in the Talmud, which declare that infants both of Iews and Gentiles were thus admitted, the male children by Circumcision and baptism, the females by baptism, &c. especially since there is not the least hint given in the word that when it was thus advanced to be a Sacrament it should not be applied to those persons to whom before it was, viz. infants as well as grown men.
But I think Mr. M. cannot finde in the Talmud the Iews or their infants were thus baptized since the time of giving the Law, Exod. 19. 10. I confess the Gentiles infants were baptized as is abovesayd; yet as Mr. Ms. learned men mentioned in his Defence, pag. 227. confess that the baptism of Iohn and of the Pharisees was for a different end, so Dr. Lightfoot Harmony part. 1. pag. 138. saith, the Iews baptism was clean of another nature from Iohns. And in the second part of his Harmony on Iohn 1. 25. pag. 76. he shews sundry differences between them, and cites out of the Iewish Doctors some of those differences before alleged; which are enough to shew that our baptism is not to be regulated by their practice. Sure it is a wonder to me that Mr. M. engaged to reform the worship of God according to Gods Word, and in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. Admiring that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot further than the Lord himself hath commanded, should yet in the point of infant-baptism follow the Talmud quite besides the Lords command. But I return to Dr. Hammond.