Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 26

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2 · Section 26

p. 316SECT. XXVI.

Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor from Sayings of Ancients proves that the Apostles baptized infants.

HEreto Dr. Hammond adds, to confirm his opinion of Christs intention to include infants in the institution of baptism for all Nations, and not to exclude them from it, the passage p. 3171 Cor. 7. 14. in which he imagines is a remain and footstep of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants. 2. The practice of the first and purest Ages of the Church, which received infants to baptism, and either by so doing testifie the Apostolical usage transcribed by them, or else affirm, that they received it by tradition from the Apostles. In both which how he is mistaken remains to be shewed.

First he sets down this, which he cais A brief Paraphrase, though it be too large for a Paraphrase, and takes in more than he can with any colour shew to have any thing in the Text answering to it. His words of Paraphrase of 1 Corinth. 7. 12, 13, 14. are these.

Vers. 12. If any Christian Husband hath an heathen Wife, and she be desirous to continue with him, he ought not to put her away, unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ.

Vers. 13. And so in like manner, for the Christian Wife that is married to an Infidel, if he be desirous to live with her, let her by no means separate from him.

Vers. 14. For (beside the command of Christ, Matth. 5. 32. which obligeth to this) other advantages there are of the believers living with the unbeleiver, worth considering. For by this means it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer; and considering the efficacy of good example, 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal (and consequent endeavours and diligence) that by the Law of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him, as a Wife is, there is great reason of hope that still it may be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever, and the intuition of that (more than possible) effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily. And this one consideration, viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer 1 Pet. 3. 1. should gain, i. e. bring the unbeliever to the faith, and the reasonable presumption that it will be so, is the reason why the young children of Christians, which cannot as yet be deemed believers, are yet admitted to baptism, because by their living in the family with p. 318Christian parents they probably, and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith, and kept from heathen pollutions, and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents) doth reasonably presume they will. And upon this ground it is, that though the children of Christians are, yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism.

Answer. This Paraphrase is many ways faulty, and far from the meaning of the Apostle. 1. It puts in many things as explicatory of the Text, to which there is nothing answerable in the Apostles words. For, 1. there is nothing that answers to [by this means it hath oft come to pass] Nor, 2. to these words [by the company and conversation of the believer] yea the term [believer] is quite omitted by the Apostle, which considering the term [unbeliever] twice expressed seems to have been done wittingly, that it might not be taken, that he ascribed the sanctification to the faith of the one party. Surely when men specially in Arguments place the force of a reason in a term they use not to omit it, as the Apostle doth here, but to express it remarkably, and with Emphasis. 3. All the words [and considering the efficacy of good Example, 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal (and consequent endeavours and diligence) that by the Laws of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near to him as a Wife is, there is great reason of hope that it still may be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever, and the intuition of that (more than possibly) effect, may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily] are added without any thing in the least intimated by the words of the Text, but the contrary, even according to his exposition, who makes the term [foreign sanctified] refer to some past known Examples, and therfore the forepart of the verse hath not at all that which answers to [on presumption, &c. there is great reason of hope, &c.] which import a contingent event for the future, not a thing past, which is always certain. 4. The term [young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers] is more and otherwise than is in the Text, which hath onelyonly [your children] which is not restrained to infancy, nor doth it appear, that [your] doth imply they were considered as Christians, so as that there should be this p. 319construction [your children are holy, because they are children of Christians] distinguishingly from infidels, but [your children] that is, the children of you that doubt, who have had unbelieving husbands and wives, and have had or may have children by them. So that the term [your] onelyonly notes the particularity and individuation of the persons, and if considered in any respect besides, it is their doubting condition, or their having unbelieving yoke-fellows. 5. There is nothing to answer those words [because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably, and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith, and kept from heathen pollutions, (and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents) doth reasonably presume they will] 6. Nor is there any thing answering to these words [your children] which his own Paraphrase applies to Christians children. So that the Doctors Paraphrase is beyond measure culpable in respect of addition.

2. It is blameable also in omitting that which the Text expresly and emphatically mentions, to wit, the terms [Wife, Husband] when he sayth, [the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer, and after, the probability that the conversation of the believer should bring the unbeliever to the faith] which may be meant of a companion, brother, father, mother, neighbour. 3. There is much faultiness in quite altering the importance of the Apostles words, by substituting instead of were or should be] in the Apostles words [ought to be, they will be] in the Paraphrase. Which is the more blameable in that himself Sect. 82 pag. 257. doth more truly retain the force of those expressions in the Apostle, when he sayth, [The method of the Apostle must needs be this, unless there were, &c. '…would certainly follow that their children were unclean] so that the pretended brief Paraphrase of the Apostles words is very faulty, far from the Rule of a Paraphrase, and instead of explaining doth quite pervert the meaning of the words.

2. For many other reasons the exposition of the Doctor cannot be right. For 1. In his paraphrase of the Apostles resolution v. 12. he puts [ought] and of v. 13. [let her by no means] as if the Apostle did make it a necessary duty, that they must continue p. 320together, whereas the Apostle answerably to their doubt doth onelyonly resolve them of the lawfulness of their continuing together, not of the necessity of it, and so v. 14. is a reason of the lawfulness of it notwithstanding their doubt, which appears from the resolution v. 15. [If the unbeliever will depart let him depart] which cannot be expounded otherwise than thus, you are not bound to stay as you are not bound to cause her to depart or to relinquish him, you are at your liberty. For the very next words [a Brother or Sister is not under bondage in such cases] do shew that the resolution was of liberty, not of duty, contrary to the Doctors paraphrase. Now that resolution v. 15. is of the same form with his determination v. 12, 13. 2. He makes the resolution to be of a duty v. 12, 13. yet makes v. 14. to be a motive of the will, when he saith, [may reasonably move] as if the Apostle were not deciding a doubt, but perswading the will, and that from such a thing as cannot be reason of duty or liberty, but as it is by him expounded a perswasive to win on the affections, not to settle the judgment, and yet p. 207. he saith, [the unbeliever having been sanctified by the believer is used as an argument why they should live together.] 3. He puts [unbelieving Husband v. 14.] as if he were another than he that is mentioned v. 13. for v. 13. the unbelieving husband was at that present an unbeliever: But according to his sense expounding v. 14. thus, [it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer] the unbelleving husband must be meant of one that was once an unbeliever, not so then. Now then the Apostle should after this exposition give a reason why the present believing wife need not leave her husband, because another unbelieving husband by another believing wife hath been brought to the faith. Which wherein it could tend to any satisfaction for them that doubted whether they might lawfully live together because of the present unbelief of the yokefellow I see not. 4. Such a reason will appear the more unlikely to be satisfactory, because as it hath often happened that the unbeliever hath been won by the wife, so it hath often happened to the contrary, and it is likely the persons whom he resolved had complained, that they had small hopes of their husbands conversion, and so the reason of their living together from experience p. 321would be more likely to be retorted back thus, You perswde us to live together, you tell us we may, because it often comes to pass that the unbeliever is brought to the faith: But our experience is to the contrary, we see many not converted, and our own are obstinate and hardned, and therefore this reason doth disswade us, and resolve us that we may not live with him. 5. Hence another exception is against this exposition, that it makes the Apostle to resolve them of their duty or liberty by that which was a meer contingent event which might be or not be. For this exposition makes the reason of their living together to be from what had hapened & might be: whereas a contingent event is impertinent to that end, to say, we may lawfully do such a thing, because its likely such a good effect may follow. A contingent event is unfit to resolve of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a thing without some other rule, things being unlawfull or lawfull not according to disagreement from or agreement to Gods will of purpose what shall be, but his will of Command what he requires to be omitted or done. Besides this contingent event here was uncertain as appears v. 16. what knowest thou? implies, thou canst not tell whether thou shalt save thy husband? Perhaps thou mayst. Nor doth the Apostle mention any promise it should be so, but mentions it onelyonly as a contingent event that might be or not be. 6. Besides it is from such an event as is impertinent to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of living together. For the past conversion of others and the future conversion of our own yoke-fellows is meerly extrinsecal to our duty or liberty, though it be much to our conveniency, and therefore it is fitly urged v. 16. after the resolution of the judgment v. 12, 13, 14 15. Is there any shew of reason why I should live with my own unbelieving husband, because anothers unbelieving husband was converted by her, or because there is great reason of hope it will be so with mine? This would intimate that future events make our present state or acts lawfull or unlawfull, which is somewhat like the Turks conceit who judged, that pleaseth God which succeeds prosperously,Knolls History of the Turks in Solyman the magnificent. and that to displease, which fals out unhappily. 7. According to this Exposition, v. 14. should be the same Argument with v. 16. and so there should be an unnecessary repetition p. 322of the same Argument. 8. By this exposition the sanctifying of an unbeliever should be ascribed to a woman, whereas (though I deny not that she is said to save, v. …6. to win, 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert, James 5. 20.) sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit. So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God. 9. The word [holy] is expounded in a sense no where else found, nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor, though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle, ch. 1. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. & 12. 13. For he expounds [holy] by [are admitted to baptism] and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere, when there was another term [baptized] used in the same Epistle and familiar to them. 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event, which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow, even by the endeavour of a Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Companion, especially a Preacher of the Gospel. So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together, because one may bring the other to the faith, the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter, Son and Mother, Brother and Sister, Companions, Preacher and people to couple or live together, because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other. 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right. For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting, and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife, and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism. 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa, and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism. Himself pag. 257. saith. This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing, unless there were some hope, that the … of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to t… saith 'tw…l… certainly follow, their children were unclean, p. 323that is not admitted to baptism. Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition, That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be, or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism, till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted, or without hopes or reasonable presumption, that he might be won to the faith by the believer. It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it. If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism, their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith, and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer, though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief. And for the other proposition it is a like false, that whether foreign, note as much as hoc. posito, upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it, or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false, that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving, yoke-fellow, and experience of what happened, the Corinthian believers yonger children no… deemed yet believers, were admitted to baptism, or were reasonably presumed to be admitted, or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted, or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before. This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim, nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists, though I know none that so interpret it. I use his own words pag. 257. sect. 82. mutatis mutandis. Now I demand of this pretended interpretation, whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense? Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer, and the other an unbeliever, could it of them be concluded, if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit, their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism, to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God? This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers, as if the p. 324childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy, and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer, and hopes it should be so. It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution, not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents, the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow, and hopes so of theirs. 12. Unto all these I add, that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding, as this Doctor or Dictator doth, nor do I think he can shew any. Sure I am Augustin. tom. 7. de pec…. merito & remiss. c. 26. saith, Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit, quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo & p…ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet.

But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase, Sect. 32. he speaks thus, That this is the true importance of the Apostles words, and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident. First, by the word foreign, hath been sanctified, which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde, or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praetertense.

Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it, foreign should signifie not onelyonly that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified, but also that there is hope they will, and so it should note, not onelyonly some example past, but also some to come, of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English.

But sayth he, It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek.

Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages, even in the Greek, though it abound in Tenses above other Languages. In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 foreign in the Present-tense is put for the Future, even in the same Verse foreign, is rendred by Dr. Hammond himself, Else were your chidren unclean, so that foreign must be put for foreign or foreign, & so an Enallage either of Tense or Mood, or both. And in the very next vers. foreign is manifestly put in the Praeter-tense for the Present, as all Interpreters I know render it, & the same enallage or change p. 325of Tense Camerarius conceives in the term foreign. And, which is chiefest, this sense seems to be…it it best, there being no plainer and clearer than this, Therefore the believer may live with the unbelieving yoke-fellow; because the Husband though an infidel, yet is to his own Wife, in respect of her, and to her conjugal use, a… if he were sanctified. But if it be in the Praeter-tense, yet it may be understood of a past thing yet continued, as foreign, John 3. 18. notes an act still continued in force. So that notwithstanding the Doctors conceit, yet there may be a very reasonable account given without understanding it of an Example of another person sanctified heretofore by another Wife, which is very far from the Apostles meaning, as I shew before.

Secondly, sayth he, by the Phrase foreign, by or through the Wife. This the Preposition foreign, so ordinarilly signifies, that it cannot need to be farther testified, (in this notion it is that we here take it) whereas the notion which by opposers is here affixt to it, that it should signifie to (that to which is a sign of the Dativecase) [sanctified to the Wife, (as meat to the believer) made lawfull to her to live with] is never once found to belong to it, in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it. All the places that are produced for this sense are commonly mistaken. So Matth. 17. 12. [foreign] is not fecerunt ei, they have done to him, but on him or against him: so as foreign is used for foreign, which is an ordinary acception of it. So Acts 4. 12. There is no name foreign, it is not [given unto men] but among men: and that is an ordinary notion of foreign, for among, foreign, Is God among us? and foreign, Christ among us, and many the like. So 1 Cor. 7. 15. God hath called us, foreign: It is not to, as the note of a Dative-case, but unto peace, as foreign is again taken for foreign. So Ga…l: 1. 16. to reveal his own Son, foreign: It is not [to me] but [by or through me to others] as it follows, that I might preach him. And when it there follows, foreign, it is not [to but again among the Gentiles] And 2 Pet. 1. 5. foreign, foreign, is Add unto your saith virtue, &c. in the notion of foreign for foreign, unto your faith, or over and above that, foreign, superadd virtue, or fortitude, or constancy, that which in this time of persecution they stood so much in need of. And so still the p. 326rendring it [to the Wife] will be without any one example, and the turning it quite into another phrase, as if it were foreign, without foreign; which to do without any necessity or reason (save onelyonly foreign, to serve the opposers turn upon the place, and support his false opinion, must needs be very unreasonable.

Answ. I subscribe to this last speech: But all that the Doctor saith makes me not to recede from the rendering of foreign, 1 Cor. 7. 14. [to] as noting the Dative case, and being redundant. Not out of any necessity to serve my turn: For if it be read [in the wife and expounded as Beza doth Annot. In locum respectu uxoris, in respect of the wife, expounding [is or hath been sanctified in the wife] thus, hath been or is enioyed in coniugal use lawfully in respect of his wife, it will as well serve my turn. And in this sense foreign, is as much as ergà towards, apud with, and is as much as foreign, the sense that foreign and foreign are used, 2 Cor. 13. 3. foreign v. 4. foreign. But it will not serve the Doctors turn unless he can prove that [foreign] must be renderd [by] and notes the instrument, yea and [by the wife] must signify [by the company and conversation of the believer] which supplement is not yet proved, no… do I think can be proved to be necessary. The reason why I still adhere to the reading of [foreign to] is, 1. Because it seems to me the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense thus to expound it. The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow. For though he be an unbeliever, and so in himself unsanctified, yet in or to the wife or his wife he is as if he were sanctified, it's all one in respect of lawfull conjugal use as if he were sanctified. 2. Because, though the Doctor deny it, yet I aver the notion of [foreign for to as a sign of the Dative case] is found more than once in the New Testament, and may with good congruity and Grammatical analogy be affixt to it. Of the which places the first he brings cannot be eluded. 1. Because the same speech which is Mat. 17. 12. foreign is Mark 9. 13. foreign, and rendered by Beza in the former place fecerunt ei they did to him. 2. whereas he saith foreign is used for foreign on him or against him, and that this is an ordinary acception of foreign for foreign, I grant that it is an ordinary acception to use foreign for foreign, but not in the sense he here conceives, to wit as foreign notes [on or against a person.] It had been meet the Doctor should have given at least one instance of such a construction, which I do p. 327not yet believe he can do. However if he could, yet me thinks it should satisfie that foreign, notes no more than foreign, and is a sign of the Dative case, because Mark, who seems to have abbreviated Matthew, so expresseth it; and the common use of foreign, when it notes dealings of man to man whether good or bad is usually expressed by the Dative case: as Matth. 7. 12, & 18. 12. & 20. 32. & 21. 36, 40. & 25. 40, 45. There is another instance which I conceive cannot be eluded, to wit, Col. 1. 23. foreign, which was preached in every creature. Where, 1. There is no other sense than that of the Dative case that hath any tolerable conguity or Grammatical analogy affixt to it. Mr. Den's conceit of preaching the Gospel in the Sun, Moon, &c. is so wild that I presume, it will be easily rejected. For let men imagine the most they can of Gods grace discernible in the creature, yet the Gospel in which Christians hope and of which Paul was a Minister is not discernible thereby. Nor is here any place for those conceits of putting [in] for on, against, among, over and above or the like] For the use of foreign, to preach, is commonly with a Dative case of the object, as 1 Cor. 9. 27. 1 Pet. 3. 19. Acts 8. 5. & 10. 42. Luke 4. 18. I deny not but 1 Tim. 3. 16. it is foreign. But our Translators have there renderd it [unto the Gentiles] the vulgar [praedicatum est gentibus] Beza [praedicatus est gentibus] as if there it noted onelyonly the Dative case. And if there it should be [among the Gentiles] yet it cannot be so Col. 1. 23. because the object is in the singular number: But foreign when it is for [among] is joyned still to a noune of the plural. It is true 1 Thes. 2. 9. it is foreign, but unto you is no more than to you, and shews not onelyonly foreign but foreign also notes the same with the Dative case without either preposition. 2. That which puts, this thing out of all doubt the phrase Col. 1. 23. answers (as Beza Camerarius, Piscator, &c. conceive, and me thinks none should deny) to that Mark 16. 15. where our Lord Chrst bids foreign, preach the Gospel to every creature, and there that which was expressed by foreign Col. 1. 23. is expressed onelyonly by the Dative case without it Mark 16. 15. nor do I yet conceive but that foreign, Acts 4. 12 is better renderd [to men] than among men.] 1. Because the verb foreign in the several voyces and other verbs of giving have most regularly and constantly p. 328a Dative of the person after them, as both Grammarians in their Syntaxes teach, & many instances in the New Testament prove, as Acts 3. 16. & 4. 29. & 5. 31. 32. & 7. 5, 8, 10, 25, 28. Besides many more there and throughout the sacred Writings. 2. Because if it had been [among men] it had been to be placed after foreign, other; for so the sense would have been clear, there is no other name among men given, but being placed after given, it is to be expounded as referred to given, not to other, and so must not be read among men, but to men. 3. It seems to me not good sense, or not true, that Christ was a name given among men: for though he were among men, yet he was given from above. 4. To all which I add the words of Beza Annot. in Act. Apost. c. 4. v. 12. Inter homines, foreign, Hebr. foreign beadam, id est, hominibus ut rectè convertit vet us interpres, & Ireneus quoque lib. 3. cap. 12. sicut insra 7. 44. foreign, non aliud declarat quàm foreign. Camerarius renders it, Attributum hominibus. And for the other Text Gal. 1. 16. Me thinks the Doctors exposition makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly, when he expounds when it pleased God to reveal his Son, foreign, not to me, but by or through me to others. For what is it to reveal his Son by him or through him to others, but to preach the Gospel to them? And is it not then to tautologize to say, when it pleased God, that I should preach the Son of God to others that I might preach the Gospel? Can preaching the Gospel be fitly sayd to be the end or consequent of preaching the Son of God which is all one with preaching the Gospel? And for 2 Pet. 1. 5. foreign, there is no reason to imagine foreign to be put for foreign, sith the simple and compound are usually put with the Dative after them, as 2 Cor. 9. 10. Gal. 3. 5. and in other Authors. Nor do I finde foreign, or foreign, in any Author, and what the Doctor observes, that foreign notes superadde, it rather confirms it, that as foreign notes over, so foreign notes to; no… is the Doctor I suppose ignorant of that Rule in Grammar, Verba addendi, supplendi regunt Dativum. Besides these I have alleged in the first part of this Review s. 11. pag. 96. out of the Septuagint. Deut. 28. 60. 2 Kings 7. 27. plain passages of putting foreign, so as to note the Dative case, with the speeches of some learned men, whereto I add that Psal. 68. 18. that which the Septuagint hath foreign p. 329foreign, the Apostle hath Ephes. 4. 8. foreign, which I take to be more than enough to refute the Doctors speech that the notion wherein foreign signifies To, which is a sign of the Dative caese is never once found to belong to it in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it, and that he talks ad randum, when he intimates, that by co…struing it so, 1 Cor. 7. 14. ther's a turning it quite to another phrase to serve the turn upon the place. The Doctor goes on thus.

Thirdly, this appears most irrefragably, by the express words added on this Argument, v. 16. where [the unbelievers having been sanctified by the believer] (used as an Argument why they should live together) is farther explained by these words of an undoubted perspicuous sense; For what knowest thou O Wife whether thou shalt save thy Husband? Or how knowest thou O Husband whether thou shalt save thy Wife? where the word foreign, save. which ordinarily signifies to reduce, as it is 1 Pet. 3. 1. foreign, to gain) to repentance from heathenism or wicked life is set parallel to foreign, sanctifying, and makes it clear what was meant by it.

Answ. However the Doctor conceive, yet doth it not appear to me probably, much less irrefragably by express words, that v. 16. is added further as an explanation of the words, v. 14. The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified in the Wife. For, 1. though some conceive v. 15. to be put parenthetically as Grotius, and that v. 16. belongs to the matter of v. 12, 13, 14. yet Beza, Piscator, and others conceive that v. 16. hath reference to the words v. 15. God hath called us to peace, that is, to live peaceably together, & as an encouragement thereto v. 14. is added: none that I know besides the Doctor makes v. 16. to explain the forepart of v. 14. 2. Nor is there likelihood that the Apostle doth use v. 16. as an explanation of the forepart of v. 14. it being not his wont to express a thing obscurely, and than presently to express it more plainly, or to use unnecessary repetitions in such short resolutions as are here, especially there being not any thing mystical in it, but matter of fact. 3. If he had made v. 16. an explanation of the words v. 14. The unbelieving husband hath been sanctified in the wife and vice versa, he would have usdd foreign p. 330foreign, as Rom. 9. 8. or some such like term; But he useth 1 Cor. 7. 16. the expression foreign, For how knowest thou? Which plainly sheweth it to be a further argument to move them to live together, not an explanation of a former speech: for [foreign for] is a particle shewing it to be a further reason of it. 4. It to me appears irrefragably, because according to the Doctors exposition v. 16. doth not explain the forepart of v. 14. For according to him the word [hath been sanctified] must needs refer to some past known examples and experiments of converting of other unbelieving yoke. fellows by the believing parties, or else sayth he, There could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense. But v. 16. For what knowest thou O Wife whether thou shalt save thy Husband? Or how knowest thou O man whether thou shalt save thy Wife? Mentions a thing to be, and that as a possible but not certain event, and that concerning one that is an unbeliever. Now that the words mentioning a possible uncertain event concerning others should explain the words that speak of a thing past about others is out of my reach: Surely it seems to me ridiculous to paraphrase, v. 14. The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified in the Wife, thus, For what knowest thou O Wife whether thou shalt save thy Husband? and therefore I take the Doctors conceits in this to be his dotage.

The Doctor adds, Sect. 33. Which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part, there will then be little reason to doubt but that this of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score, is the importance of the later part, that and no other being it, which exactly accords with the former reasoning, and it being not imaginable, that this should be here added in that argumentative stile [foreign, whereas (or for) elsewere, &c. if it were not an enforcing of the foregoing Position thus proved by him.

Answ. It is true the style is argumentative, and [foreign, else were] shews the latter part of the verse, 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be an inforcing of the foregoing position of the same verse asserted, I say not proved by him. But that this exposition [else were your children unclean, that is, not admitted to baptism, but now they are holy, that is, admitted to Christian baptism] exactly accords with the former reasoning yielded, so as that the Doctors paraphrase p. 331being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part there will be little reason to doubt but that this, of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score is the importance of the later part, is so far from having any colour of truth, that in my apprehension the Doctors exposition makes the Apostles words Are nam sine calce, sand without lime, that is without connexion. For what shew of connexion is there in this consequence, If some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been converted by the faith, diligence and conversation of the believing party that then was, then the children of you who are believers, but begotten or brought forth by one that yet is an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian baptism in infancy: but now, that is upon this score that some former unbelieving yoke-fellows have been brought to the faith of Christ by the faith, conversation and diligence of the believer, they have been admitted to baptism? According to the tenour of this reasoning these propositions should be included in the Apostles argument. The children of a believing yoke-fellow who is joyned to an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian baptism, if some other believing yoke-fellow had not been brought to the faith. The children of a believer by a unbelieving yoke-fellow have been admitted to Christian baptism by reason that it hath been usual that other believers have brought the unbeliever to the faith. Whence will follow. 1. That at the first conversion of a people, at whieh time there is no experiment of such events of the believing yoke-fellows bringing the infidel to the faith, then the infants of the believer were not admitted to Christian baptism: which is directly contrary to the Jewish batizing infants of proselytes, which is onelyonly at first conversion, which yet the Doctor will have the patern of our Christian baptism. 2. That the Doctor derives a title to baptism of this believers infant children from the diligence and happy success which another believer hath had, which is a thing meerly extrinsecal to the institution of baptism. For where did ever Christ say, Baptize those or their children who are yoke-fellows to unbelievers, for some other believing yoke-fellows have had good success in converting their yoke-fellows to the faith? I can hardly forbear to call such reasoning à baculo ad angulum. On the other side, the Doctors exposition makes the children of the believer p. 332joyned to the unbeliever not capable of Christian baptism, if there had not been some experiment of a believer bringing to the faith the unbelieving yoke-fellow, and some hopes that the present unbeliever would become a Christian by the diligence of the other yoke fellow, which would exclude the believers childe from baptism whose yoke-fellow is deceased in unbelief, and so the conversion of that person is hopeless. So that what ever pretences are made for infant-baptism, no children (according to the Doctors exposition) of a believer can be rightly baptized without proof of such experiment of the converting of the unbeleiving yoke-fellow by the believer; it would not suffice that the conversion be by a Minister, &c. Now this being rare and hard to prove, it will certainly make questionable, if not void most of the pretended infant baptisms that are. Confident I am that no Paedobaptist ancient or modern besides the Doctor ever asserted Paedobaptism on this score, which is the onelyonly ground, if the Doctors exposition of the Apostle be right. The Ancients did admit to baptism any ones childe whether Pagans or Believers being brought to them, as I shew in my Examen part. 1. sect. 8. But I need say no more to refute this exposition being the most unlikely of all that I have hitherto met with:

He tels us Sect. 34. What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding and avoiding this interpretation will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists plea.

Answ. The falsly so called Anabaptists have not allowed Dr. Jeremiah Taylour to make their plea, nor do they all, if any of them frame their plea as he lays it, yet it is shewed above, that the Reply Dr. Hammond makes to overthrow their pretended answer overthrows his own exposition.

But he goes on, Mean while for the confirming of it, it may be remembered, what foreign, holy is known to signify in the sacred dialect, not onelyonly an inherent, but a relative holiness, being separate or set apart to God, discriminated from common ordinary things, or persons, and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation, the office of a Prophet or the like, so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church, into which all are initiated by baptism. And accordingly, all visible professors, and not onelyonly those that are sincerely such, are in Ezra p. 3339. 2. the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the Apostles called foreign, holy.

Answ. This being all granted confirms not Dr. Hammonds exposition, now they are holy that is admitted to Christian baptism. The Doctor knows its no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmative, the children are holy that is set a part for God, discriminated from common ordinary things or persons, Ergo they are set apart by the special way of baptism. And it being granted that all visible professors, and not onelyonly those that are sincerely such are in Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed, and in the Epistles of Paul called holy (though that term Ezra 9. 2. hath a far different notion, as I shew in this Review Antipaed. part. 1. sect. 13, 25. from what the Doctor imagines) yet till the Doctor prove infants to be visible professors he hath not confirmed, that the taking of [holy 1 Cor. 7. 14.] for [infants admitted to baptism] is agreeable to the Apostles language.

He adds Sect. 35. And secondly how the word foreign, unclean, is used by S^t. Peter, Acts 10. 14. for those that must not (as he conceived) be received into the Church, as [Gods having cleansed] is Gods reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege. Whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptism may be expressed by those phrases.

Answ. I deny not the fitness of the expressing receiving and not receiving to baptism by the terms of holy and unclean, if the Holy Ghost had so thought good. But su…e the Doctor is mistaken in the notion of unclean, Acts 10. 14. For it is plain from Acts 11. 3. that an unclean person is in that place one that was not onelyonly out of the Church, but also one that a Jew conceived he might neither go into, nor eat with him, yea though he were a Proselyte of the Gate, and owned the God of Israel. Now then if the same notion of unclean and holy be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as is Acts 10. 14. an unclean person is one that a man may not go into, nor eat with. which applied to infants is ridiculous; else if the unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been sanctified, that is, brought to the faith by the conversation and diligence of the believer your children had been unclean, that is, such as they might not go in to, nor eat with them, but now their in…ants are holy, such as they might go in to and eat with them.

p. 334Thirdly, sayth he, how the word foreign which is ordinarily to sanctifie, doth among the Jews (whence this word foreign, is taken) as when the high Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation is called foreign ten sanctifications, Joma, cap. 3. sect. 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body, and distinguished in use from the foreign which is the immersion of the whole body, may perhaps be an intimation, that the primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body, but that sprinkling of some part the literal importance of the foreign sanctifications might be sufficient.

Answ. If this reason were good, it would rather confirm this exposition [The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified by the Wife, that is, the unbelieving Husband hath been baptized by the Wife or washed] than this, the children are baptized, for they are no… sayd to be sanctified, but to be holy. And then the Apostle relates it as a thing oft used among Christians, that believing Wives did baptize or wash unbelieving Husbands: which so expounded is a plain testimony for womens baptism of their own unbelieving Husbands, & so hath better ground from this Text than infant baptism. What the Doctor draws in besides the business, to put some colour on their sprinkling instead of baptism, is but a fig-leaf too narrow to cover the nakedness of their practice. The Doctor himself pag. 180. makes the baptism which was a Jewish solemnity, the washing of the whole body. And Sect. 71. pag. 185, 186. he sayth, Jethro was made a Proselyte by immersion or baptism in waters, and the manner of this immersion is sayd to be that they should be set up to the neck in water. And pag. 184. Unless he be foreign baptized he is a Gentile. And out of Arrian the Jewish Proselyte is called foreign, dipped, and he that is onelyonly so in shew not in deed, foreign, a counterfeit baptized person. In his Pract. Catech. lib. 6. sect. 2. By Christs 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. His words following intimating as if sprinkling were appointed by Christ instead of it, are his own figment. Pag. 35. he makes the ancient manner of putting the person under water, and then taking him p. 335out again, to denote dying and rising again, with more of the like confessions, and even in this place sayth, the washing some part of the body is distinguished in use from the foreign (which answers to the Greek word Baptism) which is immersion of the whole body. And yet the Doctor is not ashamed to say, that primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body, (which me thinks he should hardly believe himself in) and because the besprinkling of some part (which I think is not true, if sprinkling by water and not bloud or ashes be meant, for the Priests in their sanctifications dipped their hands and feet in water; is called foreign sanctifications, to intimate as if any kinde of sanctification of a part of the body though but by sprinkling with water were baptism. It is a like abuse when Christ bids baptize, to sprinkle onelyonly or pour water on the face as it would be, when he bids to eat, onelyonly to chew in the mouth; or when he bids to drink, to wet the lips onelyonly. But that to sprinkle is not to baptize, is elsewhere asserted, Addition to the Apology, Sect. 22.

The Doctor goes on in his dictating way thus. Fourthly, it is known of the legal uncleannesses, contrary to those their sanctifications, that they were the cause of removing men from the congregation, they that were so foreign, unclean, might not partake of the privileges of the Temple, till they were washed and sanctifyed, and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it, that the Christian children are holy, i. e. not inherently, (they are not capable) but in the account of God and men capable of separation for the service of God, of being entered into the Church, into Covenant, which denominates men holy, (as the Gentiles as long as they were out of it were unclean and unholy, Acts 10.) now are they holy, i. e. it is the present practice of the Church, that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time, to admit to baptism such infant-children of Parents of whom one is Christian, though not of others.

Answ. It is sayd without proof, that the uncleanness excluding from the Tabernacle and sanctification restoring are proportionable to the notion here given of childrens being excluded or included in the Church. Why should Cornelius be counted out of the Church by God or men, when God sayth, He was a devout man, and one that feared God, with all his house, who gave much alms to the p. 336people, aend prayed to God always, Acts 10. 2. It's true, he was excluded from the familiar society of the Jews according to their superstition, and so unclean, but not accounted by God to be out of the Church, but in it. That Christians children are denied to be capable of holiness inherently, will not be granted him, much less his paraphrase on the words [now are they holy] i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time to admit to baptism such infant children of parents, &c. It will not stand with his own exposition, as hath been shewed, and it makes the Apostle relate a matter of plain fact in obscure terms. Augustin did disclaim this interpretation Hierom and Ambrose gave another, and so did Tertullian de animâ, cap. 39. what he adds is frivolous. And to put all out of question, the aneient Fathers which certainly knew the sacred Dialect, call baptism sanctification. So Cyprian Epist. 59. Eum qui natus est bapt. zandum & sanctificandum, He that is born must be baptized and sanctified; where baptizing is sanctifying of infants. So Greg. Nazian. Orat. 40. Edit. Bill. pag. 658. foreign, 'Tis better to be sanctified without sense of it, I. e. baptized in infancy when they are not sensible of it, than to depart or die without the seal of baptism. And again pag. 648. foreign, let him be sanctified from the infancy, I. e. baptized then. And many the like.

For 1. That the Ancients of the third or fourth Century knew certainly the sacred Dialect especially the Latin Doctors, me thinks the Doctor should know them better than to assert it. He sure is not ignorant that in multitudes of things later writers do finde their many mistakes about the sacred Dialect, and how few of them had any skil in Hebrew or Greek the Doctor is not ignorant I presume. 2. In this very thing if those Fathers certainly knew the sacred Dialect and from their use Paul must be interpreted, then the word [sanctified] not the word [holy] (for the Doctor doth not shew they used the word [holy for [baptized] but the word [sanctified]) must be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as much as [baptized] and then the sense is, The unbelieving husband is baptized by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is baptized by the husband, of the absurdity of which interpretation I need say no more.

The Doctor proceeds sect. 37. thus▪ This passage than being p. 337thus interpreted, is a clear proof of the point in hand. And were not this the importance of it there were no privilege imaginable, no sanctity, which could be attributed to the infants of Christians which would not belong to the infants of heathens also, which yet is here distinctly affirmed of the one and denied of the other by the Apostle.

Answ. How absurd the Doctors interpretation is hath been shewed before, yet were it granted him it would not be a clear proof for infant-baptism, unless [your children] were all one with [your infants] which will not be cleared till it be shewed that the Corinthian Christians had then no children but infants, or that he meant no other under that term then the infants. Which sure is not according to the Jewish pattern, in which they baptized Proselytes children if females under twelve, if males under thirteen, not according to their will, but of the Father or court to which they were subject, I add, if the Apostle should by [holy] understand a privilege where upon they were baptized he should conceive otherwise than the Jews did, who conceived all unclean, whom they baptized, till by baptism they cleansed them and made them holy. And for what he sayth that no privilege imaginable &c. I answer, 1. By denying that the Apostle there attributes a privilege or sanctity belonging to the infants of Christians, which would not belong to the infants of heathens. I have I conceive in the first part of this Review demonstrated the contrary against Mr. M Mr. B. &c. 2. If there were a privilege attributed yet it might not be baptism. For. 1 That belonged according to the Fathers opinion and practise to unbelievers children also, if they were brought as I shew examen part. 1. sect. 7. 8, 2. There are other imagined privileges or sanctities belonging to them, as, by some real actual inward holiness, by others federal external holiness, by others holiness in hope and expectation.

He goes on. And as this evidently concludes such a custom, known and acknowledged among Christians at that time: so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise, in which Christ founded his institution, hath laid the foundation of, in baptizing Proselytes and their children, and to which the primitive Church conformed. And so though that Judaical practise taken alone were not deemed any demonstrative evidence, that Christ thus p. 338instituted his baptism for the Gentiles, yet being taken in conjunction with this Testimony of the Apostolical practise, and the primitive usage it brings all the weight with it, which a Divine Testimony imexpreted by practise can afford, which is as great as any such matter can be capable of.

Answ. 1. It is false that Christ founded his institution in the Jewish practise of baptizing proselytes and their children. If he had done so he would have bid the Apostles, baptize Disciples and their children as the Jews did. There is not any thing that is brought by the Doctor that proves it, yea if it were the minde of Chrst to baptize Disciples and their children, as the Jews did Proselytes, it would utterly overthrow all use of baptism of water after the first conversion of Progenitors to be Christs Disciples, none but they and the children then born should be baptized, all Disciples and their infants which descended from the first baptized should not be baptized with water being clean or holy without baptism. For they baptized because they were unclean till baptized, not because holy before. Nor did they baptize any of the posterity of the first baptized though born but a few moneths after their first baptism. So that this conceit of the Doctor would help much for the Socinian conceit, as if water-baptism belonged onelyonly to the age of the Apostles. 2. It is false that there is any evidence in the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7. 14. of such a custom of baptizing Christians and their children as was among the Jews of baptizing the Preselytes and their infant's. Nor do I think ever any of the Fathers did interpret the Apostles words as this Doctor doth. Tertullians words in his Book de anima cap. 39. are not as the Doctor saith an exact parallel to the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7 14. as the Doctor renders and interprets it The terms candidati sanctitatis or designati sanctitatis, or candidati side…, in Hieromes Epist. 153. to Paulinus do note, not that they were baptized as the Doctor interprets [Holy 1 Cor 7. 14.] bu… that they were in expectation, as they that were seekers for Offices in Rome, while they stood for the Offices were candidati in Wh…e so the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized, Quod veluti ambiunt, & expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Ep. 153. to Paulinus, or designed that is intended …o be holy by the parents, that is to …e bred up to p. 339profess the Faith, and so to be baptized. Both which senses do indeed oppose the Doctors assertion and shew that they were not baptized in infancy. And for that which the Doctor talks of Tertullian as saying they were holy that is baptized ex s…minis praerogativa from the praerogative of their birth, it is a manifest mistake as the very reading the words shew. For. 1. The holiness he ascribes to believers children was not onelyonly by praerogative of birth, but also ex institutions disciplina, by the discipline of their instruction, which is afore baptism. 2. The praerogative of birth the very words of Tertullian shew to be no more but this, that believers children were born without those idolatrous superstitions, which were used in the birth of infidels children, which he there particularly recites. There is no one of the Fathers interprets Paul as the Dr. Ambrose and Hierom interpret the words of legitimation in birth, Augustin, what way soever he go, …aith expresly, the words belong not to baptism. 3. I is false that the Jewish practise in baptizing Proselytes and their children layd the foundation of infant-baptism; neither the Scripture gives any hint thereof, no… any of the Ancient Christian writers, no not any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practise: But the speeches of Tertullian de bapt. cap. 8. of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 40. de baptismo, disswading from it except in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death, the very decree of the Council in Cyprians 59. Epistle, the speeches of Augustin, Hierom against the Pelagians, the words of the counterfeit Authors of the Book of Questions and answers to the Orthodox imposed on Justin Martyr qu. 56. The questions ad Antiochum imposed on Athanasius qu 114. the words of the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy imposed on Dionysius Areopagita, the story of the baptism of Gregory Nazianzen, the intended baptism of Augustin, when in da…ger of death, tom. 1. confess. lib. 1. cap. …1. and other evidences d… shew that the Fathers took the baptism of infants not to have foundation in the Jews practise, but in the conceit they had that baptism did regenerate, give grace and save, and that it was necessary for them to enter into the Kingdom, and that they were in danger of perishing if they were not baptized, and therfore they practised baptizing of infants in that ca…e. Which thing the Papists avouch at p. 340this day, and in order thereto womens baptizing. The Protestant reformers who composed the Common Prayer Book, do appear to have had the like conceit, in that in the preface before publique baptism they use the old reason from John 3. 5. Rom. 5. 12. for infant-baptism, affirming infants to be regenerate, and undoubtedly saved dying baptized, allowing Midwives to baptize, till the words [lawfull Minister] were added in the Rubrick after the conference at Hampton Court, where had not King James overruled them the Bishops had not yelded to that reformation; yet still they kept private baptism, with that ridiculous use of propounding the questions of repentance and faith to the infant, to which the sureties must answer in the childes behalf, with profession of the childes desire to be baptized into the faith recited, though the childe were then crying when the words were spoken; and for the sureties they had no desire to be baptized; and the Bishops and Presbyters requiring it would have censured them as Anabaptists had they indeed minded baptism according to Christs minde: which thing was a meer mockery, as Chamier calls it. Yet in the Rubrick it self in the Common prayer Book in the title of Publique baptism it is confessed that the Ancient custom was of baptizing onelyonly at Easter and Whitsuntide, & baptizing is acknowledged to have been by dipping: sprinkling or pouring water on the face I do conjecture by reports and such writings as I have seen, was most after the conference at Hampton Court. Dr. Hammond himself in his Practic Catech. lib. 1. sect. 3. pag. 23. saith, All men were instructed anciently in the foundamentals of faith before they were permitted to be baptized. And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant-baptism brought by the Doctor, because having sayd so much in my Examen part. 1. and my Apology sect. 16. I presume those that are not willing to be deceived will not be swayed with Dr. Hammonds, Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. friends, or any other citations from them, some being of meer counterfeit Authors, as Justin Martyr, Pope Hyginus, Dionysius Areopagita, Athanasius, some suspected as Origens words, some misinterpreted as Irenaeus and Tertullian, some the very Authors shew that they maintained infant-baptism but in the case of danger of death, as Tertullian and Nazianzen▪ Cyprian as he avouched infant-baptism, so he p. 341did rebaptization, and that as from the Apostles. Augustin as he avouched infant-baptism by Apostolick tradition, so he did also infant-communion. But of these things if God will more hereafter if it appear necessary. This I take to be sufficient for the present to answer Dr. Hammonds new device which he vainly boasts to have all the weight that a Divine Testimony interpreted by practise can afford, and is as great as any such matter can be capable of.

FINIS.