Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 96

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 96

p. 826SECT. XCVI. The Jewish custome of Baptism for initiation, was not the pattern of Christian Baptism; as Dr. Hammond would have it.

CH. 1. Sect. 1. of his Defence Dr. Hammond having excepted against my words about waving (though it were his own term qu. 4 §. 21.) the more imperfect ways of probation tels us; though infant Circumcision prove not infant Baptism a duty, Yet it evidences the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by analogy with Gods 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 lye 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 lawfull 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 Christs 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. Augustins 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 lawfull b…ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites, is no colour …o baptize non professors of faith. 'Tis rightly done, that that which contains no relation of p. 827Christs or his Apostles baptising infants, is put by him among the more imperfect probations, and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14. is already shewed to be.

That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism, to bee 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. disswades 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 judgement forementioned, as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice o… the universal Church for 1600. years. The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler, 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 judgement and practise (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 Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it, but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7. tels 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 Gods displ…asure, not …o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church (i… there were any such) after the Apostles, but onelyonly on the writ…ngs of the New Testament, it being highly unreasonable, as the Dr. saith, that …n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee 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 practise 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 p. 828writings 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 errours; yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths, if they be read with judgement, 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 mee, as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable, if not principal part, viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children, who were baptized as solemnly, as the Proselytes and their chi…dren.

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 finde in his writings, make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants, to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes, and children as the pattern, basis or foundation of it, no where the Baptism of native Jewes, 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 entred, or initiated into their Church, they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises (which did not agree to the native Jews) so by Christs appointment, whosoever should be thus received into his family, should bee received with this ceremony of water, therein to be dipt, i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome, to be put under water three times; And in his Letter qu. 4. §. 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise, 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 Christs 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 onelyonly that the latter denotes a comming from other nation, &c. which shews, that he made the baptising of Proselytes and their children onelyonly, the pattern of Christian baptism.

Next the Dr. sets down his proofs out of the Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides, and then concludes; And now I may, I hope assume, that not onelyonly there is perfect truth in what I now affirm; that Baptism among the Jews belonged to their natives as well as to Proselytes (even to all that entred into Covenant, and those evidently were the Jewish children as well as men) but also that this had before been evidenced in that resolution of the fourth Quaere, which here Mr. T. hath been pleased to examine, and consequently that it was no small injustice, and unkindness in him both to the Reader and to me, that hee would omit to take notice of it, but assume and build on it as a thing p. 829yeilded and granted him by my discourse, that the Proselytes only and not the native Jews were partakers of that Jewish baptism. This sure was a strange infirmity in an answer.

Answ. It is a stranger infirmity in a Reply, that whereas I had expresly 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 onelyonly 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 relye on mine own judgement 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 mee if I were mistaken: But whether by reason of his bodily infirmity, or miscariage 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, shew that Baptism was to the posterity of native Jewes … …he giving of the Law f…r entring 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 circumcis…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 entred into the Covenant, by Circumcision, Baptism and Sacrifice, and soon after, what was done to you, yee 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 custome 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 customes, set down thus out of Maimon. in mis. tom. 2. in Issurei biah ch. 13. §. 1, — 6, 11, 14, 15. do plainly shew 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 Aegypt, 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, sanctifie them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes [Exod. 19.10.] And Sacrifice, as it is said, And hee sent young men of the sons of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, &c. [Exod. 24.5.] And so in all ages when an Ethnick 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 p. 830bring a Sacrifice. And if it bee 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 bee collected. 1. That the baptizing of Israel whereby they entred into Covenant, was that Exod. 19.10. 2. That there is not in these passages any thing that shews, that the Jewish Baptism for entring 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 custome 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 expresly 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 entring into the Covenant of the Law, of originary or native jews mentioned. 'Tis 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 entring into Covenant, that I find but that. 3. In the relation of the Sichemites being admitted to be one people with the Jews, Gen. 34.24. circumcision onelyonly 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 shew correspondence to our Baptism, if such a custome of baptizing for entring 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 entred, or initiated into their Church, they were wont to use washings, to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane Heathen practises, 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 therfore used not ordinarily of them. It is true when they had gotten strange Gods 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 p. 831ordinary entring of the infants of Israel into the Covenant, who were not thus defiled. 6. The baptism of John Baptist for remission of sins was distastfull 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 Saviour 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 custome 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 kinred, &c. To which surely our Saviour refers, when he talks of leaving father and mother Mark 10.29. And Tacitus the Historian, nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quàm exuere patriam, parentes, liberos, fratres vilia habere; their Proselytes are first taught after renouncing the gods, to put off their countrey, parents, children, brethren, to despise them. And the later Jews have a saying, that he tha… hath maried his own sister, or entred any the most incestuous bands, by becoming a Proselyte cease…h to have that near relation of bloud 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 falsly 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 Baptist, Timothy, Paul, but wee read not of their baptism by water as the custome of the Jewes was to enter into the Covenant Proselytes; therefore there was not a custome of baptizing native Jewes 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 priviledges of the baptized, which are evidences that this baptism was not used to native Jews, but onelyonly 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 p. 832which I have offered in this matter (unless hee 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 custome 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, onelyonly I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage, and then he fals to …onjecturing. But by my words he might have easily res…lved himself what I aimed at in this, to wit, to shew the Jews baptism of parents and children is not undeniably proved to be the pattern of Christian baptism, and Christs institution of baptism but a copy according to that pattern, i… i… bee 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 Noahs floud, 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 custome 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 bee 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 mee, 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 errours and corruptions were received, and either hatched or fostered by them, but that hee should not onelyonly dare to practise 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 p. 833were baptized in infancy sufficiently, and for that reason to b…e reckoned among Christians, though meer strangers from the knowledge or practise of Christianity.

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

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

The Dr. adds. But then 2dly, it must be adverted that this one containing two questions in it, 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptism were a Jewish custome? 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this right of baptizing Christians? The former of these was that which alone required proving, the latter being of it self evident, without fa…ther p…obation; supposing onelyonly that the Fathers testified that to b… Christs institutio… of Baptism, which we find to have been thus agreeable to the p…actise customary among the Jewes. And this …e illustrates by the like examples of excommunication, and the post. c…nium, from whence he conc… vsus Christ derived the Lords Supper and excommunication by the Apostles.

Answ. For p…esent, omitting the instances of the Lords Supper, as d…ive fro… the Jewish post c…nium, and excommunication Apostolical r…sp…ct Jewi…, it hath been yeeld…d by me, that Christian baptism was in … of the rite like Jewish baptism of Proselytes, acknowledged to hav… been a custome 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 Baptist …ews by nature, not so Pharises. And as John …aptist practised, so Christ appointed, and his Apostles practised 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 Noahs 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 baptised 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 onelyonly used for initiation, and of this p. 834I think the Dr. findes 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 hee is cured, they shall baptise 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 wayes; 1. In respect of the rite, he was circumcised and baptised, as the Israelites at the giving of the Law Exod. 19.10. (not after that time) were baptised; an… the Proselytes p…sterity were then not after this time of the first initiation into the Jewish people. 2. In respect of priviledges 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 Christs 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 shew that notwithstanding Dr. Hs. supposition, that the whole fabrick he frames of Baptism, is discernable 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 discernable 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 shews, 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 customes, but that more proof may bee justly required then the bare recital of passages in them. It is not unknown that some have excepted against Ainsworths allegation of Rabbins, and that in his apology for it he himself saith, Some things I note from them, not as approving them my self 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 custome. Though I have no engine to draw many out of two, nor were two onelyonly mentioned by me (for though Mr. Selden cite onelyonly 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.

p. 835But hee tels me, to evidence to how little purpose I said thus much, I confess my conceit of such a custome of baptising Proselytes afore Christs incarnation among the latter Jewes. Yet I thinke it was to much purpose notwithstanding this my conceit, sith thereby the foundation of the Drs. fabrick is in…imated to be such, as though I pull it not down others may.

I said, that either that custome should begin from Jacobs injunction to his houshold Gen. 35.2. or from Gods 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 accessary wholly extrinsecal …o the matter in hand▪ and in no respect necessary to be defined by us. If the custome 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 fabrick, as far as belongs to infant ba…tism.

Answ. Be i… so, yet it was no weak part to examine the original of that custome; nor impertinent, sith 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 customes ar… so obscure, that there are few of them, whose head is known. The Dr. I suppose cannot shew the original of the post coenium among the Jews, of giving milk and honey to the newly baptised 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 custome 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 farre from the beginning.

Hence (saith he p. 272.) the …ews before Iohn the Baptist came amongst them, were wont by this rite to initiate such, as they made Proselytes, (to wit) as becomming infants again and entring 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 Ioh 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 uncleaness Matth. 3.9. Ioh. 8.33.

p. 8363dly, saith he, For Iacobs injunction to his houshold, Gen. 35.2. it is no where vouched by me as the original of this custome among the Jews, but onelyonly an intimation given, that that other, the command of God before the giving the Law, was agreeable to what we read of Iacob to his houshold, and so certainly it is.

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

4thly, saith he, the command of God, Exod. 19.10. in which Baptism is said to be founded by the Jews, is not (as Mr. T. suggests) the command to the Israelites to wash their clothes (nothing but the custome of changing their garments can be founded i… that) but the command to Moses to sanctifie them (Go unto the people and sanctifie them to day and to morrow) in the Hebrew notion of the word foreign sanctifications, for washing, either the whole or some parts of the body, as is shewed at large §. 35. If Mr. T. did this unwittingly, he may now reform his mistake; if wittingly, &c. I sha…l not then hope even this length of words will be sufficient for his conviction.

Answ. Neither in this do I think I shewed 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 cloathes 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 [sanctifie them:] which was to be done by Moses not onelyonly 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 sanctifie 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 any thing, nor misguide any man.

Lastly, the Dr. conceives my reason very vain, for the Jews baptized Jews by nature▪ and it is evidenced from it they took the baptized Proselytes, according to Numb. 15.15. And so it is evident, that of Exod. …9.10. being the original of baptizing native Jews, may, and must be the original of baptizing the Proselytes.

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 custome of baptising Iews 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 shewing my mistake of his meaning. For neither were the native Iews wont to be initiated by Baptism, nor is my reason avoided against p. 837his interpretation. For if the sense of the Dr. bee, 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 wee Christians by Christian Baptism into Christ. Whether the Jews custome 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 Christs institution of Baptism, and the Apostles and first Churches practise. For according to the custome of the Jews, John Baptist, and Christs 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 Iews had baptized none but Proselytes, for to that it would bear just proportion, that they should baptize both Iews 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 Iohn Baptist and the Apostles practised 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 custome was to baptize Proselytes and not natives; therefore Christ if be observed that custome was not to baptize native Iews, but thus; therefore if Christ had made their custome his pattern, he would not have appointed them to be baptized. If Moses had varied from the pattern shewed 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 Iohn to be from heaven and not from men, if it had been in imitation of, and conformity to the Jewish custome. To this the Dr. saith, But I wonder what appearance of concludency there is in that reason? May not any thing be from heaven or by Gods appointment which is derived from a Jewish custome? God may appoint a ceremony known among men to be used in his service.

Answ. I grant it, but then the appointment of God is the pattern by which it is to be regulated, not mens custome; 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 custome 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 bee an institution of God but an humane invention) a… the pattern whence it is p. 830copied 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 custome, and some indications of it even in the Scripture it self; as Joh. 3.5, 10. And for any plainer affirmations, what need could there be of them, when both the matter it self speaketh plainly, that there was no need of words to those that knew the Jewish customes, as the first writers and readers of the New Testament did, and when Christs sole authority and practise 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 it self 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 prophaned, 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 Lords Supper (and there is the like reason of Baptism) Gods judgement overtook the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.30. 4. That an abuse is to be rectified by Christs appointment, 1 Cor. 11.23. Though the Dr. say, the Lords Supper was derived and lightly changed from the Jewish observance of the post. c…nium, yet did the Apostle not make their custome the Directory to regulate it by, but Christs 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 custome as the Directory for Christians in the use of Baptism, therefore that custome is not the pattern by which it is to be regulated, For otherwise it were very tyrannous, for Christ to impose a Law on mens consciences, to practise 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 customes, is nothing to us, unless they had told us what they were, and that wee are to follow them. And if they did not tell us, they dealt unfaithfully in not doing that which was necessary to bee 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 custome are later writers then the Apostles time, and therefore they could not bee 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 p. 839what is said before. 9. Their intimations of this custome 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 shewed) it may well be doubted, whether they point at the custome of baptizing for initiating into Covenant, or another usage at the birth of infants. 11. The matter it self 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 Christs, 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 practise, whether of Christ or the Apostles, therefore it is highly unreasonable that the controversie of infant Baptism should be judged by Jewish writers. 13. If Christs sole authority, and practise 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 custome not known but by Jewish writers of dubious credit the pattern of it, and to expound Christs 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 custome 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 meerly delusory.

I added 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it. The Dr. tels me, And so I say and have made it cleur that it was, as far as to the controversie in hand we are or can bee concerned in it. To which I return▪ 1. That if the Jewish custome 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 onelyonly by his own confident speeches, that ever Christ copied out his institution of Baptism from the Jewish custome, or if he did, it is most evident both from the Commission Matth. 28.19. and from all the practise in the New Testament, if he altered it in any thing 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 practise of Christ and his Apostles have been conformable to it, as far as to the controversie in hand he is or can bee 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 onelyonly 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 knowes 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, p. 840and 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 houshold at once, Acts 16.33. is not of it self 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 houshold, 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 practise he pretends no more then what hee had before cited by reference (but now sets down in words) viz. the affirmation of Mr. Selden. But I have already shewed 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 onelyonly 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 practise of baptism was not conformable to the Jewish custome: And for the other point, Mr. Seldens affirmation is in the judgement 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 successione in bona defuncti, c. 26. lib. 1. de successione in Pontificatu cap. 2. in which by his reference I guess he hath more …ully handled this point, yet do I imagin, 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 onelyonly circumcised according to the Jewish custome.

But the Dr. saith, But for the contrary, I propose these two testinies taken notice of by Mr. S. himself de Synedr. c. 3. out of Gemara Babylon. He wants the right of a Proselyte for ever, unless he be baptized and circumcised. Here Baptism and Circumcision are joyned together, as equally necessary to a Proselyte and that for ever. And Circumcision there is no doubt was to be received by every male, no… onelyonly at their first comming to the Church of the …ews, at their first Proselytism, but through all posterities, every child of a Proselyte p. 841that was not circumcised, became straightwayes no Proselyte. And then sure this conjunction of Baptism with Circumcision on these terms of equality, both of perpetual necessity to all Proselyte…, must needs extend the Baptism as well as the Circumcision, beyond the first Proselytes and their immediate children, to all their posterity that shall come from them afterwards, for to all those belonged Circumcision. So again in the same place, And if he be not baptized, hee remains a Pagan or Gentile; Here I shall ask whether the childe of a Proselyte who had been baptized in his infancy, were to be a Fagan for ever? I suppose it will be answered, no; And then by the force of that testimony of Gemara I conclude, therefore it must bee supposed that he was baptized, for else he would be a Pagan for ever.

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 for ever, not onelyonly 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 baptised. 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 baptised as circumcised, but this, that he that at his first Proselytism is onelyonly circumcised and not baptised, shall still want the right of a Proselyte as if he were not circumcised at all, till he be baptised 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 baptised, because so were their Fathers; and Rabbi J…shuah's that he was a Proselyte who was baptised and not circumcised, because so were their mothers; it is said, that the wise men nevertheless have pronounced, that if any have been baptised and not circumcised, or circumcised and not baptised, he is not a Proselyte till he is as well baptised 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 baptised in their own persons by vertue of the parents baptism, if they were not born before it.

The Dr. proceeds thus; Besides this two things I farther add, to remove all possible force of this suggestion; 1. that if it were granted in the full latitude wherein it is proposed, that the Jews baptized no other infants of Proselytes, but those whom they had at their first conversion; yet this would nothing profit Mr. T. For it were then obvious p. 842to affirm, that Christ who imitated the Jews in that, and so baptised the children of Christian Proselytes, did make some light change in this, 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, the reason though not the patte…n belonging equally to them as to the children of the first Proselytes, and the Jewish custome of baptizing their natives infants beeing fully home to it.

Answ. The Dr. having tried to prove the posterity of the Proseselytes born after their proselytism, to have been won… to bee 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 baptised 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 baptised the children of Christian Proselytes at their first conversion, which is manifestly false. 3. That the Iews 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, baptised all the posterity that should succeed them, and were born in the Church in their infancy also. Which is a palpable falshood, it being certain that Christ baptized none, nor appointed the baptizing of any Christians infants, and is against the Dr. For 1. if the custome were changed by Christ, then it was not the pattern. 2. The same proofs which shew a change in this, shew 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, sith 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 Iews infants after the giving of the Law was as before, sith 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 Christs pattern, but heaped up many mistakes, and some against himself.

2dly, saith he, that it being by all granted, that the children which the Proselytes had, at their first proselytism were baptized among the Jews; this is as evident a confutation of the Antipaedobaptist, and so of Mr. T. as it would if all their infants to all posterity were baptized; 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; And if any infants may and ought to be baptized, then are all their pretensions destroyed, whose onelyonly interest it is to evince, that no inf…nts most or may be baptised. And I hope this will be of some use to Mr. T. when he shall have considered it.

p. 843Answ. 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 custome; 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 Christs 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 finde it of no force to remove my suggestion, that my pretensions are not destroyed, but that he hath shewed 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 onelyonly 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 needfull 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 bee supposed to baptise 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 Councel of Neocaesare… can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis, viz. That foreign, 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, foreign proper or particular to her self, and belongs not to the childe in her womb, give the (foreign) the woman that is with child, and is then converted to the Faith, leave to be baptised when she pleases, supposing that the child which then she carries, shall, notwithstanding her baptism, then be its self baptised 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.

p. 844Answ.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 custome 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 The Jewish writers are the onelyonly competent witnesses in this thing] and proves all along this Chapter their custome by these very writers?

But let's heed his reason; the Jewish Drs. might resolve it upon another ground, the childs being one with the mother, and so the b…ptism needless to that child, which yet by the way (or rather out of the way) it seems they would have done, if they had not deemed the childe all one with the mother, and consequently other children must be supposed to be baptized.] So the Dr. upon an imaginary ground, of which he brings no proof or shew of proof, and a conjecture of his own, that seems to him but to none else, infers downright they must be supposed to baptise other children. It must be so, because foreign he is a Rabbin, Dr. chair, of the irrefragabilis Magister noster; if he say the right hand is the left we must say so too▪ But yet I am Joannes ad appositum, and think I have better cards to shew for my inference then Dr. H. for his▪ Mr. Selden who is also Joannes ad oppositum l. 2. de jure nat. &c. c. 4. p. 170. speaks not doubtfully like Dr. H. when he puts in hi… parenthesis (whether true or false) but cites Gema…. Babylon. ad Tit. Jabim. cap. 8. fol. 78. a and Maimonides halach Isuri bia. c. 13. Shulcan Aruch lib. Jore Dea cap. 268. b and having set down the Jewish Doctors resolution, that if a woman great with childe be made a Proselyte, and so received by baptism, her child needs not baptism;] he adds, nimirum ex co quod nata est foreign seu in sanctita…e matris aut foreign in ejus Judaismo (nam hisce sic ut untur vocibus) Proselyti seu matris conditionem induebat, that is, to wit because in as much as it was born in the holiness of the mother, or in her Judaism (for so they use these words) it put on the condition of the mother,] that is, was holy, or a Jew as the mother, and so needed not baptism, which plainly shews they counted not their children who were holy, or Jews born after the parents bap…ism to need baptism, and consequently did not bap…ize them. Nor doth the resolution of the Council of Neocaesarea any whit help the Doctour. For what consequence is in this, there were some Christians in the 4th▪ Century since Christ, who did imagine the mothers baptism might serve for the child, perhaps (for that's the Drs. conjecture onelyonly) because they thought the child and mother one, therefore the Jewish Drs. resolution is upon that ground, and to be limited to those onelyonly? And for the Drs. mention of the words of the Council, it is against himself, though imperfectly done; For 1. it supposeth, the mother that bears the child differs from the child, and her confession in Baptism is, foreign, proper or particular to her self, and belongs not to the childe in her womb;] Therefore according to the resolution of that Council in Baptism, the parent and childe are not one, nor the parents confession of faith stands p. 845for the child. 2. It expresly affirmeth two things which quite destroy Paedobaptists principles. 1. That in baptism she that bringeth forth communicates nothing to the child brought forth, therefore the parents faith or baptism communicates no priviledge, or right of baptism to the child. 2. That every ones free choise in confession is shewn or to be shewn in baptism; the…efore no child is to b… baptized according to that Councils determination, but upon its own confession out of free choise shewed or signified by it self. But of this Canon I have said something before. By this which is said i… appears how far the Dr. hath bin from giving a clear answer to the …gument, or examining any thing (as it was fi… he should and that rather he hath so handled this point, as if his study were like Protagoras in Gellius, to make a bad cause to seem good, or Anaxagoras to prove snow black.

…ect. 6. The Dr. writes thus; This grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mistake, I shall not need to attend his other instances of disparity, this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindicated, bein… sufficient to my pretensions, and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm, that the parallel holds any farther then Christ was please… it should, and of that we are to judge by what the Scriptures or ancient Church tels us was the practice of him o… his Apostles; For 1. the Jews I doubt not brought in many things of their own devising into this, as into other institutions of Gods, and the later Jews more, as of the Proselytes being so born again in baptism, that lying with his natural sister was no incest, and the like: And 2. Christ, I doubt not, changed the Jewish Oeconomy in many things, as in laying aside Circumcision, in commissionating his Disciples to baptize (and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop, and those to whom he should commit it. It is not lawful to baptize without the Bish…p, sai…h Ignatius, Ep ad Smyrn edit. Voss. p. 6.) whereas it was not among the Jews any part of the Priests office, any more then circumcision was; And so in many other particulars. But what is that to my pre…ensions, who affirm no more of the accordance betwixt the Jewish and Christian practice, then either by some indications in the Scrip…u…e it self, or by the Christian Fathers deductions from the Apostles times, appears to be meant by Christ, and practised by the Apostles▪ and then by the Jewish writers is as evident to have to have been in use among them. And this is all the return I need make to hi… fourt…en l…sser disparities, and all that he hath at large ende…vo…red to infer from the…, supp…sing and granting them all to be such.

Answ. Dr. H. had expresly asserted the …ewish custome 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 Christs institution, or in his or the Apostles practise, he calls a copy of their custome as the pattern, Letter of resol. qu. 4. §. 24. And what was the Jewish custome, he proves onelyonly from the Talmud, Gemara, Maimonides, or other Jewish writers▪ and says p. 27. they are the onelyonly 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 p. 846must be followed, and is in all, or else it ceaseth to be a pattern. Had Moses made that which was shewed him in the Mount his pattern, if he had onelyonly 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 womans coat is the pattern of a mans 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 Christs 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 tels us, was the practise 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, sith it can never be proved that they practised it or appointed it to be practised according to the Jewish custome. 2. The Dr. hath meerly abused h…s Reader, endeavouring 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 custome is disclaimed as a pattern, any farther then the Scriptures or ancient Church tell us was the practise 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 Christs 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 shew that Bishops were not such in late dayes 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 followes.

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 adjoyning 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 duety, 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 any more agreeable to the p. 847Jewish custome 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 Lords Prayer.

The Dr. adds. So parallel to the Court of three Israelites, by the confession or profession of whom (saith Maimonides) the infant was baptized, we have now not onelyonly the whole Church, in the presence of whom …tis publikely administred, and when more privately, yet in the presence of some Christians, who are afterwards, if there be any doubt, to testifie their knowledge to the Church; but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers, being themsel…es formerly baptized, do represent the Church, and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop, represents the Church also, meaning the Governors thereof.

Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tollerated, and been taken for currant Baptism, and the terming the Governours 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 bee 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 yeilded, this is not according to the Jewish custome, which required a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull 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; But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations, and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24. Chapter (as far as I am concerned in it) unless it bee to tell him that the Bishop… Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define, wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern, wherein not; (but as he cannot but know, if he had read the resolution of the 4th. Quaere) the practise of the Apostles of Christ, by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us, to which as I have reason to yeild all authority, so I finde the Canons and rituals as of this, so of all other Churches in the world (no one excepted) to b…ar perfect accordanc… therewith, in this particular of infant Baptism (though in other lesser particulars they differ, many among themselvs, and all from the Jewish pattern.) And this I hope is a competent ground of my action, and such as may justifi… it to any Christian Artist to bee according to rules of right reason, of meekness, and sound doctrine, and no work of passion, or prejudice, or singularity, or (as Mr. T. suggests) of the Drs. own pleasure, as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern.

Answ. 1. To call Cyprian, Augustine, &c. Fathers of the Church, which is elsewhere stiled their mother, is scarce consistent. 2. To yeeld all authority p. 848to the practise 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 onelyonly to the holy Scripture: they testifie sundry things as the Apostle practise, 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 privat baptism, in the use of sureties their mimical or fals 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 Augustines 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 justifie 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 hee makes the pa…tern as hee pleaseth, or the Bishops Canons order, let the Reader ju…ge by what is said, and that which followes.

Of this score, saith he, 'tis somewhat strange, which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of Baptism, in the name of the Father, and the …on, and the Holy Ghost; In …his one thing, saith he, which Christ did no… prescribe, nor did the Apostles, that we finde so conceive it, yet saith the Dr. Christs prescription must be indispensably used. In reply to this I shall not s…end much time to evidence this form to bee Christs prescription, if the express words a… his parting from the world, Matth. 28. …o ye the…fore, and …ach or receive …o disciplesh…p, all na…ons, baptizing them in the n…me of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy …host, be not a prescription o… Christs, and if the universal doctrine and continual practise of the whole Church through all times, be not testim…ny sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it …, and a competent ground of the indispensable continuing the use of it; I shall not hope to perswade with him, onelyonly I shall minde him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to S…rapion tom. p. 204. He that is no… baptized into the name of all three, receives nothing, remains empty and imperfect. For perfection is in the Trinity, no Baptism per… i… seems but that▪ And if …his will not yet suffice, I shall then onelyonly demand whether he can prod…ce …o express grounds from Christ or the Apostles, or the univ…rsal Church of God through all ag…, or from any one ancient Father for his denying Baptism to infan…s.

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 p. 849Name 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 bee 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 onelyonly 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 baptiz…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 onelyonly 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 bee somewhat st…nge in the Dr. And for the words of the Drs. Practic…l catech. l 6. §. 2. the words do shew 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 Christs appointment the baptized was to be d…pt in wa…e… ▪ i.e. according to the primitive ancient custome to bee put under wa…er, and said expresly be allowed of sprinkling, and yet varied from the J…wish pattern which requir…d immersion; and from Christs appointment (which though he propounded d…s…junctively, yet I knew it could …ot …e so understood) and from the primitive custome, and yet in another thing n…t so prescribed, will have it to be indispensably used, which shews his variableness.