The baptizing of infants revievved and defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes in his three last chapters of his book intituled Antipedobaptisme / by H. Hammond ...
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
1655
Approx. 325 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 59 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A45397
Wing H515A
ESTC R875
11875380
ocm 11875380
50200
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A45397)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50200)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 533:5)
The baptizing of infants revievved and defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes in his three last chapters of his book intituled Antipedobaptisme / by H. Hammond ...
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
[2], 108, [5] p.
Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston ...,
London :
1655.
Reproduction of original in Bristol Public Library, Bristol, England.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. -- Antipaedobaptism.
Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800.
2005-12 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2006-04 SPi Global
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2006-06 John Latta
Sampled and proofread
2006-06 John Latta
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2006-09 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
THE
BAPTIZING
OF
INFANTS
REVIEVVED
and
DEFENDED
from
the
Exceptions
OF
Mr.
TOMBES
,
In
his
three
last
CHAPTERS
of
his
Book
Intituled
ANTIPEDOBAPTISME
.
By
H.
Hammond
,
D.
D.
LONDON
,
Printed
by
J.
Flesher
,
for
Richard
Royston
at
the
Angel
in
Ivy
lane
.
1655.
THE
BAPTIZING
OF
INFANTS
Reviewed
and
Defended
.
The
Introduction
.
HAving
,
by
Gods
help
,
past
through
many
stadia
in
these
agones
,
and
therein
paid
some
degree
of
obedience
to
the
precept
of
Christ
,
Mat.
5.41
.
and
withall
to
S.
Peters
directions
of
rendring
an
account
of
the
Faith
which
is
in
us
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
even
to
him
that
most
unnecessarily
requires
it
;
There
is
yet
remaining
one
matter
of
discourse
,
wherein
some
seeming
ingagement
lyes
upon
me
,
occasioned
by
the
Resolution
of
the
4th
Quaere
,
concerning
Infant
Baptisme
;
For
to
this
Mr.
Jo
:
Tombes
hath
offered
some
answers
in
the
three
last
Chapters
of
his
Book
intitled
Antipaedobaptism
.
What
I
have
thought
meet
to
return
to
these
,
might
,
I
supposed
,
have
been
not
unfitly
annexed
by
way
of
appendage
to
that
of
Festivals
;
the
treatises
of
Festivals
and
Infant
Baptisme
being
so
neerly
conjoyned
in
the
first
draught
or
monogramme
,
that
the
defence
of
them
(
which
may
in
some
degree
passe
for
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
ought
incongruity
to
be
contrived
into
the
same
table
also
.
But
the
length
of
this
Answer
hath
disswaded
that
,
and
the
desire
that
the
Reader
may
have
no
taskes
imposed
on
him
but
by
his
own
choice
,
hath
advised
the
publishing
this
by
it self
,
with
some
hope
that
this
may
conclude
his
trouble
,
and
that
this
new
year
may
not
bring
me
so
many
occasions
of
such
contests
,
as
the
last
hath
done
.
CHAP.
I.
Of
Baptisme
among
the
Jewes
.
Sect.
I.
Probations
more
and
less
perfect
.
The
use
of
Circumcision
to
this
question
of
Paedobaptisme
.
As
also
of
Christ's
reception
of
children
.
Childrens
coming
and
believing
,
Mat.
18.
Children
sinners
.
THe
foundation
of
Mr.
Tombes's
returns
to
me
he
is
pleased
to
lay
in
some
words
,
which
he
hath
recited
out
of
§
.
23.
of
my
Resolution
of
the
4th
Quaere
,
where
I
say
,
that
there
is
no
need
of
laying
much
weight
on
this
,
or
any
the
like
more
imperfect
wayes
of
probation
,
the
whole
fabrick
being
sufficiently
supported
and
built
on
this
basis
(
the
customary
baptismes
among
the
Jewes
)
and
that
discernible
to
be
so
,
if
we
consider
it
first
negatively
,
then
positively
.
To
this
he
begins
his
Reply
with
these
words
,
I
like
the
Doctors
ingenuity
in
his
waving
the
imperfect
wayes
of
proving
Infant
Baptisme
,
viz.
the
example
of
circumcision
,
Gen.
17.
of
baptizing
a
whole
houshold
,
Act.
16.33
.
Christs
reception
of
little
children
,
Mat.
19.14
.
Mar.
10.16
.
and
doubt
not
to
shew
his
own
to
be
no
better
then
those
he
relinquisheth
.
To
this
introduction
of
his
I
shall
make
some
Reply
in
a
generall
reflexion
on
the
Treatise
which
he
undertakes
to
answer
,
and
begin
with
disclaiming
his
good
words
and
approbation
of
my
ingenuity
,
assuring
him
that
he
is
wholly
mistaken
in
these
his
first
lines
and
that
I
do
in
no
wise
relinquish
those
wayes
of
probation
by
him
taken
notice
of
,
nor
shall
so
far
despise
the
authority
and
aides
of
the
ancient
Church
writers
,
who
have
made
use
of
them
,
as
wholly
to
neglect
the
force
and
virtue
of
them
.
And
I
thought
it
had
been
to
him
visible
,
that
I
have
made
my
advantage
of
every
one
of
them
§
.
20
,
21
,
22.
though
I
do
verily
think
the
foundation
of
this
practice
is
more
fitly
laid
in
that
other
of
Jewish
Baptisme
,
which
belonged
to
all
,
both
Jews
,
and
proselytes
children
,
females
as
well
as
males
,
whereas
circumcision
belonging
to
males
onely
,
was
in
that
and
some
other
respects
a
less
perfect
basis
of
it
.
Meanwhile
,
for
the
clearing
of
this
whole
matter
,
it
must
be
remembred
that
probations
are
of
two
sorts
,
either
less
or
more
perfect
,
those
I
call
less
perfect
,
which
though
they
have
full
force
in
them
,
as
far
as
they
are
used
,
yet
are
not
of
so
large
an
extent
as
to
conclude
the
whole
matter
in
debate
,
which
others
that
are
more
perfect
may
be
able
to
do
.
I
shall
apply
this
to
the
matter
before
us
.
The
instituting
of
the
Sacrament
of
circumcision
among
the
Jewes
,
and
the
express
command
of
God
that
the
children
of
eight
daies
old
should
by
this
rite
be
received
into
Covenant
,
is
an
irrefragable
evidence
that
those
may
be
capable
of
receiving
a
Sacrament
,
who
have
not
attained
to
years
of
understanding
the
nature
of
it
,
that
children
may
be
received
into
Covenant
with
God
though
they
are
not
personally
able
to
undertake
or
performe
the
condition
of
it
,
and
then
that
argument
will
so
far
be
applicable
to
Paedobaptisme
,
as
to
evidence
the
lawfulness
and
fitness
of
it
among
Christians
,
by
this
analogie
with
God's
institution
among
the
Jewes
,
and
so
certainly
invalidate
all
the
arguments
of
the
Antipaedobaptist
(
i.
e.
of
Mr.
Tombes
)
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
,
it
is
yet
evident
to
be
the
appointment
of
God
that
every
Infant
of
8.
days
old
should
be
circumcised
,
Gen.
17.12
.
and
the
threatning
of
God
denounced
against
them
as
transgressors
in
case
it
be
neglected
,
The
uncircumcised
manchild
shall
be
cut
off
from
his
people
,
he
hath
broken
my
covenant
,
v.
14.
And
this
the
rather
,
because
the
Apostle
compares
baptisme
of
Christians
with
circumcision
,
Col.
2.11.12
.
In
whom
ye
are
circumcised
—
buried
with
Christ
in
baptisme
,
Isidor
Pelusiote
,
l.
1.
Ep.
125.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Jews
used
circumcision
in
stead
of
baptisme
,
whereupon
S.
Epiphanius
styles
Baptisme
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
great
circumcision
,
and
S.
Augustine
to
them
that
require
a
divine
authority
,
whereby
to
prove
the
baptisme
of
Infants
,
renders
this
of
the
*
Jewish
circumcision
,
ex
quâ
veraciter
conjiciatur
quid
valeret
in
parvulis
Sacramentum
Baptismi
,
whereby
true
judgement
may
be
made
what
force
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
may
have
in
Infants
.
And
in
like
manner
Isidore
l.
1.
Ep.
125.
whereupon
consideration
of
the
Angel
coming
,
to
kill
Moses
because
of
the
childs
not
being
circumcised
,
he
concludes
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Let
us
make
haste
to
baptize
our
children
.
Yet
because
what
is
thus
evidenced
to
be
lawfull
,
and
agreeable
to
divine
appointment
in
the
old
Testament
,
is
not
thereby
presently
proved
necessary
under
the
New
(
Christ
might
otherwise
have
ordained
,
if
he
had
pleased
,
and
from
his
ordinance
onely
,
as
that
was
understood
by
his
Apostles
and
by
them
delivered
to
the
Church
,
the
necessity
of
our
obedience
,
and
so
of
Baptizing
Infants
,
is
completely
deduced
)
therefore
it
is
,
that
I
mentioned
this
,
as
a
more
imperfect
way
of
probation
,
in
respect
of
the
intire
conclusion
,
which
I
undertook
to
make
,
viz.
not
onely
the
lawfulness
,
but
the
duty
and
obligation
,
that
lies
upon
us
to
bring
our
Infants
to
Baptisme
;
which
by
the
way
,
was
much
more
then
was
necessary
(
the
shewing
the
lawfulness
being
sufficient
,
and
the
example
of
circumcision
being
competent
)
for
the
disproving
the
pretensions
of
the
Antipaedobaptist
,
and
so
,
ex
abundanti
,
an
act
of
Supererogatory
probation
,
in
relation
to
Mr.
T.
The
same
is
appliable
in
some
degree
to
the
other
waies
of
probation
,
which
he
supposeth
to
be
relinquisht
by
me
,
especially
to
that
of
Christ's
behaviour
to
little
children
,
commanding
to
suffer
them
to
come
unto
him
(
who
yet
were
no
otherwise
able
to
come
then
as
they
were
brought
,
and
as
now
they
come
to
the
font
for
baptisme
)
and
embracing
and
laying
on
his
hands
and
blessing
them
:
But
this
is
competently
set
down
,
and
the
force
of
it
,
how
far
t
is
argumentative
,
§
22.
Onely
I
now
adde
,
that
that
other
place
of
Mat.
18.6
.
where
Jesus
speaking
of
little
children
,
useth
these
words
,
who
so
offendeth
one
of
these
little
ones
that
believe
in
me
,
it
were
good
for
him
that
a
Milstone
&c.
may
tend
much
to
give
us
the
full
importance
and
signification
both
of
their
coming
to
Christ
,
and
of
his
commanding
not
to
forbid
them
(
such
as
will
neerly
concern
every
Antipaedobaptist
to
take
notice
of
)
For
as
in
other
places
of
the
New
Testament
,
the
coming
unto
God
and
Christ
,
is
believing
on
him
,
seeking
to
receive
benefit
from
him
(
as
,
He
that
cometh
to
me
shall
never
hunger
,
and
Come
unto
me
all
ye
that
are
weary
,
and
If
any
man
thirst
let
him
come
unto
me
and
drink
)
so
,
it
seems
,
by
this
place
,
that
that
coming
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
little
Infants
(
for
so
they
are
called
in
the
Parallel
place
Luk.
9.47
.
)
which
they
were
capable
of
by
the
help
of
their
parents
or
friends
,
is
styled
by
Christ
the
childrens
believing
,
and
so
far
imputed
to
them
,
as
that
upon
that
account
the
sentence
is
very
severe
upon
those
that
shall
scandalize
them
,
repulse
or
discourage
,
or
any
way
hinder
them
in
this
their
progress
to
Christ
,
though
it
be
but
in
the
armes
of
other
men
.
How
fitly
this
is
applicable
to
the
state
of
Infants
,
in
respect
of
the
guilt
of
original
sin
,
under
which
they
are
born
,
and
for
the
remission
of
which
(
and
not
onely
for
the
entring
into
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
)
the
Fathers
defined
against
the
Pelagians
,
that
baptisme
was
necessary
for
them
,
I
shall
not
need
here
to
inlarge
,
having
formerly
spoken
to
that
head
.
Onely
it
may
not
be
amiss
here
to
advert
,
that
it
was
as
reasonable
for
the
children
to
be
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
believers
,
who
yet
had
no
faith
of
their
own
,
but
onely
of
their
parents
&c.
to
bring
them
to
Christ
,
as
for
the
same
children
to
be
accounted
sinners
(
as
undoubtedly
they
are
)
which
yet
never
committed
any
act
of
sin
,
which
made
S.
Augustine
De
verb
:
Apost
:
Serm
:
4.
say
,
Absit
ut
ego
dicam
non
credentes
infantes
,
God
forbid
that
I
should
say
that
Infants
are
not
believers
,
Credit
in
altero
,
qui
peccavit
in
altero
,
He
believes
by
another
who
sinned
by
another
,
dicitur
,
Credit
,
&
valet
,
&
inter
fideles
baptizatos
computatur
,
the
Susceptors
say
he
believes
,
and
so
he
is
reputed
among
the
baptized
believers
.
And
this
reputative
faith
the
more
reasonably
accepted
by
the
Church
,
it
being
moreover
evident
by
the
baptisme
of
Simon
Magus
,
and
of
all
hypocrites
,
that
't
is
the
profession
of
faith
,
and
not
the
possession
of
it
,
which
is
required
as
the
qualification
which
authorizes
the
Church
to
admit
them
to
baptisme
;
and
that
being
performed
by
the
Infants
proxies
in
his
name
,
the
Church
after
the
forementioned
example
of
Christ
,
may
very
lawfully
accept
it
of
those
,
who
can
performe
no
other
,
in
lieu
of
a
personal
profession
.
Meanwhile
this
passage
of
Christ
concerning
children
,
though
it
be
a
certain
evidence
again
against
the
Antipaedobaptist
,
as
hath
been
shewed
,
and
I
need
no
more
then
this
one
proof
,
if
I
were
destitute
of
all
others
,
to
refute
his
pretensions
,
yet
because
it
contains
no
relation
of
Christs
,
or
his
Apostles
baptizing
infants
,
therefore
I
put
it
in
the
rank
of
the
more
imperfect
probations
(
in
comparison
with
that
other
way
of
probation
,
which
I
conceive
,
deduceth
and
concludeth
the
whole
matter
more
intirely
)
though
,
as
t
is
evident
§
.
22.
this
was
neither
waved
nor
relinquisht
by
me
.
To
this
if
I
shall
now
adde
,
that
it
was
my
design
in
that
resolution
of
the
Quaere
to
insist
more
largely
on
that
way
of
probation
,
which
I
discerned
to
be
lesse
considered
or
insisted
on
by
others
,
and
yet
to
have
perfect
evidence
in
it
,
if
it
were
duely
explained
and
improved
as
it
was
capable
,
and
on
the
same
account
thought
I
might
spare
to
multiply
words
,
where
others
had
often
inlarged
,
and
therefore
said
but
little
of
those
common
arguments
or
heads
of
probation
,
and
yet
sufficient
to
testifie
my
neither
waving
nor
relinquishing
them
,
It
will
then
abundantly
appear
,
how
little
I
deserved
Mr.
T.
his
good
words
,
and
how
justly
I
renounce
that
title
to
ingenuity
which
he
bestowes
upon
me
,
being
better
pleased
with
his
animadversions
on
my
dotages
,
as
he
after
phraseth
it
,
then
these
,
his
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
his
liberalities
to
me
by
which
he
designed
advantage
to
himself
.
Sect.
2.
The
necessity
of
Paedobaptisme
depending
on
the
positive
part
of
the
probation
.
The
severall
sorts
of
Anabaptists
.
Testimonies
the
onely
proof
of
Institutions
.
BEfore
I
proceed
I
must
desire
the
Reader
to
consider
two
things
,
1.
That
the
Jewish
baptisme
is
not
by
me
set
up
as
the
competent
proof
,
but
onely
as
the
ground
or
foundation
(
which
taken
by
its
self
is
always
very
imperfect
in
respect
of
the
whole
fabrick
or
building
,
)
2.
That
the
perfect
proof
being
set
down
to
consist
of
two
parts
,
a
negative
and
a
positive
,
the
first
onely
shewing
the
no
incongruity
or
unlawfulness
of
baptizing
Infants
,
and
the
second
adding
thereto
duty
and
obligation
,
these
two
must
in
all
reason
remain
conjoyned
in
our
discourse
,
and
not
be
so
severed
,
or
considered
asunder
,
as
if
I
thought
the
former
way
of
negative
probation
sufficient
to
do
the
whole
work
without
the
assistance
of
the
latter
;
This
I
needed
not
have
said
in
relation
to
Mr.
T.
For
the
bare
negative
consideration
(
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
pattern
whence
Christs
baptisme
is
copied
out
,
nothing
in
the
copie
it self
,
as
far
as
Christ's
words
in
the
Gospel
,
or
the
Apostles
practice
extend
,
&c.
)
is
perfectly
sufficient
to
refute
an
antipaedobaptist
(
such
as
he
professeth
to
be
)
who
undertakes
to
shew
the
baptizing
of
Infants
to
be
unlawfull
,
but
cannot
pretend
to
shew
it
by
any
other
way
,
but
by
producing
some
either
law
or
practice
of
Christ
or
his
Apostles
to
the
contrary
,
which
he
must
be
concluded
unable
to
do
,
if
my
Negative
stand
inviolate
▪
But
I
thus
interpose
(
and
do
it
thus
early
)
because
the
positive
part
,
being
indeed
the
principal
,
especially
when
it
is
also
added
to
the
negative
,
doth
not
onely
demonstrate
it
lawfull
,
but
duty
,
to
offer
and
receive
our
Infants
to
baptisme
,
the
judgement
and
practice
of
the
Vniversal
Church
for
1600
years
,
(
received
,
as
the
Fathers
with
one
consent
testifie
,
from
the
Apostles
,
as
the
will
of
Christ
himself
)
having
this
force
and
authority
over
every
meek
son
of
the
Church
,
that
he
may
not
without
incurring
God's
displeasure
,
oppugne
or
contemne
it
.
And
so
by
this
means
there
is
much
more
performed
then
was
needful
,
if
Mr.
T.
had
been
the
onely
adversary
foreseen
,
even
that
which
may
convince
all
sorts
of
opposers
and
disputers
in
this
matter
,
from
*
Peter
de
Bruce
and
Henry
his
Scholar
,
and
the
Petrobusiani
and
Henriciani
that
sprang
from
them
,
to
Nicholas
Storck
and
John
Munzer
,
Melchior
Rinck
,
Balthazar
Habmaier
,
Michael
Satelar
the
Switzers
,
and
so
on
to
Michael
Hofman
the
skinner
in
the
Low
Countries
,
to
Vbbo
and
Menno
of
Friseland
,
and
Theodorick
Vbbo's
son
,
and
all
their
followers
,
which
either
then
lived
,
and
set
up
in
Germany
,
or
are
now
revived
,
or
copied
out
among
us
;
This
one
deduction
of
this
practice
(
of
baptizing
Infants
)
from
the
Apostles
,
if
it
be
solid
,
being
abundantly
sufficient
to
make
an
end
of
all
controversies
of
this
kind
,
It
being
highly
unreasonable
that
an
institution
of
Christ's
,
such
as
each
Sacrament
is
,
should
be
judged
of
by
any
other
rule
(
whether
the
phansies
or
reasons
of
men
)
but
either
the
words
wherein
the
institution
is
set
down
,
or
(
when
they
,
as
they
are
recorded
in
the
Scripture
,
come
not
home
to
the
deciding
of
the
controversie
)
by
the
records
of
the
practice
,
whether
of
Christ
,
or
(
because
he
baptized
not
himself
)
of
the
Apostles
,
however
conserved
or
made
known
unto
us
.
In
a
word
then
,
the
customary
baptisme
among
the
Jews
being
first
laid
onely
as
the
basis
and
foundation
(
which
,
as
I
said
,
must
be
observed
to
differ
from
the
whole
building
,
being
indeed
onely
,
the
first
and
most
imperfect
part
of
it
)
and
evidently
brought
home
and
applied
to
every
branch
of
the
Christian
baptisme
,
I
desire
Mr.
T.
will
permit
the
baptisme
of
our
infants
to
deduce
and
evidence
it self
from
the
considerations
,
which
are
thereunto
annexed
,
both
negative
and
positive
,
and
then
make
triall
how
he
shall
be
able
to
demolish
that
structure
which
is
thus
founded
and
supported
;
Meanwhile
I
shall
now
consider
the
severals
of
his
exceptions
,
having
premised
thus
much
in
generall
.
Sect.
3.
The
Jewes
Baptisme
of
natives
as
well
as
proselytes
.
Testimonies
of
their
writers
in
proof
thereof
.
Baptisme
among
the
heathens
taken
from
the
Jewes
.
Among
both
from
Noahs
flood
.
The
derivation
of
Christian
from
Jewish
Baptisme
how
manifested
.
Christs
answer
to
Nicodemus
.
Baptisme
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
deluge
.
Gr.
Nazianzen's
and
Macarius's
testimonies
.
The
Fathers
meaning
in
affirming
the
Christians
baptisme
to
be
in
stead
of
Circumcision
.
The
Lords
Supper
founded
in
the
Jewes
Postcoenium
,
yet
in
stead
of
their
Passeover
.
AND
first
he
will
abbreviate
and
give
the
Reader
the
substance
of
my
proof
,
which
he
conceives
to
be
this
,
that
the
Jewes
were
wont
when
they
admitted
proselytes
to
baptize
them
and
their
children
.
Here
again
at
the
entrance
I
must
enterpose
,
that
his
Epitome
hath
done
some
injurie
to
the
Book
,
left
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
children
.
This
must
be
here
taken
notice
of
,
because
Mr.
T.
makes
haste
to
assume
the
contrary
,
that
the
Jewes
baptized
not
Iewes
by
nature
,
p.
306.
that
after
the
baptisme
Exo.
19.10
.
the
Iews
did
not
baptize
Iewes
but
onely
proselytes
,
p.
307.
and
so
makes
a
shift
to
conclude
,
that
by
my
arguing
,
the
children
of
those
that
were
baptized
in
infancie
ought
not
to
be
baptized
,
and
so
that
no
infant
of
Christian
race
,
or
descended
from
Christian
ancestors
,
is
now
to
be
baptized
,
p.
308.
no
infants
but
at
the
first
conversion
of
the
parent
,
p.
309.
And
this
I
was
many
moneths
before
the
publication
of
his
book
,
warned
to
expect
from
Mr.
T.
as
an
irresistible
answer
to
my
way
of
defending
infant
baptisme
,
mentioned
by
him
in
the
pulpit
,
as
ready
to
be
publisht
,
that
by
deducing
the
baptisme
of
Christians
from
the
Jewish
custome
of
baptizing
of
proselytes
I
had
excluded
all
the
children
of
Christian
ancestors
from
our
baptisme
.
But
as
this
was
then
a
great
surprise
to
me
,
who
knew
that
I
had
cleared
that
Iudaical
baptisme
to
belong
to
the
children
of
all
native
Iewes
,
as
well
as
of
proselytes
,
so
now
I
could
not
but
wonder
to
find
there
was
so
perfect
truth
in
that
relation
,
which
I
had
received
,
and
have
no
more
to
say
,
but
to
desire
the
Reader
to
cast
his
eyes
upon
that
Treatise
,
and
informe
himself
whether
I
have
not
as
punctually
deduced
from
the
Iewish
writers
the
customary
baptisme
of
native
Iewish
infants
,
as
I
have
done
the
baptisme
of
proselytes
and
their
children
,
and
indeed
mentioned
the
former
as
the
original
from
which
the
latter
was
to
be
transcribed
,
and
so
as
the
foundation
and
groundwork
of
that
other
.
T
is
unreasonable
to
recite
here
what
is
there
so
visible
,
yet
because
I
see
it
is
not
taken
notice
of
,
but
the
contrary
assumed
for
granted
,
and
the
chief
weight
of
his
24th
Chapter
laid
upon
that
supposition
,
there
is
nothing
left
me
to
do
in
this
matter
,
but
to
transcribe
my
words
from
that
6th
§
.
which
are
expressely
these
:
First
then
,
Baptisme
or
washing
of
the
whole
body
was
a
Iewish
solemnity
,
by
which
the
native
Iewes
were
entred
into
the
covenant
of
God
made
with
them
by
Moses
,
so
saith
the
Talmud
tr
:
Repud
:
Israel
or
the
Israelites
do
not
enter
into
covenant
but
by
these
three
things
,
by
circumcision
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
by
baptizing
,
and
by
peace
offering
.
So
in
Gemara
ad
tit
.
Cherithoth
,
c.
2.
your
fathers
,
i.
e.
the
Iewes
of
old
time
did
not
enter
into
the
covenant
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
by
circumcision
and
baptisme
,
and
in
Iabimoth
,
c.
4.
Rabbi
Ioshua
said
,
we
find
of
our
mother
that
they
were
baptized
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
and
not
circumcised
,
so
Maimonides
tit
:
Isuribia
,
c.
13.
By
three
things
the
Israelites
entred
into
the
covenant
,
by
circumcision
,
baptisme
and
sacrifice
,
and
soon
after
,
what
was
done
to
you
,
to
the
Iewes
in
universum
,
ye
were
initiated
into
the
Covenant
by
circumcision
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
baptisme
and
sacrifice
.
All
these
Testimonies
there
thus
set
down
,
and
then
how
could
I
conclude
lesse
then
there
I
do
,
that
nothing
can
be
more
clearly
affirmed
by
them
,
i.
e.
by
the
Jewish
writings
of
the
greatest
authority
among
them
,
the
Talmud
,
Gemara
,
and
Maimonides
?
If
this
were
not
sufficient
,
then
follows
§
11.
as
a
third
thing
observable
in
this
baptisme
among
the
Jewes
,
that
the
baptisme
of
the
natives
was
the
pattern
,
by
which
the
baptisme
of
proselytes
was
regulated
,
and
wherein
it
was
founded
,
and
this
made
evident
by
the
arguing
,
and
determining
the
question
,
in
the
Gemara
,
tit
:
Jabimoth
,
c.
4.
after
this
manner
,
Of
him
that
was
circumcised
and
not
baptized
Rabbi
Eliezer
said
that
he
was
a
Proselyte
,
because
,
said
he
,
we
find
of
our
Fathers
(
Abraham
Isaac
—
)
that
they
were
circumcised
but
not
baptized
;
And
of
him
that
was
baptized
and
not
circumcised
Rabbi
Josua
said
,
he
was
a
proselyte
,
because
said
he
,
we
find
of
our
mothers
that
they
were
baptized
and
not
circumcised
:
But
the
wise
men
pronounced
that
till
he
were
baptized
and
circumcised
he
was
not
a
proselyte
,
where
the
example
of
the
Jewes
is
the
rule
by
which
the
obligation
of
the
proselytes
is
measured
.
And
the
same
is
evident
by
the
reason
rendred
by
the
Jewish
writers
of
their
baptizing
the
proselytes
,
which
is
generally
taken
by
them
from
that
command
,
Numb
.
15.15
.
One
ordinance
shall
be
both
for
you
of
the
congregation
,
and
also
for
the
stranger
(
i.
e.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
proselyte
)
that
sojourneth
with
you
,
an
ordinance
for
ever
in
your
generations
,
as
ye
are
,
so
shall
the
stranger
be
before
the
Lord
,
one
law
and
one
manner
(
i.
e
,
one
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
one
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Luke
1.6
.
one
Law
for
moral
duties
,
and
one
ordinance
for
rituals
or
ceremonies
)
shall
be
for
you
and
for
the
stranger
that
sojourneth
with
you
.
Thus
the
Gemara
tit
:
Cherithoth
,
c.
2.
foundeth
the
circumcising
and
baptizing
of
proselytes
,
upon
those
words
,
As
to
you
,
so
shall
it
be
to
the
proselyte
.
So
Maimonides
tit
:
Isuri
bia
,
c.
13.
In
like
manner
through
all
ages
as
oft
as
a
Gentile
will
enter
into
the
Covenant
,
and
receive
the
yoke
of
the
Law
upon
him
,
it
was
necessary
that
circumcision
and
baptisme
should
be
used
for
him
,
beside
sprinkling
of
the
sacrifice
,
and
if
it
were
a
woman
,
baptisme
and
sacrifice
,
According
as
it
is
said
(
Numb
.
15.15
.
)
as
to
you
,
so
also
to
the
proselytes
.
And
yet
farther
,
as
to
the
original
of
this
baptisme
among
the
Iewes
themselves
,
the
12.
§
.
out
of
their
writers
deduceth
it
from
the
time
of
giving
the
Law
in
Mount
Sinai
,
Exo.
19.10
.
when
God
,
to
prepare
them
for
the
receiving
it
,
commands
Moses
,
Go
to
the
people
and
sanctifie
them
to
day
and
to
morrow
,
and
let
them
wash
their
clothes
.
So
saith
Maimonides
Isuri
bia
,
c.
13.
But
baptisme
was
in
the
desart
before
the
giving
of
the
Law
,
according
as
it
is
said
,
Thou
shalt
sanctifie
them
—
And
that
agreeable
to
what
we
read
of
Jacob
to
his
household
,
Gen.
35.2
.
Put
away
the
strange
Gods
that
are
among
you
,
and
be
clean
and
change
your
garments
(
where
being
clean
is
answerable
to
being
sanctified
or
baptized
,
and
changing
to
washing
their
garments
)
so
that
as
the
covenant
made
with
Abraham
was
sealed
by
circumcision
,
so
the
giving
of
the
Law
which
was
the
Covenant
made
by
God
with
all
the
people
,
was
thought
to
be
sealed
by
baptisme
,
and
that
the
washing
,
if
not
of
the
whole
,
yet
of
some
parts
of
the
body
(
ordinarily
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sanctifications
)
and
the
washing
(
or
wearing
clean
)
garments
also
.
And
now
I
may
,
I
hope
,
assume
,
that
not
onely
there
is
perfect
truth
in
what
I
now
affirme
,
that
baptisme
among
the
Iewes
belonged
to
their
natives
as
well
as
to
proselytes
(
even
to
all
that
entred
into
the
Covenant
,
and
those
evidently
were
the
Iewish
children
as
well
as
men
)
but
also
that
this
had
before
been
evidenced
in
that
Resol
:
of
the
4th
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
he
would
omit
to
take
notice
of
it
,
but
assume
and
build
on
it
as
a
thing
yielded
and
granted
him
by
my
discourse
that
the
proselytes
onely
,
and
not
the
native
Jewes
were
partakers
of
that
Jewish
baptisme
.
This
sure
was
a
strange
infirmity
in
an
answer
,
and
that
which
must
needs
have
a
special
influence
upon
it
,
in
any
impartial
weighing
,
even
such
an
one
,
as
will
make
it
very
unnecessary
for
me
to
consider
any
of
his
other
considerations
which
he
hath
offered
in
that
matter
,
which
must
certainly
have
no
force
in
them
,
when
that
which
is
such
a
principal
part
of
my
arguing
is
so
perfectly
omitted
,
and
the
contrary
supposed
by
him
.
However
I
shall
not
refuse
to
attend
him
in
all
his
motions
,
and
inquire
whether
there
be
any
particular
pitcht
on
by
him
,
which
may
deserve
our
farther
consideration
,
in
order
to
the
point
in
hand
,
that
of
Infant
baptisme
among
Christians
.
And
1.
saith
he
,
Baptisme
,
it
seems
,
was
a
custome
of
all
nations
as
well
as
the
Jewes
,
citing
Grotius
for
it
on
Mat.
3.6
.
and
Mat.
28.19
.
Of
the
truth
of
this
observation
I
shall
raise
no
question
,
onely
I
wonder
what
he
could
phansie
from
thence
to
conclude
for
his
advantage
.
Certainly
he
will
not
hope
by
that
argument
to
evince
the
negative
,
that
it
was
not
used
among
the
Jewes
,
for
how
can
the
Gentiles
,
using
it
conclude
,
against
all
other
evidence
,
that
the
Jewes
did
not
use
it
?
Nor
can
he
pretend
that
Christ
transcribed
it
from
those
Gentiles
,
and
not
from
the
Jewes
:
for
Christ
preaching
,
as
he
was
sent
,
to
the
lost
sheep
of
the
house
of
Israel
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
them
first
,
Act.
3.26
.
and
if
not
to
them
onely
,
yet
in
a
far
more
eminent
manner
to
them
then
to
any
others
,
and
accordingly
adapting
his
Reformation
to
the
Iewish
Religion
,
and
lightly
deducing
so
many
other
customes
from
the
Iewes
,
and
none
from
the
Gentiles
,
can
with
no
probability
be
conceived
to
deduce
this
from
the
Gentiles
,
rather
then
from
the
Iewes
,
especially
when
(
as
Clement
observes
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
heathens
borrowed
or
stole
both
their
learning
,
and
their
custome
from
the
Iewes
,
so
)
it
is
very
obvious
to
imagine
,
that
this
of
baptisme
,
purgations
and
lustrations
might
by
those
heathens
be
borrowed
from
the
Iewes
,
at
least
by
both
of
them
be
derived
from
the
same
common
fountain
,
the
sonnes
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.
Peter
alludes
in
making
baptisme
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
Noah's
stood
(
as
he
hath
himself
cited
it
out
of
Grotius
,
)
and
so
in
like
manner
some
of
the
Fathers
,
as
Athanasius
,
in
his
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Tom.
2.
p.
426.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
first
baptisme
is
that
of
the
deluge
for
the
excision
of
sinnes
.
And
if
neither
of
these
be
hence
deducible
,
that
it
matters
little
what
else
he
can
design
to
infer
from
it
.
And
so
sure
there
was
some
want
of
answers
,
when
this
(
so
nothing
to
the
matter
on
either
side
)
was
thought
fit
to
march
in
the
front
of
them
.
Under
this
head
of
answer
,
he
presently
addes
,
that
he
doth
not
know
that
Dr.
H.
or
any
other
hath
alleged
one
passage
in
Scripture
,
or
any
of
the
Fathers
,
that
might
evince
that
the
custome
of
baptizing
,
or
baptizing
infants
was
derived
from
the
Iewes
initiating
proselytes
by
baptisme
.
To
this
I
answer
,
1.
By
asking
Mr.
T.
whether
he
be
ready
to
pay
that
reverence
to
the
authority
of
the
Fathers
,
as
to
be
concluded
by
their
affirmations
?
If
he
be
,
I
wonder
why
the
uniforme
consent
of
them
,
that
infants
are
to
be
baptized
,
should
not
prevaile
with
him
:
If
he
be
not
,
why
doth
he
mention
this
as
usefull
in
this
matter
?
But
then
2dly
.
It
must
be
adverted
,
that
this
one
containing
two
quaestions
in
it
,
1.
Whether
this
of
initiating
into
the
Covenant
by
baptisme
were
a
Jewish
custome
?
2.
Whether
from
thence
Christ
derived
this
rite
of
baptizing
of
Christians
?
The
former
of
these
was
that
which
alone
required
proving
the
latter
being
of
it self
evident
,
without
farther
probation
,
supposing
onely
that
the
Fathers
testified
that
to
be
Christ's
institution
of
baptisme
,
which
we
find
to
have
been
thus
agreeable
to
the
practice
customary
among
the
Jews
.
As
for
example
,
if
it
were
made
matter
of
doubt
or
question
,
whether
Christ
derived
the
Censures
of
his
Church
from
the
Jews
,
It
will
sure
be
a
sufficient
answer
to
the
question
,
if
wee
shall
first
find
in
the
Jewish
writers
their
customes
of
Excommunication
,
and
then
from
the
Christian
writers
find
the
like
records
of
the
Christian
custome
,
from
the
institution
of
Christ
,
and
the
practice
of
his
Apostles
〈◊〉
down
unto
us
;
For
those
two
things
being
done
,
what
need
we
any
Father's
assistance
or
guidance
,
to
secure
us
,
that
Christ
derived
,
and
lightly
changed
this
custome
of
Ecclesiasticall
censures
in
his
Church
,
from
what
he
found
in
the
Jewish
Sanhedrim
?
In
this
matter
't
is
easy
and
obvious
to
object
(
as
M.
T.
here
doth
about
baptisme
)
that
excommunication
was
a
custome
among
other
nations
,
as
well
as
the
Jews
,
the
description
of
it
among
the
Druids
in
Cesar's
Commentaries
being
so
famous
and
notorious
to
every
man
:
which
yet
will
not
sure
prevaile
with
any
reasonable
man
,
or
make
it
necessary
to
produce
the
testimonies
whether
of
Scriptures
or
Fathers
,
that
Christ
took
it
not
from
the
Druids
but
the
Jewes
.
The
like
might
be
instanced
again
in
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
in
the
Jews
postcoenium
,
from
which
it
is
by
light
change
deduced
.
And
so
it
is
in
this
matter
of
baptisme
,
the
Jewish
custome
of
baptizing
(
not
onely
proselytes
and
their
children
,
but
the
Jewish
natives
)
I
thought
necessary
to
clear
from
the
most
competent
witnesses
of
their
customes
,
the
Talmud
,
Gemara
,
and
Maimonides
,
the
soberest
of
their
writers
;
And
so
likewise
in
the
second
place
,
the
practice
of
the
Christian
Church
,
as
it
is
from
Christ
and
his
Apostles
deduced
,
and
applied
particularly
to
the
Resolution
of
our
Quaere
,
to
the
baptizing
of
Infants
,
I
have
cleared
also
from
some
footsteps
of
it
in
the
Scripture
it self
,
and
from
the
concordant
testimony
of
the
Fathers
of
the
Church
.
And
having
cleared
these
two
particulars
,
wherein
all
the
difficulty
consisted
,
I
need
not
sure
inquire
of
the
opinion
of
antiquity
for
the
dependence
betwixt
these
two
,
or
the
derivation
of
one
of
them
from
the
other
,
the
very
lineaments
and
features
acknowledging
and
owning
this
progenie
to
have
come
forth
from
that
stock
,
this
stream
to
have
been
derived
from
that
fountain
,
without
any
testimonials
to
certifie
it
.
And
yet
3dly
.
After
all
this
,
I
demand
whether
Christ's
words
to
Nicodemus
,
Joh.
3.
mentioned
§
.
18.
be
not
an
evidence
from
Scripture
it self
of
this
very
matter
,
the
derivation
of
the
Christian
from
the
Jewish
baptisme
;
when
upon
Christs
discourse
on
that
subject
,
that
except
a
man
be
regenerate
of
water
and
of
the
spirit
,
he
cannot
enter
into
the
kingdome
of
God
,
and
on
occasion
of
Nicodemus's
objection
against
this
v.
9.
Iesus
answered
,
Art
thou
a
master
in
Israel
,
and
knowest
not
these
things
?
discernibly
intimating
that
this
his
institution
of
baptisme
was
so
agreeable
to
the
Iewish
customes
of
initiating
,
and
receiving
into
the
Covenant
by
baptisme
,
that
a
Rabbi
among
the
Iews
could
not
reasonably
be
imagined
to
be
ignorant
of
it
.
And
if
the
baptisme
of
the
Iews
had
(
as
Mr.
T.
cites
it
out
of
Grotius
)
its
first
original
from
the
memorie
of
the
deluge
purging
away
the
sins
of
the
world
,
then
sure
that
place
of
S.
Peter
which
affirms
the
Christian
baptisme
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
antitype
or
transcript
of
Noah's
deluge
,
is
an
express
testimony
of
it
also
.
And
this
I
hope
might
be
a
competent
account
of
this
matter
.
And
yet
after
all
this
,
it
is
also
clear
,
that
the
Fathers
in
their
discourses
of
baptisme
do
ordinarily
lay
the
foundation
of
it
in
Moses
,
or
the
baptisme
of
the
Iews
;
witness
Gregory
Nazianzen
Or.
39.
Seeing
,
saith
he
,
it
is
the
feast
of
Christ's
baptisme
,
let
us
philosophize
,
discourse
exactly
of
the
difference
of
baptismes
,
then
after
this
preface
entring
on
the
discourse
,
he
thus
begins
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Moses
,
saith
he
,
baptized
but
in
water
,
and
before
this
in
the
cloud
and
in
the
sea
,
And
then
making
that
(
with
S.
Paul
)
a
type
of
the
Christian
baptisme
,
he
proceeds
to
Iohn's
baptisme
,
which
,
saith
he
,
differed
from
the
Mosaical
,
in
that
it
added
Repentance
to
water
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Iohn
also
baptized
,
but
not
Iudaically
.
So
before
him
,
Macarius
Hom.
32.
having
mentioned
the
circumcision
which
was
under
the
Law
foresignifying
the
true
circumcision
of
the
heart
,
annexes
thereto
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
baptisme
of
the
Law
,
which
saith
he
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
a
figure
of
true
things
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
there
that
washed
the
body
,
but
here
the
baptisme
of
the
holy
Ghost
and
of
fire
purgeth
and
washeth
the
polluted
mind
,
and
so
goes
on
to
the
parallel
betwixt
the
legall
Priest
and
Christ
,
making
the
same
accord
betwixt
the
one
and
the
other
pair
,
So
Hom.
47.
p.
509.
speaking
of
things
under
the
Law
,
he
first
mentions
the
glory
of
Moses
face
,
a
type
of
the
true
glory
under
the
Gospel
.
2.
Circumcision
,
a
type
of
that
of
the
heart
;
3.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
saith
he
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
among
them
there
is
baptisme
cleansing
or
sanctifying
the
flesh
,
but
with
us
the
baptisme
of
the
holy
Spirit
and
of
fire
,
that
which
John
preached
—
The
same
is
intimated
again
,
but
not
so
explicitely
set
down
Hom.
26.
p.
349.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Peter
succeeded
Moses
,
having
the
New
Church
of
Christ
and
the
true
Priesthood
committed
to
him
,
for
now
is
the
baptisme
of
fire
and
the
Spirit
,
and
a
kind
of
circumcision
placed
in
the
heart
,
where
it
seems
the
Iewish
baptisme
was
the
figure
of
the
Christian
,
as
the
J●wish
priesthood
of
the
Christian
,
and
the
Jewish
circumcision
of
the
circumcision
in
the
heart
.
So
in
Athanasius's
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
qu
:
103.
*
numbring
up
seven
sorts
of
Baptisme
,
the
first
even
now
mentioned
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
of
the
flood
for
the
cutting
off
of
sin
,
the
second
that
of
Moses
,
in
passing
the
Red
sea
,
which
he
calls
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
figurative
;
the
third
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
legall
baptisme
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
the
Hebrews
had
,
whereby
every
unclean
person
(
so
is
every
one
by
nature
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
was
baptized
in
water
,
had
his
garments
washt
,
and
so
entred
into
the
campe
,
this
it
seems
the
ceremonie
of
his
admission
.
And
then
follows
the
baptisme
of
John
and
Christ
.
Other
examples
I
doubt
not
the
Reader
may
observe
in
the
Fathers
writings
on
this
subject
,
these
few
may
serve
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
therefore
when
Mr.
T.
addes
that
some
passages
of
the
Fathers
shew
rather
,
that
they
took
it
as
in
stead
of
circumcision
,
the
answer
also
is
very
obvious
,
that
the
Jews
custome
being
to
initiate
by
circumcision
and
baptisme
both
,
and
the
former
of
these
being
laid
aside
by
Christ's
reformation
,
and
onely
the
second
continued
,
and
that
so
improved
by
Christ
,
as
to
have
more
then
the
whole
virtue
of
both
,
and
to
be
the
onely
initial
Sacrament
,
the
Fathers
might
well
learn
of
S.
Paul
to
make
this
comparison
or
parallel
betwixt
the
Jewish
,
and
the
Christian
Sacrament
,
and
so
betwixt
baptisme
and
circumcision
,
and
indeed
could
not
properly
say
that
the
Christian
baptisme
was
in
stead
of
the
Jewish
baptisme
being
rather
the
continuance
of
it
,
adding
some
ceremonies
and
virtue
to
that
which
was
formerly
among
them
,
not
substituting
somewhat
else
(
as
for
circumcision
it
did
)
in
stead
of
it
.
This
is
evident
enough
,
and
yet
if
it
were
not
we
should
have
little
reason
to
be
moved
with
this
suggestion
,
knowing
that
in
the
other
Sacrament
which
Christ
visibly
instituted
in
the
Jewish
postcoenium
,
and
imitated
it
in
the
delivering
the
portions
of
bread
and
wine
,
the
Fathers
generally
lay
the
comparison
betwixt
the
Paschal
Lamb
and
that
,
and
not
without
the
authority
of
S.
Paul
himself
,
saying
that
Christ
our
Passeover
is
sacrificed
for
us
,
the
plain
meaning
of
it
being
this
,
that
the
Jewish
Passeover
being
abolished
,
we
have
now
the
Sacrament
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
(
the
true
immaculate
lamb
of
God
)
substituted
in
the
stead
of
it
,
but
that
copied
out
not
from
the
Jewish
manner
of
eating
the
Lamb
of
Passeover
(
for
Christ
did
not
eat
it
at
that
time
,
being
put
to
death
before
the
hour
in
which
it
was
to
be
eaten
)
but
of
the
postcoenium
or
close
of
the
Iewish
Supper
,
after
which
he
took
bread
&c.
consecrating
this
ordinary
custome
of
theirs
into
an
higher
mysterie
,
then
formerly
it
had
in
it
.
Sect.
4.
The
conceipts
of
Pe
:
Alfunsus
and
Schickard
of
the
Iewish
baptisme
.
Raf
:
Alphus
:
Mr.
T.
his
conclusion
not
inferred
.
The
original
of
the
Iewish
Baptisme
(
the
onely
doubt
)
vindicated
.
Iacob's
injunction
to
his
family
.
Sanctifications
Exod.
19.10
.
differ
from
washing
garments
.
WHat
he
next
addes
from
Mr.
Selden
,
of
some
that
conceived
the
Iewish
baptisme
in
initiating
of
proselytes
was
in
imitation
of
Christs
example
(
and
so
not
Christs
of
theirs
)
and
of
Schickard
that
conceives
they
added
baptisme
to
circumcision
,
to
difference
them
from
Samaritans
,
is
too
vain
to
deserve
any
other
reply
,
then
what
he
himself
hath
annext
concerning
the
former
,
viz.
that
Mr.
Selden
(
naming
onely
Pet.
Alfansus
for
this
)
doth
not
give
any
credit
to
him
in
it
(
but
indeed
disproves
it
,
and
addes
antidotes
to
that
poyson
,
that
without
them
I
should
not
have
thought
likely
to
have
wrought
on
any
man.
)
And
indeed
so
he
doth
also
in
plain
terms
concerning
the
latter
,
de
Syxed
:
l.
1.
c.
3.
fateor
me
nondum
illud
aut
eâ
de
re
quicquam
alibi
legisse
,
he
never
read
that
or
any
thing
of
that
matter
any
where
else
.
To
which
I
adde
,
that
if
the
place
in
Schickard
be
examined
,
it
will
acknowledge
it
to
be
a
singular
conceipt
and
invention
of
his
,
and
nothing
else
.
In
his
5t.
Chap.
de
Reg.
Iud.
he
hath
these
words
,
ad
differentiam
Samaritanorum
addiderunt
baptismum
quendam
de
quo
Raf.
Alphes
Tom.
2.
p.
26.
&
ipse
Talmud
Mass
.
Jefamos
fol.
47.
citing
the
words
at
large
in
Hebrew
.
But
in
those
words
,
though
they
are
by
Schickard
applied
indefinitely
,
as
if
they
were
the
testification
of
the
whole
foregoing
proposition
,
yet
the
reader
shall
find
no
syllable
to
that
purpose
of
differencing
from
Samaritanes
,
more
then
from
all
other
men
,
but
onely
that
when
a
proselyte
is
received
he
must
be
circumcised
,
and
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
when
he
is
cured
,
they
shall
baptize
him
in
the
presence
of
two
wise
men
,
saying
,
Behold
he
is
as
an
Israelite
in
all
things
,
or
if
she
be
a
woman
,
the
women
lead
her
to
the
waters
&c.
A
plain
testimony
(
to
the
sense
of
those
which
we
formerly
produced
)
of
baptizing
both
Jews
and
proselytes
(
for
else
how
could
the
proselyte
,
upon
receiving
this
,
be
said
to
be
a
Israelite
in
all
things
?
)
but
no
least
intimation
,
that
this
was
designed
to
distinguish
them
from
Samaritanes
peculiarly
,
but
as
that
which
was
alwayes
customarie
among
the
Jews
,
at
their
entring
into
Covenant
with
God.
And
then
the
premises
being
so
groundlesse
and
frivolous
,
I
shall
not
sure
be
concerned
in
any
conclusion
that
Mr.
T.
shall
inferre
from
them
,
which
it
seems
,
is
to
be
this
,
that
notwithstanding
the
Doctor
's
supposition
that
the
whole
fabrick
of
baptisme
is
discernible
to
be
built
on
that
basis
,
the
customary
practice
among
the
Jews
,
yet
many
will
conceive
it
needs
more
proof
then
the
bare
recitall
of
passages
out
of
Iewish
writers
.
But
Mr.
T.
would
be
much
put
to
it
,
to
shew
in
what
mode
and
figure
it
is
,
that
this
conclusion
is
drawn
out
of
these
premisses
:
Certainly
none
that
my
Logick
hath
afforded
me
,
for
that
hath
no
engine
first
to
draw
many
out
of
two
;
nor
2.
to
inferre
that
those
that
had
mistaken
for
want
of
knowledge
(
as
Alphunsus
)
or
adverting
(
as
Schickard
)
of
the
Iewish
customes
,
would
need
any
more
then
the
recitation
of
clear
testimonies
out
of
the
soberest
Iewish
writers
,
to
disabuse
him
:
or
3.
that
they
that
either
through
prejudice
,
or
any
other
principle
of
obstinacie
shall
resist
this
degree
of
light
thus
offered
them
,
will
be
convinced
by
any
other
sort
of
testimonies
,
whether
out
of
the
Fathers
,
or
Scripture
it self
,
being
so
well
fortified
and
provided
with
inclinations
,
at
least
if
not
with
artifices
,
to
reject
one
,
or
misinterpret
the
other
.
But
,
it
seems
,
after
all
this
,
and
to
evidence
to
how
little
purpose
he
hath
said
thus
much
,
Mr.
T.
is
well
enough
satisfied
,
at
least
as
farre
as
to
baptizing
of
proselytes
,
that
there
was
such
a
custome
among
the
latter
Iewes
afore
Christs
incarnation
;
All
the
difficulty
,
saith
he
,
is
concerning
the
original
of
it
among
them
,
For
that
either
it
should
begin
from
Iacobs
injunction
to
his
household
,
Gen.
35.2
.
or
from
Gods
command
Exo.
19
10.
for
the
Israelites
to
wash
their
clothes
afore
the
giving
of
the
law
,
he
cannot
conceive
,
those
places
speaking
of
washing
Jewes
by
nature
,
not
proselytes
,
whereas
the
Jewes
baptized
not
Jewes
by
nature
(
as
Mr.
Selden
saith
)
but
by
profession
.
Here
are
many
weak
parts
in
these
few
words
;
For
1.
The
original
of
the
custome
among
the
Jewes
is
but
an
accessarie
,
wholly
extrinsecal
to
the
matter
in
hand
,
and
in
no
respect
necessary
to
be
defined
by
us
:
If
the
custome
be
acknowleged
,
we
need
ask
no
more
,
and
Mr.
T.
having
acknowleged
the
custome
,
grants
all
that
in
that
matter
we
require
of
him
,
for
on
that
,
and
not
on
that
particular
original
of
it
,
it
is
that
we
superstruct
our
whole
fabrick
,
as
farre
as
belong
;
to
infant
baptisme
,
which
is
very
fitly
founded
in
the
Jewish
custome
of
baptizing
,
from
whence
soever
that
custome
was
derived
to
them
,
And
so
that
one
thing
supersedes
and
answers
that
whole
difficulty
,
if
indeed
there
were
any
such
in
this
matter
.
But
then
2dly
.
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
;
For
t
is
certain
that
every
custome
received
universally
into
a
Church
or
society
of
men
,
must
have
some
originall
or
other
,
and
consequently
this
custome
being
by
Mr.
T.
acknowleged
,
must
not
in
any
reason
be
left
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
without
Father
,
without
Mother
,
without
any
original
;
and
therefore
those
two
that
are
alleged
for
it
by
the
Iewish
writers
,
being
by
him
so
fastidiously
rejected
,
it
was
very
fit
that
he
should
assign
some
other
,
and
annex
his
reasons
of
giving
it
the
deference
,
upon
which
it
should
be
prefer'd
before
them
.
And
when
he
shall
do
so
,
I
shall
not
doubt
to
imbrace
it
,
and
make
the
same
advantage
of
it
which
hitherto
I
have
done
of
either
of
these
.
But
he
is
here
pleased
to
be
reserved
,
and
gives
not
the
least
intimation
of
any
other
reason
,
which
is
more
suitable
with
his
conceptions
.
T
is
true
indeed
he
did
before
out
of
Grotius
,
mention
Noahs
flood
,
in
memorie
of
which
this
custome
arose
among
other
nations
,
but
besides
that
this
original
of
it
was
not
by
him
deemed
sufficient
to
appropriate
it
to
the
Iewes
,
but
leaves
it
common
to
them
with
other
nations
,
those
other
two
,
Iacobs
injunction
,
and
Gods
command
before
receiving
the
Law
(
either
one
or
both
)
are
perfectly
reconcileable
with
that
,
and
the
memorie
of
the
deluge
being
the
more
remote
and
first
original
,
these
may
be
the
neerer
and
more
immediate
,
and
so
are
not
prejudged
by
his
pretending
,
or
my
yeelding
of
that
.
3dly
.
For
Iacobs
injunction
to
his
household
,
Gen.
35.2
.
it
is
no
where
vouched
by
me
as
the
original
of
this
custome
among
the
Iewes
,
but
onely
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
household
,
and
so
certainly
it
is
,
for
as
in
the
one
the
ceremonie
prescribed
them
to
use
at
the
putting
away
strange
Gods
,
was
this
,
to
be
clean
and
change
their
garments
;
so
in
the
other
they
are
injoyned
to
sanctifie
themselves
and
wash
their
clothes
,
which
is
in
other
words
directly
the
same
thing
:
washing
themselves
and
having
clean
garments
being
among
the
Iewes
joyned
together
,
and
the
witnesse
of
their
garments
prescribed
in
baptisme
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
saith
the
Glosse
on
Gemara
Babylon
,
tit
▪
Iabimoth
)
to
receive
the
presence
of
the
divine
Majesty
(
just
as
in
the
Christian
Church
the
Dominica
in
albis
,
white
or
Whitsunday
was
a
special
day
for
administration
of
baptisme
▪
and
the
persons
baptized
wore
rhetorically
styled
sometimes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
starres
rising
out
of
the
waters
,
sometimes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
bright
lilies
of
the
font
,
as
they
are
joyned
together
in
Proclus
Orat
:
12.
p.
384.
and
in
S.
Chrysostome
,
new
lilies
planted
from
the
font
,
Hom.
6.
de
resurr
:
and
accordingly
on
Constantine's
great
coyne
,
stampt
in
memory
of
his
baptisme
,
was
ingraven
(
on
one
side
)
a
poole
of
water
with
a
lilie
grown
out
of
it
;
(
see
Jos
:
Scal
:
in
Opusc
:
)
and
all
these
but
figurative
expressions
of
what
Chrysostome
more
plainly
sets
down
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
their
putting
on
white
garments
at
the
receiving
of
baptisme
,
Tract
.
de
S.
Pent.
for
which
Jobius
in
Photius
hath
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
onely
.
)
And
then
as
Jacob
vowed
a
vow
to
the
Lord
to
give
him
the
tenth
of
all
,
and
accordingly
God
after
instituted
the
tithes
for
the
Levites
portion
,
and
so
the
latter
of
these
was
agreeable
to
the
former
,
but
yet
the
latter
,
viz.
Gods
institution
,
the
original
of
the
custome
of
tithing
among
the
Jewes
;
so
Iacob
might
injoyn
his
household
that
ceremonie
of
washing
or
baptisme
,
and
after
that
God
injoyn
it
in
giving
the
Law
,
and
one
of
these
be
agreeable
to
the
other
,
and
yet
the
custome
of
baptisme
among
the
Iewes
be
derived
onely
from
the
latter
,
as
from
the
peculiar
original
of
it
.
4thly
.
The
command
of
God
,
Exod.
19.10
.
in
which
baptisme
is
said
to
be
founded
by
the
Iewes
,
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
in
that
)
but
the
command
to
Moses
to
sanctifie
them
(
Go
unto
the
people
and
sanctifie
them
to
day
and
to
morrow
)
in
the
Hebr●w
notion
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
sanctifications
,
for
washing
,
either
the
whole
,
or
some
parts
of
the
body
,
as
is
shew'd
at
large
,
§
.
35.
And
if
in
stead
of
this
of
sanctifying
,
i.
e.
baptizing
them
,
Mr.
T.
did
unwittingly
substitute
washing
their
garments
,
then
I
hope
,
he
may
now
be
advised
to
reforme
that
mistake
,
and
see
more
reason
then
hitherto
he
hath
done
,
to
assign
that
command
of
Gods
,
as
the
most
agreeable
original
of
this
custome
,
and
no
longer
imagine
that
it
was
a
custome
of
the
latter
Iewes
,
taken
up
by
themselves
without
any
ground
of
Scripture
;
But
if
formerly
he
saw
this
,
and
was
willing
to
disguise
it
,
and
,
on
purpose
to
misguide
the
reader
,
left
out
the
mention
of
Moses's
sanctifying
or
baptizing
them
,
and
onely
set
down
the
washing
of
their
garments
(
which
was
not
at
all
proper
for
the
turn
)
to
be
the
original
of
baptisme
,
wherein
,
as
Paulinus
tells
us
,
they
were
rendred
nivei
,
white
as
snow
,
corpore
as
well
as
babitu
,
in
body
as
well
as
garment
,
I
shall
not
then
hope
that
even
this
length
of
words
will
be
sufficient
for
his
conviction
.
Lastly
,
For
his
reason
against
deducing
the
baptisme
of
proselites
from
this
original
[
because
the
Iewes
baptized
not
Iewes
by
nature
but
by
profession
,
whereas
those
places
speake
of
washing
Iewes
by
nature
,
not
proselytes
]
it
will
presently
appear
to
be
very
vain
;
for
1.
The
Iewes
baptized
Iewes
by
nature
,
and
not
proselytes
onely
,
as
hath
been
both
there
and
here
shewed
at
large
,
out
of
the
most
creditable
of
the
Iewish
writers
;
2dly
.
Their
baptizing
of
proselytes
was
founded
in
their
precedent
custome
of
baptizing
of
Iewes
,
as
hath
been
evidenced
also
from
the
Rabbines
explication
of
Num.
15.15
.
One
ordinance
shall
be
both
for
you
of
the
congregation
of
Israel
,
and
also
for
the
stranger
or
proselyte
.
And
so
t
is
evident
that
of
Exod.
19.10
.
being
the
original
of
baptizing
native
Iewes
,
may
,
and
must
be
the
original
of
baptizing
the
proselytes
.
And
this
in
each
part
being
thus
manifest
,
Mr.
Selden's
authority
(
if
it
should
be
,
as
is
pretended
)
can
be
of
no
force
against
those
evidences
which
I
have
here
produced
,
the
best
he
offers
us
at
any
time
,
to
prove
any
thing
concerning
the
Iewish
customes
.
And
I
shall
now
appeale
to
the
Reader
,
whether
Mr.
T.
could
well
have
been
expected
to
have
made
more
misadventures
in
so
few
words
.
Sect.
5.
Mr.
Selden's
notion
of
the
Sea.
The
defence
of
my
notion
of
it
.
Learned
mens
affirmations
to
be
judged
of
by
their
testimonies
.
Christ's
baptizing
of
Iewes
as
well
as
Gentiles
,
no
argument
.
Christ's
vouching
Iohns
baptisme
to
be
from
heaven
,
no
argument
.
No
more
,
the
pretended
no
intimations
of
it
.
The
no
conformity
.
The
proselytes
children
baptized
,
continually
,
not
onely
at
the
first
conversion
.
The
baptisme
of
a
woman
with
child
,
serving
for
the
child
also
,
not
argumentative
.
The
Canon
of
Neocaesarea
about
it
.
NExt
he
proceeds
to
consider
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
1
Cor.
10.1
.
of
our
Fathers
being
baptized
into
Moses
(
as
in
the
cloud
,
so
)
in
the
Sea.
Where
1.
He
tells
me
that
he
doth
not
conceive
Mr.
Seldens
exposition
,
that
the
sea
was
some
vessell
of
waters
—
but
the
red
sea
]
And
I
that
am
as
little
of
Mr.
Seldens
mind
,
but
expressely
interpreted
it
,
of
the
Red
sea
,
§
.
7.
and
rejected
Mr.
Seldens
interpretation
§
.
8.
(
although
I
omitted
to
name
the
author
of
it
)
am
not
,
he
knows
,
concerned
in
that
,
but
have
from
his
rejecting
Mr.
Seldens
authority
,
when
t
is
not
for
his
turn
,
his
example
for
my
not
thinking
my self
bound
up
by
it
at
other
times
,
either
in
that
newly
past
,
where
he
vouched
his
name
as
his
onely
proof
,
that
the
Jewes
did
not
baptize
Jewes
by
nature
,
or
in
other
particulars
which
I
find
afterwards
vouched
from
him
,
the
truth
of
which
I
as
little
conceive
,
as
Mr.
T.
doth
this
of
the
sea
not
signifying
the
Red
sea
,
which
I
acknowledge
to
be
unconceiveable
.
But
then
2.
he
doth
not
think
my
exposition
right
neither
(
though
I
interpret
it
of
the
Israelites
passing
through
the
Red
sea
,
as
he
acknowledges
to
do
)
But
what
is
my
interpretation
?
why
,
that
their
being
baptized
into
Moses
in
the
Red
sea
(
as
also
in
the
cloud
)
signifieth
their
being
initiated
into
God's
covenant
under
the
conduct
of
Moses
,
as
since
they
are
wont
to
be
initiated
by
baptisme
.
And
why
doth
he
dislike
this
interpretation
?
why
,
because
when
it
is
said
,
our
fathers
were
baptized
,
it
is
not
meant
were
baptized
as
since
proselytes
were
baptized
among
the
Jews
,
but
as
Christians
were
baptized
.
But
certainly
this
is
no
reason
of
exception
to
my
interpretation
;
For
1.
I
compare
not
this
baptisme
of
out
fathers
in
the
sea
with
the
baptisme
of
proselytes
among
the
Jewes
,
but
annex
it
immediately
to
the
baptizing
of
the
native
Jewes
,
§
.
6.
before
I
proceed
§
.
9.
to
the
baptisme
of
proselytes
.
And
2.
I
do
not
lay
the
comparison
of
the
Apostle
betwixt
the
baptizing
in
the
sea
,
and
the
Jewish
custome
of
baptizing
,
but
acknowledge
it
to
be
betwixt
the
baptisme
of
the
Fathers
under
the
Law
,
and
the
baptisme
since
Christ
among
Christians
,
All
the
use
I
make
of
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
was
to
shew
that
baptisme
among
the
Jewes
was
a
ceremonie
of
initiating
into
the
covenant
,
and
that
upon
that
supposall
it
was
,
that
the
Apostle
used
the
phrase
of
the
Israelites
that
came
out
of
Aegypt
,
and
entred
into
Covenant
with
him
,
under
the
conduct
of
Moses
,
God
giving
them
an
essay
of
his
receiving
them
under
his
wings
(
the
phrase
to
signifie
reception
into
the
covenant
)
by
invironing
them
with
the
sea
.
This
I
thought
had
been
before
intelligibly
enough
set
down
,
I
hope
now
he
will
no
longer
misunderstand
it
.
What
he
addes
out
of
Mr.
S.
that
after
Exo.
19.10
.
the
Jewes
did
not
baptize
Jewes
but
onely
proselytes
,
hath
already
been
evidenced
at
large
to
have
no
truth
in
it
,
the
custome
of
baptisme
continuing
to
all
their
posterity
,
as
well
as
that
of
circumcision
.
And
whereas
this
is
said
to
be
set
down
thus
out
of
Maimonides
and
other
Jewish
Rabbines
,
the
Reader
,
if
he
will
consult
the
place
in
Mr.
Selden
de
Synedr
:
l.
1.
c.
3.
will
find
there
is
no
such
matter
;
That
Mr.
S.
himself
so
affirmes
p.
23
▪
I
willingly
acknowledge
,
but
in
a
matter
of
antient
storie
,
such
as
this
is
,
neither
he
nor
any
else
must
be
believed
farther
then
the
testimonies
produced
by
him
out
of
their
writers
exact
,
especially
against
express
testimonies
to
the
contrary
.
And
such
he
there
produceth
more
then
one
,
p.
34.
out
of
Gemara
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
What
did
our
Fathers
?
truely
they
entred
not
into
Covenant
without
circumcision
and
baptisme
and
sprinkling
of
blood
,
and
again
p.
35.
our
mothers
were
baptized
and
not
circumcised
,
and
p.
26.
out
of
Victoria
Porchetus
,
that
our
mothers
(
though
not
as
he
saith
,
Sara
and
Rebecca
,
referring
the
custome
to
a
greater
antiquity
then
that
of
the
time
of
giving
the
Law
)
were
baptized
and
not
circumcised
,
and
p.
38.
out
of
Maimonides
,
that
the
Israelites
entred
into
covenant
by
a
threefold
rite
or
ceremonie
,
by
circumcision
,
baptisme
,
and
oblation
.
And
again
,
p.
39.
What
was
done
to
you
?
ye
entred
into
covenant
by
circumcision
,
baptisme
,
and
he
sprinkling
of
the
sacrifice
,
and
therefore
the
proselyte
—
the
custome
of
baptizing
the
proselytes
founded
in
that
of
baptizing
the
native
Jewes
.
All
these
clear
testimonies
are
by
him
produced
directly
to
the
proof
of
my
position
,
that
the
native
Jewes
(
indifferently
)
were
baptized
,
and
not
a
word
in
any
other
parts
of
the
testimonies
to
give
reason
to
suspect
,
that
after
that
one
time
of
Exo.
19.
the
Jewes
did
not
baptize
.
What
he
hath
done
in
his
other
book
de
Jure
Nat.
ac
Gent.
I
need
not
apprehend
(
and
have
not
commodity
to
inquire
or
examine
)
supposing
that
if
there
he
had
undertaken
the
proof
of
it
,
he
would
here
,
where
he
affirmes
it
without
proofe
,
and
against
expresse
testimonies
produced
by
him
,
have
referred
(
according
to
custome
)
to
that
place
.
And
now
what
force
against
any
pretension
of
ours
is
there
in
Mr.
T.
his
observation
that
Christ
and
his
Apostles
baptized
Jewes
as
well
as
Gentiles
?
]
For
1.
so
certainly
they
might
,
and
yet
derive
their
baptisme
from
the
custome
formerly
in
use
among
the
Jewes
,
for
they
,
we
know
,
baptized
native
Iewes
:
nay
2.
so
they
might
,
though
the
Iewes
had
baptized
none
but
proselytes
,
for
to
that
it
would
bear
just
proportion
,
that
they
should
baptize
both
Iewes
and
Gentiles
,
in
case
both
came
in
as
proselytes
to
Christ
.
For
it
were
a
fallacie
a
little
too
grosse
to
deceive
any
man
of
common
understanding
,
to
argue
thus
,
The
custome
was
to
baptize
proselytes
,
and
not
natives
;
therefore
Christ
,
if
he
observed
that
custome
,
was
not
to
baptize
native
Iewes
;
The
answer
being
so
obvious
,
by
distinguishing
of
proselytes
,
that
they
are
either
such
as
come
in
to
the
Iewish
religion
,
or
such
as
came
in
to
Christ
,
and
that
Christ
was
to
baptize
all
that
were
proselytes
to
him
,
and
that
the
native
Iewes
as
many
as
believed
on
him
,
were
such
,
and
as
believers
,
i.
e.
as
proselytes
to
Christ
,
not
as
native
Iewes
were
baptized
by
him
.
Other
reasons
he
hath
chosen
to
annex
for
confirmation
of
his
negative
,
that
Christ
baptisme
was
not
in
imitation
of
,
or
in
conformity
with
the
Iewish
custome
;
for
2.
saith
he
,
Christ
would
not
have
avouched
the
baptisme
of
Iohn
to
be
from
heaven
and
not
from
men
,
if
it
had
been
in
imitation
of
the
Iewish
custome
.
But
I
wonder
what
appearance
of
concludencie
there
is
in
that
reason
?
May
not
any
thing
be
from
heaven
or
by
God's
appointment
,
which
is
derived
from
a
Iewish
custome
?
may
not
God
in
heaven
give
commission
to
Iohn
Baptist
to
preach
repentance
,
after
the
same
manner
that
others
before
him
,
Noah
and
Ionah
&c.
had
preached
repentance
,
and
to
receive
all
that
came
in
on
his
preaching
,
by
the
ceremonie
of
baptizing
ordinarily
used
,
and
known
,
to
initiate
men
into
covenant
with
God
,
among
the
Iewes
?
I
see
not
the
least
incongruity
in
this
,
or
that
any
obligation
of
reason
can
be
pretended
,
why
God
may
not
appoint
a
ceremonie
known
among
men
to
be
used
in
his
service
:
such
sure
was
imposition
of
hands
,
usuall
among
the
Iewes
in
benedictions
,
which
now
is
made
use
of
by
the
Apostles
of
Christ
,
in
ordaining
Bishops
over
the
Church
.
And
so
it
may
well
be
in
this
matter
of
Iohn's
or
Christ's
baptisme
,
which
though
it
were
unquestionably
from
heaven
in
respect
of
the
Commission
given
to
them
by
God
,
appointing
them
to
do
what
they
did
,
yet
might
the
ceremonie
of
washing
used
by
them
be
derived
from
the
customes
that
were
already
familiar
among
them
.
T
were
easy
to
instance
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
the
power
of
the
Keyes
(
and
many
the
like
)
which
though
brought
into
the
Church
of
Christians
by
Christ
,
and
so
from
heaven
,
were
yet
derived
and
lightly
changed
from
Jewish
observances
,
and
in
that
respect
from
men
also
.
His
3d
reason
,
that
it
is
likely
some
where
or
other
some
intimation
would
have
been
given
of
that
custome
,
as
the
directorie
for
Christians
in
the
use
of
baptisme
]
is
too
frivolous
to
require
reply
;
for
beside
that
the
negative
argument
were
of
no
force
,
if
it
were
as
is
pretended
,
It
already
appears
that
there
are
in
the
Iewish
writers
,
more
then
intimations
of
this
custome
,
and
some
indications
of
it
even
in
the
Scripture
itself
,
as
John
3.5.10
.
and
for
any
plainer
affirmations
,
what
need
could
there
be
of
them
,
when
both
the
matter
it self
speaketh
it
so
plainly
,
that
there
was
no
need
of
words
,
to
those
that
knew
the
Iewish
customes
,
as
the
first
writers
and
readers
of
the
New
Testament
did
,
and
when
Christ's
sole
authority
,
and
practice
of
his
Apostles
were
sufficient
Directorie
for
the
Christians
in
the
use
of
baptisme
?
Fourthly
he
addes
,
that
the
institution
and
practice
would
have
been
comformable
to
it
;
And
so
I
say
,
and
have
made
clear
that
it
was
,
as
far
as
to
the
controversie
in
hand
we
are
or
can
be
concerned
in
it
:
But
saith
Mr.
T.
the
contrarie
appears
,
adding
one
main
instance
of
the
inconformity
,
and
14.
lesser
disparities
,
The
main
disparitie
,
saith
he
,
is
in
their
baptizing
no
infants
of
the
Gentiles
at
their
first
conversions
,
whereas
the
Jewes
baptized
onely
the
Gentiles
Infants
at
their
first
proselyting
,
not
the
infants
of
those
who
were
baptized
in
infancie
.
For
the
former
of
these
he
offers
no
manner
of
proof
beyond
his
own
affirmation
,
and
therefore
it
is
sufficient
to
deny
it
,
as
he
knows
we
do
,
and
evidently
beggs
the
question
in
assuming
and
not
offering
any
proof
for
the
contrary
.
For
the
second
,
that
of
the
Jewish
practice
,
he
pretends
no
more
then
what
he
had
before
cited
by
reference
(
but
now
sets
down
in
words
)
viz.
the
affirmation
of
Mr.
Selden
.
But
I
have
already
shewed
how
groundlesse
that
affirmation
of
Mr.
S.
was
,
as
to
the
native
Jewes
children
,
who
were
still
baptized
after
the
giving
of
the
Law.
And
the
same
I
now
adde
for
the
children
of
those
proselytes
who
had
been
baptized
in
infancie
,
there
appears
not
the
least
proof
of
this
from
the
Jewish
writers
,
who
are
the
onely
competent
witnesses
in
it
,
but
for
the
contrary
I
propose
these
two
testimonies
taken
notice
of
by
Mr.
S.
himself
de
Synedr
.
c.
3.
out
of
Gemara
Babylon
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
He
wants
the
rite
of
a
proselyte
for
ever
,
unless
he
be
baptized
and
circumcised
.
Here
baptisme
and
circumcision
are
joyned
together
,
as
aequally
necessary
to
a
proselyte
,
and
that
for
ever
.
And
circumcision
there
is
no
doubt
was
to
be
received
by
every
male
,
not
onely
at
their
first
coming
to
the
Church
of
the
Jewes
,
at
their
first
proselytisme
,
but
through
all
posterities
,
every
child
of
a
proselyte
that
was
not
circumcised
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
became
straightways
no
proselyte
:
And
then
sure
this
conjunction
of
baptisme
with
circumcision
on
these
termes
of
equality
,
both
of
perpetual
necessity
to
all
proselytes
,
must
needs
extend
the
baptisme
as
well
as
the
circumcision
beyond
the
first
proselytes
and
their
immediate
children
,
to
all
their
posteritie
that
shall
come
from
them
afterwards
,
for
to
all
those
belonged
circumcision
.
So
again
in
the
same
place
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
if
he
be
not
baptized
,
he
remains
a
Pagan
or
Gentile
;
Here
I
shall
ask
,
whether
the
child
of
a
proselyte
who
had
been
baptized
in
his
infancie
,
were
to
be
a
Pagan
for
ever
?
I
suppose
it
will
be
answered
,
no
;
And
then
by
the
force
of
that
testimonie
of
Gemara
I
conclude
,
therefore
it
must
be
supposed
that
he
was
baptized
,
for
else
he
would
be
a
pagan
for
ever
.
Besides
this
,
two
things
I
farther
adde
,
to
remove
all
possible
force
of
this
suggestion
;
1.
That
if
it
were
granted
in
the
full
latitude
wherein
it
is
proposed
,
that
the
Iewes
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
to
affirme
,
that
Christ
who
imitated
the
Iewes
in
that
,
and
so
baptized
the
children
of
Christian
proselytes
,
did
make
some
light
change
in
this
,
and
farther
then
the
pattern
before
him
afforded
,
baptized
all
the
posteritie
that
should
succeed
them
,
and
were
born
in
the
Church
in
their
infancie
also
,
the
reason
though
not
the
pattern
belonging
equally
to
them
as
to
the
children
of
the
first
proselytes
,
and
the
Iewish
custome
of
baptizing
their
natives
infants
,
being
fully
home
to
it
.
2dly
.
That
it
being
by
all
parts
granted
,
that
the
children
which
the
proselytes
had
at
their
first
proselytisme
were
baptized
among
the
Iewes
,
this
is
as
evident
a
confutation
of
the
Antipaedobaptist
,
and
so
of
Mr.
T.
as
it
would
if
all
their
infants
to
all
posteritie
were
baptized
:
For
by
that
very
baptizing
of
the
infants
at
their
first
proselytisme
,
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
onely
interest
it
is
to
evince
,
that
no
infants
must
or
may
be
baptized
.
And
I
hope
this
will
be
of
some
use
to
Mr.
T.
when
he
shall
have
considered
it
.
The
onely
way
M.
T.
hath
to
confirme
this
of
the
Iewes
not
baptizing
any
infants
of
proselytes
born
after
their
first
conversion
and
baptisme
,
is
the
resolution
of
the
Jewes
,
that
if
a
woman
great
with
child
became
a
proselyte
and
were
baptized
,
her
child
needs
not
baptisme
when
t
is
born
.
And
this
I
had
cited
,
§
.
109.
out
of
the
Rabbines
,
and
so
indeed
I
find
it
in
Maimonides
,
tit
.
Isuri
bia
.
c.
13.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
But
I
cannot
think
that
(
whether
true
or
false
)
a
sufficient
proof
to
inferre
the
conclusion
;
For
the
Iewish
Doctors
might
probably
thus
resolve
upon
this
other
ground
,
because
the
mother
and
the
child
in
her
wombe
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
seems
they
would
have
done
,
if
they
had
not
deemed
the
childe
all
one
with
the
mother
,
and
consequently
they
must
be
supposed
to
baptize
those
children
which
were
begotten
to
the
proselyte
after
the
time
of
his
or
her
first
conversion
and
baptisme
.
And
accordingly
the
Christian
Doctors
in
the
Councel
of
Neocaesarea
Can.
6.
having
resolved
the
contrary
to
that
Jewish
hypothesis
,
viz.
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
mother
that
bears
the
childe
differs
from
the
childe
,
or
is
not
all
one
with
it
,
and
her
confession
in
baptisme
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
proper
or
particular
to
her self
,
and
belongs
not
to
the
childe
in
her
womb
,
give
the
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
the
woman
that
is
with
childe
,
and
is
then
converted
to
the
faith
,
leave
to
be
baptized
,
when
she
pleases
,
supposing
that
the
childe
which
then
she
carries
,
shall
,
notwithstanding
her
baptisme
then
,
be
it self
baptized
after
its
birth
.
Which
as
it
is
a
cleer
answer
to
the
argument
deduced
from
the
resolution
of
the
Jewes
in
that
point
,
so
t
is
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
.
Sect.
6.
Lesser
inconformities
no
prejudice
.
Yet
they
do
not
all
hold
.
Prayer
the
Christian
sacrifice
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
rule
of
judging
in
this
matter
.
Baptizing
in
the
name
of
the
Father
&c.
prescribed
by
Christ
.
So
dipping
or
sprinkling
.
The
Pract
▪
Cat.
misreported
.
Mr.
Marshals
covenanting
.
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
,
being
sufficient
to
my
pretensions
,
and
no
concernment
of
mine
obliging
me
to
believe
or
affirm
,
that
the
parallel
holds
any
farther
then
Christ
was
pleased
it
should
hold
,
and
of
that
we
are
to
judge
by
what
the
Scriptures
,
or
ancient
Church
tells
us
was
the
practice
of
him
,
or
his
Apostles
;
For
1.
the
Jewes
I
doubt
not
,
brought
in
many
things
of
their
own
devising
into
this
,
as
into
other
institutions
of
God's
,
and
the
latter
Jewes
more
,
as
of
the
proselytes
being
so
born
again
in
baptisme
,
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
Bishop
,
saith
Ignatius
)
whereas
it
was
not
among
the
Jewes
any
part
of
the
Priests
office
,
any
more
then
circumcision
was
;
And
so
in
many
other
particulars
.
But
what
prejudice
is
that
to
my
pretentions
,
who
affirm
no
more
of
the
accordance
betwixt
the
Jewish
and
Christian
practice
,
then
eiher
by
some
indications
in
the
Scripture
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
been
in
use
among
them
.
And
this
is
all
the
return
I
need
make
to
his
14
lesser
disparities
,
and
all
that
he
hath
at
large
endevoured
to
infer
from
them
,
supposing
and
granting
them
all
to
be
such
.
But
yet
it
is
evident
that
some
of
them
are
not
such
,
As
when
1.
he
saith
,
the
baptisme
of
males
must
be
with
circumcision
and
an
offering
,
t
is
clear
that
,
though
1.
circumcision
be
laid
aside
by
Christ
,
and
2.
when
it
was
used
it
had
nothing
to
do
with
baptisme
,
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
baptisme
.
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
only
the
whole
Church
,
in
the
presence
of
whom
t
is
publickly
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
themselves
formerly
baptized
,
do
represent
the
Church
of
which
they
are
members
,
meaning
thereby
the
people
of
the
Church
,
and
the
Minister
commissionated
thereto
by
the
Bishop
,
represents
the
Church
also
,
meaning
the
Governors
thereof
.
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
Chap.
(
as
far
as
I
am
concerned
in
it
)
unlesse
it
be
to
tell
him
that
the
Bishops
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
practice
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
yield
all
authority
,
so
I
find
the
Canons
and
rituals
as
of
this
,
so
of
all
other
Churches
in
the
world
(
no
one
excepted
)
to
bear
perfect
accoordance
therewith
,
in
this
particular
of
infant
baptisme
(
though
in
other
lesser
particulars
they
differ
many
among
themselves
,
and
all
from
the
Jewish
pattern
)
And
this
I
hope
is
a
competent
ground
of
my
action
,
and
such
as
may
justifie
it
to
any
Christian
artist
to
be
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
Doctors
own
pleasure
,
as
if
that
were
the
mutable
principle
of
all
these
variations
from
the
Jewish
pattern
.
Of
this
score
t
is
somewhat
strange
,
which
he
thinks
fit
to
adde
concerning
the
forme
of
baptisme
,
In
the
name
of
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
In
this
one
thing
,
saith
he
,
which
Christ
did
not
prescribe
,
nor
did
the
Apostles
,
that
we
find
,
so
conceive
it
,
yet
,
saith
the
Doctor
Christs
prescription
must
be
indisspensably
used
.
In
reply
to
this
I
shall
not
spend
much
time
to
evidence
this
forme
to
be
Christ's
prescription
;
If
the
expresse
words
at
his
parting
from
the
world
,
Mat.
28.
Go
ye
therefore
,
and
teach
,
or
receive
to
discipleship
,
all
nations
,
baptizing
them
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
and
the
Son
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
be
not
a
prescription
of
Christs
,
and
if
the
universall
doctrine
and
continuall
practice
of
the
whole
Church
through
all
times
,
be
not
testimonie
sufficient
of
the
Apostles
conceiving
it
thus
,
and
a
competent
ground
of
the
indispensable
tinuing
the
use
of
it
,
I
shall
not
hope
to
perswade
with
him
,
onely
I
shall
mind
him
of
the
words
of
S.
Athanasius
in
his
Epistle
to
Serapion
Tom.
1.
p.
204.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
He
that
is
not
baptized
in
the
name
of
all
three
,
receives
nothing
,
remains
empty
and
imperfect
,
For
perfection
is
in
the
Trinity
,
no
baptisme
perfect
,
it
seems
,
but
that
.
And
if
this
will
not
yet
suffice
,
I
shall
then
onely
demand
,
whether
he
can
produce
so
expresse
grounds
from
Christ
,
or
the
Apostles
,
or
the
Vniversal
Church
of
God
through
all
ages
,
or
from
any
one
ancient
Father
,
for
his
denying
baptisme
to
infants
.
What
in
this
place
he
addes
farther
from
me
,
out
of
the
Practicall
Catechisme
,
that
I
confesse
that
by
Christs
appointment
the
baptized
was
to
be
dipt
in
water
,
i.
e.
according
to
the
Primitive
antient
custome
to
be
put
under
water
,
is
a
strange
misreporting
of
my
words
,
I
wonder
Mr.
T.
would
be
guilty
of
it
.
The
words
in
the
Pract.
Cat.
are
visibly
these
,
By
Christ's
appointment
whosoever
should
be
thus
received
into
his
familie
should
be
received
with
this
ceremonie
of
water
,
therein
to
be
dipt
(
i.
e.
according
to
the
Primitive
anetint
custome
to
be
put
under
water
)
three
times
,
or
in
stead
of
that
to
be
sprinkled
with
it
—
where
1.
All
that
Christ's
appointment
is
affixt
to
,
is
,
the
receiving
all
that
should
be
received
into
Christ's
familie
,
with
this
ceremonie
of
Water
;
2.
For
the
manner
of
that
reception
by
water
,
t
is
set
down
disjunctively
,
therein
to
be
dipt
three
times
,
or
in
stead
of
that
to
be
sprinkled
with
it
.
These
are
evidently
my
words
;
no
way
affirming
either
the
dipping
or
sprinkling
(
one
exclusively
to
the
other
,
to
be
appointed
by
Christ
,
but
onely
the
ceremonie
of
water
,
whether
it
be
by
dipping
in
it
or
sprinkling
with
it
,
either
of
which
may
be
signified
by
the
word
used
from
Christ
by
S.
Matthew
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
baptize
yee
.
What
ground
the
Church
of
Christ
hath
had
to
disuse
immersion
,
and
in
stead
of
putting
the
whole
body
under
water
,
only
to
dip
the
face
,
or
sprinkle
it
with
water
,
I
shall
not
now
discourse
,
all
that
I
have
to
do
in
this
place
being
to
vindicate
my self
,
that
I
have
no
way
affirmed
the
putting
under
water
(
used
by
the
Primitive
Church
)
to
be
appointed
by
Christ
,
exclusively
to
sprinkling
,
and
that
I
hope
I
have
already
done
by
the
exact
reciting
of
my
words
,
which
had
been
so
much
misreported
by
him
.
And
so
I
have
done
with
his
24th
Chapter
.
For
as
to
the
objection
against
Mr.
M.
drawn
from
his
covenanting
to
performe
the
worship
of
God
,
according
to
Gods
word
,
and
admiring
that
ever
mortal
man
should
dare
in
Gods
worship
to
meddle
any
jot
farther
then
the
Lord
hath
commanded
,
and
yet
in
point
of
infant
baptisme
following
the
Talmud
,
I
that
am
farre
from
Mr.
M.
his
perswasions
,
as
well
as
practices
,
am
not
sure
bound
to
give
answer
for
him
,
Aetatem
habet
,
let
him
answer
for
himself
;
and
when
he
doth
so
,
't
were
not
amiss
he
would
consider
,
whether
Episcopal
government
stand
not
on
as
firme
a
basis
in
the
Church
of
God
,
as
Infant
baptisme
is
by
him
vouched
to
do
.
CHAP.
II.
Of
Christ's
words
,
Mat.
28.19
.
Sect.
1.
The
Doctors
pretended
concessions
examined
.
Christ's
institution
of
baptisme
not
set
down
Mat.
28.
but
necessarily
before
that
time
.
HIS
25.
Chapter
is
a
view
of
my
interpretation
of
Mat.
28.19
.
which
lyes
thus
,
Goe
and
disciple
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
make
disciples
,
receive
into
discipleship
)
all
nations
,
baptizing
them
in
the
name
&c.
teaching
them
&c.
thereby
evidencing
that
the
making
or
receiving
disciples
,
not
supposing
any
precedent
instruction
,
but
looking
wholly
on
it
as
subsequent
,
can
no
way
exclude
the
Christians
infants
from
baptisme
,
when
they
are
thus
brought
to
the
Church
to
be
entred
into
the
School
of
Christ
,
and
undertaken
for
that
they
shall
learn
when
they
come
to
years
.
And
to
this
a
long
proemial
answer
he
hath
of
many
lines
,
which
begins
thus
,
Though
I
conceive
Dr.
H.
to
ascribe
more
power
to
the
Canons
of
the
Prelates
about
the
Sacraments
,
then
is
meet
,
being
one
who
hath
written
in
defence
of
the
Common
prayer
Book
,
yet
by
this
allegation
of
Mat.
28.19
.
he
seems
tacitely
to
yield
,
that
if
the
words
there
include
not
infants
under
the
discipled
,
then
there
is
something
in
the
New
Testament
which
excludes
infants
from
baptisme
,
although
he
say
§
96.
I
do
not
believe
or
pretend
that
that
precept
of
Christ
doth
necessarily
inferre
(
though
it
do
as
little
deny
)
that
infants
are
to
be
baptized
.
Before
I
proceed
to
that
which
followes
,
't
is
not
amiss
to
view
in
passing
,
how
many
incongruities
are
here
amass't
together
in
these
few
words
.
For
whereas
my
having
written
in
defence
of
the
Common
Prayer
Book
is
made
use
of
as
an
evidence
to
inferre
that
I
ascribe
more
to
the
Canons
of
Prelates
,
then
is
meet
,
it
is
certain
1.
that
the
Common
Prayer
book
stands
not
by
the
Canons
of
the
Prelates
,
but
by
Act
of
Parliament
,
and
consequently
if
I
had
been
guilty
of
a
confest
partiality
to
the
Common
Prayer
book
,
yet
were
this
no
evidence
of
my
ascribing
any
thing
(
therefore
sure
not
more
then
is
meet
or
too
much
)
to
the
Canons
of
Prelates
.
2dly
.
It
never
yet
appeared
,
that
by
writing
in
defence
of
the
Common
Prayer
book
,
I
offended
at
all
(
therefore
surely
not
about
either
,
much
less
against
both
the
Sacraments
.
)
3ly
.
The
making
my
defence
of
the
Common
Prayer
book
,
written
long
ago
,
a
proof
that
I
oftend
now
in
somewhat
else
;
viz.
in
attributing
too
much
to
the
Canons
of
the
Bishop
,
is
1
the
connecting
together
things
that
are
most
disparate
,
concluding
quidlibet
ex
quolibet
;
and
2dly
a
plain
begging
of
the
question
,
for
such
certainly
it
is
in
respect
of
him
,
with
whom
he
disputes
,
and
so
must
be
,
till
he
shall
offer
proof
that
I
have
erred
in
that
defence
,
The
same
,
as
if
he
should
conclude
,
that
he
who
hath
once
written
the
truth
,
were
obliged
the
next
time
to
swerve
from
it
.
So
when
he
mentions
my
allegation
of
Mat.
28.19
.
the
word
allegation
must
signifie
that
I
produce
and
so
allege
that
text
as
a
proof
of
my
position
:
But
this
he
knows
I
do
not
;
But
only
suppose
the
Antipaedobaptist
to
found
his
plea
in
it
,
and
all
that
I
have
to
do
,
is
to
shew
how
useless
it
is
like
to
prove
to
him
;
confessing
also
that
to
me
it
is
as
uselesse
,
and
so
never
attempting
to
draw
any
argument
from
it
.
So
again
,
when
upon
a
supposition
by
him
specified
he
assumes
me
to
grant
that
which
he
acknowledgeth
me
expressely
to
deny
,
this
sure
is
very
incongruous
:
T
is
visible
from
the
words
by
me
produced
§
.
96.
that
I
deny
that
that
text
of
Mat.
28.19
.
can
prejudice
the
baptisme
of
infants
,
and
the
only
design
I
had
in
considering
this
text
at
all
in
this
place
,
was
to
evidence
the
second
branch
of
the
negative
part
of
my
undertaking
,
that
there
appeared
nothing
in
Christs
institution
of
baptisme
,
or
commission
to
his
Apostles
,
which
was
exclusive
of
infants
:
How
then
can
it
be
suggested
with
any
shew
of
truth
,
that
I
seem
tacitely
to
yield
,
that
if
the
words
include
not
infants
under
the
discipled
,
there
is
then
something
in
the
New
Testament
which
excludes
infants
from
baptisme
.
T
is
evident
from
whence
it
is
that
I
infer
,
and
positively
define
Christs
Commission
for
baptisme
to
belong
to
infants
,
not
from
these
words
of
Christ
(
which
as
I
said
,
I
never
proposed
to
that
end
to
prove
my
position
from
them
,
but
only
to
answer
the
Antipaedobaptists
objection
founded
in
them
)
but
from
the
practice
of
the
Apostles
signifying
their
sense
and
perswasion
of
Christs
meaning
in
his
institution
of
baptisme
,
which
institution
we
know
from
John
4.1
.
had
long
preceded
the
delivering
of
these
words
Matth
:
28.
So
that
whatsoever
were
the
notion
of
discipling
there
,
yet
could
not
I
deem
infants
thereby
excluded
from
baptisme
,
whom
by
another
medium
,
viz.
the
Apostolical
practice
,
I
supposed
to
be
admitted
to
it
by
Christs
institution
.
The
short
is
,
Infants
I
suppose
may
be
received
into
discipleship
when
their
parents
bring
them
,
and
if
so
,
then
they
are
or
may
be
included
in
the
words
Mat.
28.
but
if
they
might
not
,
and
so
were
supposed
not
to
be
comprehended
in
these
words
of
Christ
,
Mat.
28.
yet
that
which
is
not
included
,
is
not
presently
excluded
,
he
that
saith
a
man
is
a
living
creature
,
doth
not
thereby
deny
an
angel
to
be
so
also
:
when
Christ
gives
his
disciples
power
to
heal
diseases
,
Mat.
10.1
.
he
cannot
be
deemed
to
withhold
from
them
power
of
raising
the
dead
,
for
that
we
see
comprehended
in
their
commission
v.
8.
and
so
I
could
no
way
be
inforced
to
yield
that
they
were
excluded
from
baptisme
,
as
long
as
from
any
other
medium
I
were
assured
they
were
admitted
to
it
.
And
so
still
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
here
is
not
the
least
appearance
of
truth
in
this
discourse
.
He
proceeds
then
to
some
other
attempts
of
proving
it
necessary
for
me
if
I
will
stand
to
my
words
elsewhere
,
to
acknowledge
infants
excluded
by
that
text
,
To
which
end
he
hath
been
very
diligent
in
putting
together
several
scattered
passages
in
my
writings
,
in
hope
to
finde
some
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
to
raise
some
shew
of
argument
out
of
my
own
words
,
and
so
from
my
temerity
or
inconstancy
(
for
want
of
solid
proofs
)
to
conclude
that
if
this
precept
of
Christ
doth
not
necessarily
infer
infant
baptisme
,
then
by
manifest
consequence
it
doth
deny
it
.
The
passages
he
gathers
up
are
these
,
The
Doctor
saith
,
§
.
55.
that
Christs
institution
makes
dipping
or
sprinkling
with
water
a
Sacrament
,
which
institution
is
Mat.
28.19
.
and
therefore
the
Doctor
will
have
the
words
there
indispensably
used
in
baptisme
,
and
§
.
92.
he
saith
baptisme
is
a
Sacrament
,
that
Sacrament
an
institution
of
Christs
,
that
institution
not
founded
in
any
reason
of
immutable
truth
,
but
only
in
the
positive
will
of
Christ
,
and
so
that
there
is
nothing
considerable
in
this
question
(
or
any
of
this
nature
)
but
how
it
was
delivered
by
Christ
,
And
§
.
94.
that
which
was
done
by
the
Apostles
,
if
it
were
not
a
rule
for
ever
,
yet
was
an
effect
of
such
a
rule
formerly
given
by
Christ
,
and
interpretable
by
this
practise
to
be
so
.
And
Pract.
Cat.
l.
6.
§
.
2.
he
expounding
Christs
institution
,
saith
that
the
words
import
that
the
person
baptized
acknowledgeth
,
maketh
profession
of
believing
in
three
,
delivers
him
to
three
as
authors
of
his
faith
,
and
to
be
ruled
by
the
directions
of
his
Master
,
and
this
he
will
have
to
be
meant
by
baptizing
into
the
name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
.
These
are
the
passages
,
whence
,
saith
he
,
I
infer
that
if
baptisme
be
a
Sacrament
,
and
made
so
by
Christs
institution
,
and
that
institution
founded
only
in
his
positive
will
,
and
the
will
of
Christ
be
,
that
baptisme
be
in
the
name
of
the
Trinity
,
and
this
is
when
the
baptized
makes
profession
of
believing
in
three
,
to
be
ruled
by
them
,
and
the
Apostles
practice
interprets
Christs
rule
,
no
infant
that
doth
not
profess
faith
,
is
baptized
into
the
name
of
the
Trinity
,
nor
was
appointed
to
be
baptized
by
Christ
,
nor
did
the
Apostles
baptize
them
,
and
therefore
they
are
not
baptized
according
to
Christs
institution
,
and
so
no
Sacrament
to
them
.
Here
is
a
very
subtile
fabrick
▪
and
great
pains
taken
to
pro●
me
to
affirm
tacitely
what
I
expressely
deny
:
But
herein
though
his
pains
be
great
,
he
hath
much
failed
of
the
successe
,
it
were
too
long
to
shew
it
at
large
,
yet
the
reader
that
will
be
at
pains
to
survey
his
processe
,
will
certainly
acknowledge
it
,
if
he
shall
but
remember
these
two
things
.
1.
That
Christs
institution
of
baptisme
was
not
(
nor
is
ever
affirmed
by
me
to
be
)
set
down
in
those
words
of
Mat.
28.
that
having
been
long
before
instituted
and
practised
,
as
appears
by
plain
words
Joh.
4.1
,
2.
Secondly
,
That
though
Christs
will
and
institution
for
baptizing
infants
be
not
so
manifestly
exprest
in
those
words
Mat.
28.19
.
as
shall
be
able
by
the
bare
force
of
the
words
to
convince
any
gainsayer
,
without
any
other
way
of
evidence
or
proof
added
to
it
,
yet
by
the
Apostles
practice
of
baptizing
infants
(
appearing
to
us
by
other
means
)
it
is
most
evident
that
they
who
certainly
did
not
mistake
Christs
meaning
,
did
thus
understand
and
extend
his
institution
and
commission
.
The
truth
of
this
is
there
made
evident
§
.
30.
&c.
I
shall
not
here
repeat
it
.
2dly
.
That
the
infant
when
he
is
to
be
baptized
,
doth
,
though
not
by
his
own
voice
personally
,
yet
by
his
lawful
proxies
,
which
the
Church
accepteth
in
his
stead
,
professe
the
believing
in
three
,
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
,
deliver
himself
up
to
three
,
&c.
By
this
clue
the
reader
will
easily
extricate
himself
out
of
the
Labyrinth
there
provided
for
him
,
if
such
it
appear
to
be
,
and
discern
a
perfect
accordance
in
all
the
passages
,
which
with
such
hope
of
advantage
were
so
diligently
collected
by
him
.
But
this
is
not
all
,
he
will
yet
drive
the
businesse
somewhat
higher
in
these
words
,
Yea
,
if
the
positive
will
of
Christ
,
be
the
reason
of
baptisme
,
they
usurp
upon
Christs
prerogative
who
baptize
otherwise
then
Christ
hath
appointed
,
and
then
if
the
precept
of
Christ
doth
not
necessarily
infer
infant
baptisme
(
which
the
Doctor
ingenuously
acknowledgeth
)
it
doth
by
manifest
consequence
deny
it
,
sith
he
forbids
that
to
be
done
otherwise
then
he
hath
appointed
when
he
hath
determined
how
it
should
be
done
.
The
Doctor
when
he
saith
above
,
the
words
,
[
I
baptize
into
the
name
of
the
Father
&c.
]
must
be
indispensably
used
,
me
thinks
by
the
same
reason
should
conceive
Christs
institution
should
be
unalterably
used
in
baptizing
those
only
whom
he
hath
appointed
to
be
baptized
.
To
this
the
grounds
of
answer
have
been
already
laid
also
,
viz.
that
they
that
baptize
infants
,
baptize
no
otherwise
then
Christ
appointed
,
and
the
Apostles
appear
to
have
understood
his
appointment
.
By
Christs
appointment
,
not
meaning
particularly
his
words
Mat.
28
but
his
will
otherwise
made
known
to
his
disciples
,
when
and
in
what
words
soever
it
was
that
he
instituted
baptisme
,
which
must
be
long
before
this
,
even
before
his
Apostles
took
upon
them
to
baptize
any
,
which
yet
they
did
in
great
abundance
Joh.
4.1
.
And
of
this
appointment
or
institution
of
batisme
by
Christ
,
it
is
most
true
,
that
if
that
precept
of
Christ
,
whereby
he
first
instituted
baptisme
,
did
not
indeed
comprehend
and
so
necessarily
inferre
infant
baptisme
,
and
was
so
understood
to
do
by
the
Apostles
,
it
shall
consequently
be
deemed
to
deny
it
.
But
then
herein
lyes
a
great
fallacie
,
when
from
another
appointment
of
Christs
,
viz.
that
Mat.
28.
which
I
acknowledge
not
to
inferre
infant
baptisme
necessarily
,
he
assumes
in
universum
,
and
reports
it
as
my
confession
,
that
Christs
precept
(
indefinitely
taken
,
and
so
extending
to
all
Christs
precepts
at
any
time
)
doth
not
necessarily
inferre
infant
baptisme
.
Which
is
that
grand
illogical
fault
in
discourse
,
of
inferring
an
indefinite
or
universal
conclusion
from
particular
premisses
.
As
for
the
comparison
which
he
makes
betwixt
the
indispensable
use
of
the
words
of
baptisme
Mat.
28.
and
the
as
unalterable
observation
of
Christ's
institution
,
in
respect
of
the
persons
to
be
baptized
,
I
willingly
grant
it
,
on
the
condition
praemised
,
that
he
mistake
not
the
text
,
Mat.
28.
to
be
the
words
of
that
institution
,
wherein
Christ
defined
,
who
are
the
persons
to
be
baptized
.
Those
words
are
a
commission
to
the
Apostles
to
go
preach
to
,
or
disciple
all
nations
,
and
thus
farre
extends
to
point
out
the
persons
,
viz.
that
they
should
(
as
disciple
so
)
baptize
Gentiles
as
well
as
Jewes
,
and
again
,
they
are
express
for
the
forme
of
baptisme
,
that
it
should
be
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
the
Sonne
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
but
they
are
not
any
kind
of
direction
to
that
other
matter
of
receiving
,
and
admitting
infants
or
not
infants
.
That
I
suppose
sufficiently
notified
to
them
before
both
by
the
common
practice
of
their
ancestors
in
the
Jewish
religion
,
by
the
vulgar
notion
of
baptisme
,
whilest
it
was
familiarly
used
among
the
Jewes
,
both
to
their
own
and
their
proselytes
children
,
and
also
by
Christs
speciall
direction
(
though
the
Gospels
,
which
express
not
at
all
the
words
of
the
first
institution
of
baptisme
,
do
not
set
that
down
)
in
the
time
of
his
preaching
among
them
,
some
while
before
that
passage
of
storie
related
,
Joh.
4.1
.
&c.
From
both
of
these
,
I
suppose
,
the
Apostles
learnt
it
(
and
not
from
Mat.
28.
)
and
we
learn
it
only
from
the
Apostles
,
as
shall
hereafter
appear
.
And
so
much
for
his
prooemial
reasoning
.
Sect.
2.
Making
disciples
all
one
with
receiving
into
discipleship
.
Baptizing
the
act
of
the
Baptist
.
Instruction
subsequent
to
discipling
.
The
pretended
parallel
between
Mat.
28.
and
Mar.
16.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Johns
discipling
by
preaching
excludes
not
infants
.
No
more
the
Apostles
,
Mat.
10.5
.
The
notation
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Mat.
13.52
.
Act.
14.21
.
Infants
both
said
to
come
and
to
believe
.
Instruction
subsequent
to
baptisme
.
AFter
this
praelusorie
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
he
next
proceeds
to
consider
,
what
shift
(
as
he
calls
it
)
the
Doctor
makes
to
elude
the
force
of
Christs
institution
,
Mat.
28.19
.
But
I
have
already
made
it
evident
that
that
Commission
for
preaching
to
,
or
discipling
all
nations
(
as
for
the
baptizing
them
,
and
the
particularity
of
the
forme
to
be
used
in
baptisme
,
&c.
)
was
not
the
institution
of
baptisme
,
nor
any
intimation
on
either
side
,
whether
infants
should
be
baptized
or
not
;
and
so
t
is
manifest
how
little
need
I
had
to
use
any
shift
,
or
artifice
to
elude
the
force
of
it
.
However
in
his
view
of
my
discourse
some
exceptions
he
must
find
;
And
the
first
is
,
that
though
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
well
rendred
,
make
disciples
,
yet
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
well
paraphrased
by
,
receiving
into
discipleship
,
baptizing
them
,
making
this
forme
of
baptisme
the
ceremonie
of
receiving
them
.
For
by
this
,
saith
he
,
the
making
disciples
is
made
the
same
with
receiving
them
,
and
baptisme
the
ceremonie
of
receivers
into
discipleship
,
which
is
as
truely
an
act
of
the
baptized
professing
,
or
avouching
his
discipleship
.
Here
is
another
subtlety
of
a
refined
nature
,
making
a
difference
betwixt
making
disciples
,
and
receiving
into
discipleship
,
or
receiving
disciples
;
As
if
these
two
were
not
perfectly
synonymous
,
and
by
me
evidently
used
,
as
such
.
I
shall
not
dispute
of
words
,
when
the
matter
is
clear
,
and
when
it
is
equally
to
my
purpose
which
phrase
is
used
,
whether
making
or
receiving
disciples
.
2dly
.
When
he
affirmes
of
baptisme
,
which
I
make
the
ceremonie
of
the
Apostles
receiving
them
,
that
t
is
as
truely
the
act
of
the
baptized
,
this
is
no
subtilty
,
but
grosse
and
visible
enough
;
For
certainly
baptisme
in
the
active
sense
(
as
it
is
plain
I
understand
it
in
that
place
,
where
I
paraphrase
,
goe
and
make
disciples
and
baptize
)
is
not
the
act
of
the
baptized
,
but
of
the
baptist
;
The
coming
to
baptisme
indeed
,
and
the
undertaking
the
vow
,
and
making
the
profession
,
is
the
act
of
the
baptized
,
either
personally
,
or
by
his
proxy
,
which
in
reputation
of
Law
,
and
in
acceptation
of
the
Church
,
is
his
also
,
but
still
baptisme
,
or
(
to
remove
all
possible
mistake
)
baptizing
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Mat.
28.19
.
is
an
act
of
the
baptizer
onely
,
and
so
the
ceremonie
of
receiving
into
discipleship
,
whomsoever
they
thus
duely
baptize
.
I
hope
I
need
say
no
more
of
this
.
His
2d
branch
of
exception
is
to
those
words
of
mine
wherein
I
say
that
the
making
or
receiving
disciples
,
supposeth
not
any
precedent
instruction
,
but
lookes
wholly
on
it
as
subsequent
.
This
I
there
concluded
not
from
the
bare
negative
,
because
there
was
no
precedent
mention
of
such
instruction
,
where
discipling
and
baptizing
,
were
both
mention'd
,
but
because
in
that
place
,
on
which
the
Antipaedobaptist
so
much
relyes
,
Mat.
28.19
.
the
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
teaching
]
is
expressely
mentioned
after
discipling
and
baptizing
,
and
so
is
in
reason
to
be
deemed
,
and
lookt
on
,
as
subsequent
to
both
,
and
so
the
receiving
ad
discipulatum
referre
to
that
then
future
instruction
.
And
to
this
sense
I
there
made
it
manifest
,
that
the
definition
of
baptisme
1
Pet.
3.21
.
did
referre
that
,
baptisme
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
seeking
to
God
,
as
to
the
oracle
to
inquire
for
the
whole
future
life
,
no
way
prerequiring
actual
instruction
,
but
coming
to
Christ
and
the
Church
to
receive
it
,
and
obey
it
for
the
future
(
and
that
done
in
some
sort
by
those
that
are
brought
,
when
they
are
not
able
to
come
,
and
by
the
charitie
of
the
Church
received
there
)
And
this
farther
illustrated
as
by
the
manner
of
children
brought
by
parents
to
School
,
without
either
knowledge
of
letters
,
or
choise
,
or
so
much
as
wish
of
instruction
,
so
by
the
manner
of
Christ's
disciples
being
received
by
him
,
particularly
of
Philip
,
Joh.
1.44
.
who
was
called
,
and
received
into
discipleship
,
as
soon
as
ever
Christ
met
with
him
,
i.
e.
before
he
was
at
all
instructed
by
him
,
and
so
also
by
the
storie
of
the
Jewes
,
Exo.
19.8
.
who
undertook
to
obey
all
the
Commandments
of
God
,
which
he
should
give
them
,
which
yet
were
not
then
,
but
after
given
them
,
v.
20.
and
so
lastly
by
the
nature
of
proselytisme
,
which
as
it
is
all
one
with
entring
into
God's
covenant
and
(
in
the
Christian
sense
)
with
coming
to
Christ
and
being
received
to
discipleship
,
so
t
is
that
which
children
are
known
to
be
capable
of
,
not
onely
by
that
text
,
Deut.
29.10
.
but
by
the
custome
of
baptizing
infant
proselytes
among
the
Jewes
,
and
by
Christ's
command
to
suffer
them
to
come
unto
him
,
whensoever
they
were
thus
brought
.
Now
to
this
thus
evidenced
(
and
much
more
largely
in
that
place
,
§
.
26.
&c.
)
he
is
pleased
to
annex
some
reasons
of
his
dissent
,
For
,
1.
saith
he
,
that
which
is
exprest
in
Matthew
by
,
Go
ye
therefore
and
make
disciples
all
nations
,
is
in
Marke
,
Go
ye
into
all
the
world
and
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
creature
,
which
shewes
how
they
should
disciple
all
nations
;
Now
they
who
are
made
disciples
by
preaching
the
Gospel
are
made
disciples
by
precedent
instruction
,
Ergo
,
the
making
or
receiving
disciples
Mat.
28.19
.
supposeth
precedent
instruction
.
But
to
this
I
answer
,
1.
That
the
words
in
Marke
are
no
otherwise
parallel
to
those
in
Matthew
,
then
as
an
Epitome
is
parallel
to
a
larger
discourse
,
such
we
know
S.
Markes
for
the
most
part
is
,
an
abbreviation
of
S.
Matthews
Gospel
,
as
in
many
others
,
so
in
this
particular
,
some
passages
indeed
there
are
in
S.
Mark
in
this
place
,
which
are
not
in
S.
Matthew
,
as
shall
a
non
be
shewed
,
but
in
the
particular
now
before
us
,
S.
Mark
is
,
according
to
wont
,
more
concise
;
there
is
no
mention
in
him
of
baptizing
in
the
name
of
the
Father
and
of
the
Son
&
of
the
holy
Ghost
,
nor
consequently
of
discipling
,
of
which
that
was
the
ceremonie
,
as
in
S.
Matthew
there
is
.
2dly
.
That
Christs
appointment
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
in
S.
Mark
,
doth
no
way
inferre
the
precedent
instruction
of
every
single
person
that
was
received
to
baptisme
:
The
phrase
signifies
to
proclaime
or
promulgate
the
happy
tidings
brought
into
the
world
by
Christ
,
grace
,
and
mercy
,
and
eternal
felicitie
to
all
that
should
come
into
him
and
take
his
yoke
upon
them
,
and
learn
of
him
;
And
upon
the
publishing
of
this
to
all
the
world
,
to
every
creature
,
i.
e.
to
the
Gentiles
universally
,
as
well
as
the
Jewes
,
I
suppose
t
is
very
possible
,
that
many
of
them
should
make
all
speed
to
come
unto
Christ
,
and
come
out
at
the
Apostles
preaching
,
they
and
their
whole
housholds
together
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
the
oracle
commanded
in
Homer
)
and
to
bring
their
infant
children
with
them
,
as
they
used
to
do
,
that
became
proselytes
to
the
Jewes
and
then
the
Apostles
,
knowing
their
Masters
mind
for
the
receiving
of
Infants
,
and
that
(
as
from
the
institution
I
suppose
them
fore-instructed
)
to
baptisme
,
receive
them
all
,
and
(
as
many
as
interposed
no
voluntary
hindrance
)
baptize
them
,
and
having
taken
them
into
the
School
of
Christ
make
good
provision
for
the
future
instruction
of
them
,
as
soon
as
ever
they
should
be
capable
of
it
.
That
thus
it
was
I
pretend
not
(
still
)
to
deduce
from
these
words
,
Mat.
28.
but
to
infer
from
another
medium
,
the
practice
of
the
Apostles
,
otherwise
notified
to
us
:
All
that
I
am
now
to
manifest
,
is
,
that
this
passage
hath
nothing
contrary
to
our
hypothesis
,
but
is
perfectly
reconcileable
with
it
,
and
this
is
done
by
the
scheme
thus
laid
:
And
so
t
is
most
visible
how
no
force
there
is
in
this
first
reason
of
exception
.
The
2d
followes
,
that
such
as
the
making
disciples
was
Jo.
4.1
.
such
is
the
making
disciples
Mat.
28.19
.
For
by
the
Doctors
confession
they
are
all
one
.
But
that
was
by
preaching
,
as
is
plain
concerning
John
,
Mat.
3.1
,
2
,
5
,
6.
and
concerning
the
Apostles
.
Mat.
10.5
,
6
,
7.
Ergo.
To
this
I
answer
,
that
the
account
last
given
is
fully
satisfactory
to
this
exception
also
;
For
supposing
the
Apostles
to
publish
whithersoever
they
came
,
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
good
newes
that
was
come
into
the
world
by
Christ
,
and
the
hearers
not
only
to
come
in
themselves
,
but
to
bring
their
whole
families
,
and
so
their
infant
children
with
them
,
there
is
no
difficulty
to
imagine
,
that
they
that
had
thus
made
proclamation
,
received
all
,
and
made
all
disciples
,
yong
and
old
,
that
either
came
or
were
brought
,
and
so
it
being
granted
that
they
made
disciples
by
preaching
,
preaching
being
the
instrument
to
draw
the
parents
themselves
,
and
to
move
them
to
bring
their
children
to
discipleship
,
it
is
still
very
visible
how
children
should
be
discipled
,
and
consequently
baptized
by
them
,
baptisme
being
the
constant
ceremony
of
discipling
.
And
though
I
am
not
able
to
affirm
,
how
it
was
actually
in
Johns
baptisme
,
yet
this
I
may
say
,
that
as
far
as
can
be
discerned
or
inferred
from
the
phrase
in
either
place
,
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
thus
it
very
possibly
might
be
both
in
Johns
and
in
the
Apostles
baptizing
.
First
for
John
,
't
is
true
indeed
that
his
baptisme
attended
his
preaching
,
yet
doth
it
not
thence
necessarily
follow
that
none
were
baptized
by
him
but
those
who
particularly
heard
and
obeyed
his
preaching
;
For
1.
Why
might
not
those
that
heard
it
,
divulge
it
to
others
,
and
bring
them
before
they
heard
him
,
to
desire
to
be
baptized
,
and
upon
their
confessing
their
sins
,
and
professing
amendment
,
he
baptize
them
?
2.
Why
might
not
those
that
heard
it
,
or
heard
of
it
,
give
that
heed
of
it
,
as
to
bring
all
that
were
dear
to
them
of
what
age
soever
,
by
that
means
to
secure
them
from
the
wrath
to
come
;
when
Noah
preacht
repentance
to
the
old
world
,
and
upon
the
decree
of
sending
the
flood
upon
the
world
of
the
ungodly
,
called
all
to
come
into
the
Ark
to
him
to
escape
the
deluge
,
suppose
others
besides
Noahs
family
had
hearkned
to
his
preaching
,
or
suppose
he
and
his
sons
had
had
infant
children
,
can
we
imagine
they
would
have
left
their
infants
to
that
certain
ruine
,
and
not
have
taken
them
into
the
ark
with
them
?
And
Johns
baptisme
was
answerable
to
that
ark
,
in
respect
of
that
approaching
ruine
on
the
Jewes
,
styled
the
kingdome
of
heaven
v.
1.
and
that
evidenced
to
be
a
bloody
kingdome
,
explicated
by
casting
into
the
fire
v.
10.
And
can
we
imagine
the
Jews
that
believed
John
and
came
to
his
baptisme
,
did
not
bring
their
children
with
them
to
save
them
from
the
praedicted
evils
,
And
then
I
professe
not
to
see
any
reason
to
render
it
incredible
that
John
Baptist
should
thus
receive
and
baptize
those
infants
(
though
the
Scripture
affirming
nothing
of
it
,
and
tradition
,
as
far
as
I
know
,
as
little
,
I
shall
neither
affirm
nor
believe
any
thing
in
it
)
This
only
is
certain
,
that
among
the
Jewes
of
that
time
infant
Children
were
known
to
be
capable
of
entring
into
covenant
with
God
after
this
manner
,
and
of
being
partakers
of
the
benefit
of
the
Covenant
by
that
means
.
And
one
thing
more
I
may
adde
,
that
Christ
himself
,
who
was
by
his
sinlesness
,
as
unqualified
for
the
Repentance
which
John
preacht
,
as
the
infants
were
by
their
incapacities
,
did
yet
come
and
was
received
to
Johns
baptisme
,
v.
13.
and
then
in
c●se
infants
were
brought
,
why
might
not
they
be
received
also
?
Then
2.
for
as
much
as
concerned
the
Apostles
Mat.
10.
First
,
T
is
there
evident
that
they
were
sent
to
the
lost
sheep
indefinitely
,
and
sure
that
phrase
comprehends
the
Lambs
also
,
the
infant
children
being
lost
in
Adam
as
well
as
the
grown
men
,
by
the
addition
of
their
actual
to
original
sin
:
And
then
why
should
we
doubt
but
the
Apostles
mission
extended
to
them
also
?
An
2.
for
their
preaching
,
it
is
just
as
Johns
was
,
to
warn
them
to
beware
of
the
imminent
destruction
,
that
vindicative
act
of
Gods
kingdome
v.
7.
that
all
that
should
give
ear
and
heed
to
them
might
hasten
to
get
out
of
that
danger
by
reformation
and
new
life
;
and
the
ruine
being
impendent
to
the
young
as
well
as
old
,
even
the
whole
nation
,
why
should
not
the
infant
children
be
rescued
from
that
by
their
parents
care
in
bringing
them
to
baptisme
,
and
timely
ingaging
them
to
fly
from
the
wrath
to
come
,
as
soon
as
they
should
come
to
understanding
,
injoying
in
the
mean
time
the
benefit
of
others
charity
?
Thirdly
,
After
their
preaching
though
there
be
no
mention
of
baptizing
(
and
so
it
was
not
so
fit
to
be
produced
to
our
present
business
)
yet
other
things
there
are
appointed
to
be
done
,
wherein
infants
were
concerned
as
well
as
others
,
as
healing
of
diseases
&c.
and
if
being
incapable
of
receiving
benefit
from
preaching
should
be
deemed
an
obstacle
to
their
being
baptized
,
why
should
it
not
to
their
receiving
of
cures
?
Nay
I
may
adde
,
How
should
the
dead
in
that
place
(
who
sure
were
as
uncapable
of
hearing
or
understanding
as
the
tenderest
infant
)
be
capable
of
being
raised
by
those
Apostles
,
which
yet
is
there
affirmed
of
them
,
v.
8.
And
so
much
for
that
reason
also
,
and
in
like
manner
for
the
third
,
which
is
but
repeating
the
last
branch
of
this
second
,
that
the
Apostles
were
to
disciple
all
nations
by
the
same
way
that
they
discipled
the
lost
sheep
of
the
house
of
Israel
,
which
was
,
saith
he
,
by
preaching
and
therefore
supposed
precedent
instruction
.
In
what
sense
,
I
have
now
shewed
,
viz.
by
preaching
,
to
the
nations
,
and
receiving
all
that
came
in
to
the
discipleship
,
whether
on
their
own
leggs
,
or
in
others
arms
,
whole
families
at
once
,
the
parents
,
and
upon
their
undertaking
their
infant
children
also
.
His
fourth
proof
is
taken
from
the
use
and
notation
of
the
word
,
which
is
so
to
teach
as
that
they
learn
,
and
so
,
saith
he
,
is
used
Mat.
13.52
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
rendred
,
[
instructed
]
by
our
last
translators
,
and
can
be
no
otherwise
rendred
than
[
made
a
disciple
by
teaching
]
so
Act.
14.21
.
it
is
said
,
Having
preached
the
Gospel
to
that
city
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
having
taught
or
made
many
disciples
.
For
the
notation
of
the
word
we
have
formerly
said
sufficient
,
that
it
signifies
to
receive
ad
discipulatum
,
as
into
a
school
of
Spiritual
instruction
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
make
a
disciple
,
and
such
he
is
made
,
who
by
any
motive
or
means
either
comes
or
is
brought
into
the
school
,
this
indeed
in
order
to
teaching
in
the
Master
,
and
to
learning
in
the
scholar
,
and
the
one
so
to
teach
,
as
that
the
other
learn
,
but
this
subsequent
to
his
being
made
a
disciple
,
the
youth
we
know
enters
into
the
school
,
is
admitted
into
the
College
and
Vniversity
,
before
he
learns
a
word
there
,
the
instruction
or
learning
is
still
lookt
upon
as
future
,
at
his
entring
into
discipleship
.
And
this
is
all
the
importance
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Mat.
13.5
.
only
some
accidental
differences
may
be
observed
,
't
is
in
the
passive
,
and
in
the
Aorist
in
the
preter
tense
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
every
Scribe
which
is
or
hath
been
entred
as
a
disciple
unto
the
kingdome
of
heaven
,
who
since
his
entrance
hath
been
instructed
and
(
as
real
passives
import
)
received
influence
,
been
really
affected
and
changed
by
discipleship
,
still
no
way
supposing
that
he
was
instructed
in
the
learning
or
mysteries
of
the
kingdome
of
heaven
,
before
he
was
thus
admitted
a
disciple
to
it
;
After
his
admission
,
there
is
no
doubt
but
he
doth
(
or
ought
to
)
learn
,
nay
being
there
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
Scribe
discipled
,
a
grown
man
and
learned
among
the
Jews
,
before
he
came
to
Christ
,
I
doubt
not
but
some
knowledge
he
had
of
it
before
he
entred
himself
a
disciple
(
see
baptizing
of
infants
,
p.
199.
)
but
this
not
by
force
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
still
a
disciple
he
may
be
before
he
learns
,
and
is
therefore
obliged
to
learn
,
because
he
hath
assumed
and
undertaken
to
do
so
,
either
personally
,
or
by
others
susception
,
by
his
coming
,
or
being
brought
to
be
a
disciple
.
So
in
the
other
place
Act.
14.21
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
signifies
no
more
then
having
received
,
or
initiated
,
i.
e.
(
I
suppose
)
by
this
rite
of
baptisme
,
made
and
baptized
many
disciples
,
which
though
it
be
there
set
down
as
a
consequent
of
the
Apostles
preaching
the
Gospel
in
that
City
(
for
otherwise
it
were
not
imaginable
that
they
should
receive
any
disciples
there
,
they
must
first
proclaim
admission
to
all
that
come
,
before
any
can
be
expected
either
to
come
,
or
be
brought
to
them
)
yet
may
it
very
reasonably
be
extended
to
more
persons
then
those
that
understood
their
preaching
,
viz.
to
the
infant
children
of
their
proselytes
,
brought
to
them
by
their
parents
and
dedicated
to
Christ
.
Thus
invalid
are
his
attempts
from
the
notation
of
the
word
,
and
by
consequence
his
inference
from
thence
(
which
is
set
down
as
his
fift
proof
)
that
thereby
it
may
appear
how
the
Apostles
understood
the
precept
of
Christ
to
preach
the
Gospel
to
persons
and
thereby
make
them
disciples
.
For
although
the
practice
of
the
Apostles
be
indeed
the
means
by
which
we
may
discerne
how
they
understood
Christs
precept
(
and
those
two
places
cited
by
Mr.
T.
from
Mat.
13.
and
Act.
14.
do
no
way
belong
to
that
,
they
tell
us
not
,
whether
they
received
infants
to
baptisme
,
or
not
)
yet
I
may
very
well
ward
my self
from
any
inconvenience
,
which
this
use
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
other
places
can
threaten
,
it
being
already
vindicated
from
all
necessity
that
it
should
be
confined
to
grown
men
,
and
not
communicated
to
infants
also
.
His
last
proof
is
by
returning
to
the
first
again
,
comparing
the
words
in
Matthew
with
the
parallel
place
in
Mark
,
Whereby
,
saith
he
,
a
disciple
and
believer
will
appear
to
be
the
same
,
the
disciple
to
be
baptized
in
Mat.
being
in
Mark
expressed
by
the
believer
,
which
is
put
before
baptism
.
To
this
I
answer
,
1.
that
that
passage
in
S.
Mark
,
He
that
believes
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
,
and
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
,
and
so
on
to
the
end
of
the
Gospel
,
is
(
as
even
now
I
intimated
)
added
by
that
Evangelist
,
to
the
words
,
as
they
are
set
down
in
Matthew
and
so
being
an
addition
,
cannot
be
looked
on
,
as
exactly
parallel
to
the
words
in
Matthew
,
Go
,
and
disciple
all
nations
baptizing
them
—
And
this
we
also
know
is
ordinary
for
one
Evangelist
to
set
down
more
fully
,
what
is
omitted
or
more
shortly
set
down
in
another
,
and
S.
Mark
that
in
other
things
was
willing
to
abbreviate
S.
Matthew
,
doth
now
visibly
in
large
;
And
so
the
comparison
cannot
regularly
be
made
betwixt
these
two
Evangelists
words
,
something
being
abbreviated
in
Mark
which
was
more
at
large
in
Matthew
,
and
something
more
concisely
set
down
in
Matthew
,
and
more
largely
in
Mark.
And
then
what
necessity
is
there
,
that
Mark
not
mentioning
discipling
but
believing
:
and
Matthew
mentioning
discipling
but
not
believing
the
discipled
and
believers
should
be
deemed
the
same
.
T
is
true
indeed
of
grown
men
,
none
can
in
reason
be
admitted
disciples
,
which
are
not
also
believers
(
the
ground
of
which
I
have
set
down
in
the
Resol
.
of
the
Quaere
p.
199.
)
but
of
infant
children
this
is
not
true
,
for
those
,
though
they
cannot
come
,
may
yet
be
brought
,
and
though
not
upon
their
own
confession
,
yet
by
the
susception
of
others
,
made
capable
of
the
Churches
charity
,
and
so
may
be
disciples
without
actual
or
personal
belief
.
Nay
2dly
if
Mr.
T.
his
argument
had
power
to
infer
it
,
t
were
that
which
I
might
safely
avouch
,
that
infants
may
be
comprehended
under
the
style
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
they
that
believe
and
are
baptized
;
so
even
now
we
had
it
in
the
expresse
words
of
Christ
,
the
little
ones
(
and
S.
Luke
specifies
them
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
little
infants
)
that
believe
on
him
:
i.
e.
just
as
they
are
said
elsewhere
to
come
unto
him
,
when
they
are
as
uncapable
,
for
want
of
bodily
strength
,
of
personal
coming
,
as
for
want
of
strength
of
minde
or
judgement
,
for
personal
believing
,
and
yet
in
respect
of
others
bringing
them
to
Christ
(
and
so
to
the
Church
in
baptisme
)
they
are
by
Christ
himself
said
to
do
both
of
these
,
to
come
in
one
place
,
and
to
believe
in
the
other
.
But
then
3dly
,
I
willingly
acknowledge
that
the
word
[
believe
]
in
Mark
,
belongs
peculiarly
to
the
grown
men
and
women
,
who
are
called
by
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
of
whom
though
it
be
said
,
that
believing
and
being
baptized
they
shall
be
saved
,
and
not
believing
they
shall
be
damned
,
yet
it
no
way
follows
,
that
none
but
such
as
thus
personally
believed
,
should
be
baptized
,
or
that
being
baptized
they
should
not
be
saved
,
but
lose
all
the
benefit
of
their
baptisme
.
The
later
part
of
the
words
is
considerable
;
He
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
,
Infidelity
is
pitcht
on
,
as
the
thing
peculiarly
,
that
incurs
the
certain
damnation
,
i.
e.
the
voluntary
resisting
the
Faith
,
when
it
is
preacht
convincingly
to
them
,
and
of
that
none
are
capable
,
but
those
that
are
arrived
to
years
of
understanding
.
Which
as
it
is
an
indication
that
that
ver
.
and
those
that
follow
in
S.
Mark
of
believers
casting
out
devils
,
&c.
v.
17
,
18.
belong
to
adulti
peculiarly
,
so
it
no
way
hinders
but
S.
Matthews
words
being
different
from
them
,
and
supposed
to
be
precedent
to
them
in
Christs
delivery
,
may
comprehend
infants
also
,
as
such
who
are
capable
of
entring
into
discipleship
,
and
of
being
brought
and
presented
to
the
Apostles
by
believing
parents
,
This
being
the
way
whereby
the
faith
of
the
parents
may
be
signally
beneficial
to
the
childe
,
in
bringing
him
thus
early
into
the
School
,
and
so
to
the
benediction
of
Christ
,
the
parents
together
with
the
infant
children
,
as
among
the
Jews
so
among
Christians
,
entring
together
into
covenant
with
God.
In
this
matter
Mr.
T.
is
willing
to
finde
a
difference
betwixt
Teaching
them
to
observe
all
things
whatsoever
Christ
hath
commanded
them
,
Mat.
28.20
.
and
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
in
S.
Mark
:
thinking
by
that
means
to
avoid
the
importunity
of
that
text
in
Matthew
,
which
evidently
sets
baptisme
before
instructing
.
But
this
can
avail
him
nothing
,
For
if
by
the
Gospel
in
Mark
we
understand
the
whole
Gospel
,
as
in
reason
we
must
,
for
that
is
it
which
must
be
preacht
to
every
creature
(
the
Gentile
world
)
then
is
that
directly
all
one
with
teaching
them
to
observe
whatsoever
he
hath
commanded
;
But
if
by
preaching
the
Gospel
we
mean
no
more
then
,
as
Mr.
T.
here
saith
,
that
Jesus
is
the
Christ
,
i.
e.
the
proposing
him
as
a
Master
,
and
calling
all
to
come
to
him
as
disciples
,
then
this
being
supposed
precedent
to
mens
coming
to
discipleship
,
or
bringing
their
infants
to
it
(
for
without
this
they
cannot
be
expected
to
come
themselves
,
or
to
bring
their
infants
)
all
the
rest
is
left
to
follow
baptisme
,
and
so
all
particular
Christian
instruction
is
subsequent
,
not
precedent
to
baptisme
,
an
effect
of
their
discipleship
,
attending
it
,
no
way
necessary
to
prepare
for
it
,
which
is
the
utmost
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
from
that
circumstance
of
that
text
I
undertook
to
demonstrate
.
Sect.
3.
Discipleship
before
instruction
.
What
knowledge
of
the
Master
is
required
to
discipleship
.
Two
sorts
of
disciples
,
Some
come
,
others
are
brought
.
HIS
reasons
for
the
disproving
of
my
interpretation
of
Mat.
28.
being
thus
evidenced
to
have
no
force
or
validity
in
them
against
our
pretensions
,
and
so
indeed
his
whole
fabrick
demolished
,
(
that
place
of
S.
Mat.
being
the
one
main
(
if
not
only
)
ground
of
Antipaedobaptists
structure
)
I
might
well
spare
the
advantages
of
the
26
,
27
,
28.
§§
.
to
which
he
makes
some
kinde
of
answer
in
the
remainder
of
his
25
Chapter
:
But
there
is
so
little
weight
in
his
answers
that
they
will
be
speedily
dispatched
.
First
then
to
my
26
§
.
he
saith
,
that
were
it
all
granted
me
,
yet
it
would
no
whit
avail
to
prove
that
an
infant
may
be
a
disciple
appointed
by
Christ
to
be
baptized
.
To
this
I
reply
,
that
the
26
§
.
being
most
of
it
spent
for
the
explaining
an
hard
place
1
Pet.
3.21
.
concerning
baptisme
,
and
for
assigning
the
due
notion
to
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
question
,
or
addresse
as
to
an
Oracle
,
for
instruction
for
the
future
life
,
I
pretended
not
to
conclude
infant
baptisme
from
thence
,
nor
any
more
then
this
,
that
baptisme
being
the
entring
of
a
disciple
,
and
not
praerequiring
actual
instruction
,
but
consisting
in
coming
to
Christ
and
his
Church
to
receive
it
for
the
future
,
't
is
certain
that
by
this
account
children
are
capable
of
baptisme
,
because
they
may
by
the
care
of
their
parents
be
thus
brought
early
to
Christ
,
and
entred
into
his
school
by
them
,
before
they
themselves
have
faculties
either
to
desire
,
or
know
what
is
done
to
them
,
the
proportion
holding
in
this
betwixt
infants
and
other
scholars
that
are
entred
by
their
parents
in
any
school
before
they
know
one
letter
in
the
book
,
or
have
actual
willingness
to
acquire
any
knowledge
;
And
this
is
there
illustrated
by
the
example
Philip
,
Joh.
1.44
.
and
of
the
Jews
,
Ex.
19.8
.
which
have
again
been
mentioned
,
and
are
clear
evidences
,
that
those
may
be
received
into
discipleship
which
have
not
yet
had
precedent
instruction
.
Against
this
all
that
he
hath
to
pretend
is
set
down
by
him
in
these
words
,
Let
putting
to
school
be
as
early
as
the
Doctor
will
imagine
,
yet
none
is
put
to
school
till
he
doth
know
his
teacher
,
and
so
none
is
Christ's
disciple
in
the
Scripture
language
till
he
know
Jesus
to
be
Christ
,
and
take
him
for
his
Lord
,
which
infants
being
not
capable
of
,
they
are
not
disciples
,
nor
to
be
baptized
according
to
Christ's
appointment
.
To
this
I
answer
,
1.
That
the
example
which
I
had
used
of
children
being
brought
to
School
by
the
care
of
their
parents
,
was
designed
to
shew
no
more
then
this
,
that
they
may
be
delivered
up
to
be
scholars
,
who
as
yet
know
nothing
of
what
they
are
to
learn
,
nor
have
actual
willingnesse
to
acquire
knowledge
,
and
consequently
that
entrance
into
discipleship
referres
onely
to
subsequent
,
supposes
not
any
precedent
instruction
.
And
this
is
competently
evidenced
by
that
example
,
though
it
were
supposed
of
the
child
that
goes
to
school
,
that
he
knowes
his
teacher
,
this
bare
knowledge
of
the
person
of
his
teacher
,
being
none
of
the
documents
which
he
comes
to
school
to
learn
,
but
the
good
letters
that
are
profest
and
taught
in
the
school
,
nor
indeed
is
it
imaginable
why
a
blind
child
which
is
brought
to
school
,
or
put
to
an
instructer
,
and
so
cannot
be
deemed
to
know
the
Master
,
before
assuetude
hath
acquainted
him
with
him
,
should
not
yet
be
said
,
with
as
full
propriety
of
speech
,
to
come
to
school
,
as
he
that
useth
his
own
eyes
as
well
as
feet
to
direct
him
thither
.
2dly
.
It
is
as
true
,
that
children
that
are
brought
to
School
do
not
always
know
their
Masters
before
their
entrance
,
no
not
by
the
most
superficiall
knowledge
;
Many
are
brought
to
publick
Schools
,
who
never
so
much
as
saw
their
Masters
,
till
they
are
by
their
parents
delivered
up
into
their
power
and
discipline
;
If
this
be
not
plain
enough
,
then
change
the
similitude
from
the
Schoolmaster
to
the
parent
or
guardian
,
or
the
very
nurse
,
every
one
of
these
are
to
feed
and
nourish
,
and
,
as
he
shall
be
capable
,
to
instruct
the
child
,
and
so
doth
Christ
in
a
Spirituall
sense
,
whosoever
is
intrusted
(
by
being
brought
)
to
him
in
baptisme
.
And
we
know
God
and
Nature
doth
thus
bring
a
child
to
the
parent
,
to
the
nourse
or
Guardian
,
when
the
child
knows
none
of
these
,
nor
understands
any
more
of
all
these
transactions
,
then
the
infant
doth
at
the
font
conceive
what
is
done
to
it
there
.
And
so
still
this
evidenceth
the
vanity
of
this
answer
concerning
the
childs
knowing
his
teacher
.
But
then
3dly
.
This
so
imperfect
superficial
knowledge
of
the
teacher
is
in
no
wise
worth
considering
in
this
matter
;
For
I
shall
demand
,
doth
such
very
imperfect
knowledge
of
Christ
,
as
a
Schoolboy
hath
of
his
teacher
,
the
first
hour
he
comes
into
the
School
,
qualifie
him
for
discipleship
to
Christ
,
or
no
?
If
it
do
,
then
his
countrymen
and
kinsmen
,
before
he
revealed
himself
to
be
the
Messiah
,
and
the
Pharisees
,
which
believed
not
his
miracles
,
were
sufficiently
qualified
,
and
then
t
is
evident
that
those
might
be
admitted
to
discipleship
,
which
were
not
believers
,
and
so
all
Mr.
T.
his
hypotheses
are
destroyed
,
and
then
infants
may
be
discipled
and
baptized
,
though
they
be
not
believers
.
As
for
that
which
he
here
interposes
[
the
knowing
Jesus
to
be
Christ
,
and
taking
him
for
his
Lord
]
this
bears
no
proportion
with
the
childs
bare
knowing
of
his
master
,
but
is
farre
above
it
,
equal
to
his
making
it
his
own
choice
to
have
this
Master
,
rather
then
any
other
,
and
promising
exact
obedience
to
him
,
which
is
much
more
then
is
to
be
found
in
most
young
scholars
,
or
indeed
in
any
that
are
brought
by
their
parents
or
guardians
,
who
alone
are
the
persons
who
bear
proportion
with
the
infants
brought
by
others
to
baptisme
.
So
that
this
reasoning
of
his
is
soon
salved
by
distinguishing
of
disciples
,
that
they
are
either
such
as
come
,
or
such
as
are
brought
to
School
,
proselytes
of
their
own
choice
,
or
children
under
the
care
of
others
,
of
the
former
sort
there
are
none
but
such
as
have
some
rude
imperfect
knowledge
of
Christ
,
upon
which
they
make
this
choice
,
and
without
it
would
not
probably
be
expected
to
make
it
;
But
for
children
which
as
minors
in
their
guardians
hands
,
have
no
will
of
their
own
,
there
is
no
necessity
they
should
have
knowledge
to
move
their
will
,
they
may
very
reasonably
be
acted
by
the
will
of
others
,
and
by
their
charity
be
made
partakers
of
those
priviledges
which
are
communicated
from
Christ
,
in
his
Church
to
all
true
members
thereof
,
and
to
that
end
be
discipled
and
,
baptized
,
entred
by
this
ceremonie
into
the
Church
of
God
,
where
instruction
is
to
be
had
,
as
soon
as
they
are
capable
of
it
,
and
in
the
mean
while
partake
of
those
other
advantages
,
of
which
their
condition
is
capable
.
Sect.
4.
The
difference
of
a
disciple
and
proselyte
examined
.
Christian
as
well
as
Jewish
proselytes
,
Priviledges
of
proselytisme
,
Disciples
of
the
Pharisees
.
The
Holy
Ghost's
not
using
the
word
proselyte
of
Christians
,
concludes
nothing
.
Jehovah
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Infants
qualified
for
baptisme
.
As
for
entring
into
Covenant
Deut.
29.
Gods
oath
.
Infants
adjured
,
Creples
capable
of
Christ's
cures
.
TO
my
27.
and
28.
§§
.
his
answer
is
brief
,
that
what
I
say
is
not
right
;
And
for
proof
,
though
he
begins
with
a
[
For
1.
]
and
so
by
his
forme
of
branching
,
promises
more
reasons
then
one
,
yet
that
first
hath
never
a
[
Secondly
]
to
follow
or
back
it
,
and
so
t
is
all
resolved
into
that
one
,
viz.
that
it
is
not
true
that
a
disciple
and
a
proselyte
are
perfectly
all
one
.
To
this
therefore
I
must
advert
,
and
consider
what
nice
difference
he
can
spring
betwixt
a
disciple
and
a
proselyte
,
whereupon
to
found
satisfaction
for
conscience
why
infants
may
be
proselytes
,
and
as
such
,
come
unto
Christ
,
and
yet
cannot
be
made
disciples
,
or
received
in
baptisme
to
discipleship
.
And
his
reason
is
,
because
a
proselyte
,
saith
he
,
notes
one
that
is
by
birth
an
alien
from
the
Commonwealth
of
Israel
,
and
comes
to
the
Israelites
to
own
their
God
,
and
be
part
of
their
policie
,
and
not
to
be
taught
,
but
enjoy
priviledges
with
other
Jewes
,
whether
Civil
or
Ecclesiastical
.
But
certainly
this
is
no
reason
of
difference
,
for
besides
that
I
,
in
that
§
.
27.
acknowledged
this
accidental
difference
,
that
a
proselyte
denotes
a
coming
from
some
other
nation
(
as
a
disciple
doth
not
)
adding
that
this
difference
had
no
place
in
this
matter
,
where
the
disciples
are
specified
to
be
received
from
all
nations
;
besides
this
,
I
say
,
it
cannot
be
unknown
to
Mr.
T.
that
I
speak
of
proselytes
in
such
a
notion
as
is
equally
competible
to
all
of
what
nation
soever
they
are
,
that
enter
into
Covenant
with
God.
Thus
do
we
find
a
proselyte
defined
,
Heb.
11.6
.
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
he
that
cometh
to
God
,
thus
doth
a
Jew
when
he
enters
into
Covenant
of
obedience
to
him
,
and
thus
did
a
Gentile
when
he
undertook
the
whole
law
of
the
Jewes
,
and
was
therefore
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
proselyte
of
their
covenant
,
and
a
proselyte
of
their
righteousnesse
,
and
such
is
every
one
whether
Jew
or
Gentile
,
that
cometh
to
Christ
;
and
as
the
two
former
of
these
were
made
partakers
of
priviledges
by
this
means
,
particularly
allowed
freely
to
enter
into
the
congregation
,
and
infants
as
well
as
grown
men
,
were
thus
among
them
admitted
into
Covenant
;
so
it
is
not
imaginable
why
it
should
not
hold
of
the
Christian
proselytes
also
,
nor
why
the
Christian
infants
thus
received
into
Covenant
by
Christ
,
after
the
same
manner
as
Jewish
and
Gentile
Infants
were
among
the
antient
people
of
God
,
i.
e.
by
baptisme
,
should
not
as
properly
be
called
proselytes
of
Christ
,
though
they
neither
come
from
any
other
nation
,
nor
ever
associate
themselves
with
Israelites
according
to
the
flesh
.
And
whereas
he
saith
of
the
proselytes
coming
to
the
Israelites
,
that
they
came
not
to
be
taught
,
but
to
enjoy
priviledges
,
I
cannot
divine
what
motive
he
had
to
affirme
it
,
for
sure
the
infant
child
that
was
baptized
,
and
so
received
into
the
congregation
of
Israel
did
come
to
learn
the
Jewish
religion
,
into
which
he
was
thus
early
initiated
,
and
that
was
one
speciall
priviledge
(
the
rest
of
the
heathen
having
not
knowledge
of
these
lawes
,
)
the
immediate
end
of
his
proselytisme
,
yet
not
excluding
those
other
ends
of
injoying
all
other
priviledges
both
Civil
and
Ecclesiastical
thereby
.
And
when
he
addes
,
but
a
disciple
of
Christ
is
one
that
ownes
Christ
for
his
teacher
and
Lord
onely
for
spiritual
benefits
,
I
might
well
acknowledge
it
,
and
aske
,
why
then
an
infant
,
who
hath
need
of
those
spiritual
benefits
,
assoon
as
he
is
born
,
should
not
be
hastened
to
a
participation
of
them
?
But
it
is
farther
evident
,
that
spiritual
benefits
being
first
and
principally
designed
,
other
even
secular
advantages
may
very
lawfully
be
respected
,
and
reaped
by
them
that
are
thus
early
brought
in
,
whether
as
disciples
,
or
proselytes
to
Christ
.
Two
sage
observations
he
here
addeth
,
1.
That
there
is
no
mention
of
the
disciples
of
the
priests
,
but
of
the
Pharisees
and
Sadduces
,
and
I
can
very
well
grant
it
,
who
speak
not
of
any
lower
kinde
of
disciples
,
but
either
of
God
among
the
Jews
,
or
of
Christ
,
among
us
Christians
,
those
being
the
only
discipleships
,
to
which
they
were
admitted
by
the
ceremony
of
baptisme
,
the
disciples
of
the
Pharisees
and
Sadduces
being
but
a
subdivision
,
and
notification
of
several
sects
among
Jews
,
as
there
are
different
denominations
of
Christians
(
the
more
the
pity
)
which
divide
unity
,
but
use
not
new
baptismes
,
to
discriminate
them
,
I
am
sure
contradict
the
Apostle
if
they
doe
.
His
2d
observation
is
,
that
the
holy
Ghost
doth
not
at
any
time
call
Christians
Christs
proselytes
,
but
his
disciples
,
that
,
saith
he
,
we
might
not
confound
the
notions
of
these
terms
;
But
I
answer
,
1.
that
those
texts
that
expresse
the
Christians
entring
into
discipleship
,
by
coming
unto
him
(
of
which
there
are
good
store
)
do
in
effect
call
them
proselytes
,
for
a
proselyte
is
a
Greek
noun
derived
immediatly
from
the
verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
come
unto
.
And
2dly
that
if
this
word
,
whether
in
it self
,
or
in
the
verb
from
whence
it
comes
,
had
never
been
used
in
the
New
Testament
,
yet
would
it
not
thence
follow
,
that
we
might
not
confound
the
notions
of
proselytes
and
disciples
:
The
word
Jehovah
is
never
used
by
the
Holy
Ghost
in
the
New
Testament
,
yet
may
we
not
thence
conclude
,
that
the
notion
of
Jehovah
and
God
are
divers
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
known
style
of
the
Nicene
Fathers
,
is
never
found
used
by
the
writers
of
the
Bible
,
yet
sure
it
no
way
follows
thence
,
that
the
notion
of
that
word
,
and
of
this
phrase
[
I
and
my
Father
are
one
]
are
different
and
may
not
be
confounded
.
T
is
pity
to
lose
time
on
such
fictions
of
scruple
,
and
difficulty
as
these
.
What
now
is
further
said
by
him
in
this
chapter
,
both
concerning
little
ones
coming
unto
Christ
,
and
of
their
entring
into
covenant
,
Deut.
29.10
.
is
on
both
sides
but
a
bare
denyal
of
that
which
is
competently
proved
in
that
28
§
.
For
t
is
there
evident
that
infant
children
are
and
always
were
accounted
capable
of
proselytisme
and
so
of
being
entred
disciples
,
and
particularly
of
being
entred
into
covenant
with
God
,
and
so
of
being
baptized
,
and
there
is
no
reason
imaginable
,
why
the
infants
which
were
capable
of
coming
to
Christ
,
were
blessed
by
him
were
affirmed
by
him
to
be
qualified
for
the
kingdome
of
heaven
,
should
be
denyed
water
to
be
baptized
:
The
holy
Ghost
being
fallen
on
the
Gentiles
that
came
with
Cornelius
,
Peter
durst
not
deny
them
baptisme
;
And
with
what
equity
can
the
Christian
Church
do
it
to
those
,
who
are
qualified
for
the
receiving
pardon
of
sin
,
for
being
blest
by
Christ
,
for
being
received
into
Covenant
with
him
,
and
may
afterward
be
instructed
in
all
things
which
are
needful
to
be
learnt
,
For
that
still
they
are
unqualified
,
till
by
hearing
they
own
Christ
as
their
Master
,
this
is
a
begging
of
the
question
,
without
any
the
least
tender
of
proof
.
As
for
entring
into
covenant
,
when
by
the
force
of
Deut.
29.10
.
he
is
forced
to
yield
it
competible
to
infants
,
yet
he
will
do
his
best
to
escape
the
conviction
which
it
offers
him
,
1.
by
modifying
the
sense
,
then
by
invalidating
my
inference
from
it
.
First
,
though
he
yield
that
they
may
enter
into
Covenant
,
yet
this
,
saith
he
,
but
in
some
sense
,
by
their
fathers
act
ingaging
them
under
a
curse
or
oath
to
own
God
as
theirs
,
in
which
sense
the
posterity
then
unborn
did
enter
into
covenant
,
Deut.
29.15
.
But
if
we
examine
the
place
,
it
will
be
most
clear
,
1.
that
the
Covenant
is
entred
into
by
the
infants
,
just
as
by
the
rest
of
them
,
the
wives
and
the
strangers
or
proselytes
:
On
their
part
,
Ye
stand
this
day
all
of
you
before
the
Lord
,
that
thou
shouldst
enter
into
Covenant
with
the
Lord
;
and
on
Gods
part
,
that
he
may
establish
thee
this
day
for
a
people
.
2dly
Here
is
in
the
text
no
mention
of
any
act
of
the
fathers
ingaging
them
under
a
curse
or
oath
,
but
only
of
Gods
oath
which
he
maketh
to
them
.
v.
12.
3dly
If
they
had
thus
adjured
,
or
laid
oath
or
curse
upon
their
children
,
yet
would
this
make
no
difference
betwixt
their
and
our
entring
into
Covenant
;
we
by
the
oath
of
baptisme
which
is
laid
on
the
childe
(
by
him
to
be
performed
when
he
comes
to
ability
,
unlesse
he
will
forfeit
all
the
benefits
of
his
baptisme
)
do
in
like
manner
adjure
our
infants
,
though
whilest
they
remain
such
,
they
hear
it
as
little
as
the
Jewish
infants
did
.
4thly
Whereas
from
v.
15.
he
cites
that
the
posterity
then
unborn
thus
entred
into
Covenant
,
there
is
no
such
word
in
the
text
▪
no
mention
of
[
posterity
]
or
of
[
unborn
]
but
of
them
only
,
who
were
not
that
day
with
them
,
i.
e.
(
I
suppose
)
were
at
that
time
of
assmbling
absent
from
the
Congregation
.
I
wonder
why
Mr.
T.
should
attempt
thus
to
impose
upon
the
reader
.
As
for
our
inference
(
which
is
this
,
that
by
parity
of
reason
,
infants
may
be
entred
into
discipleship
,
and
accordingly
baptized
,
as
well
as
they
then
might
be
entred
into
the
covenant
of
God
)
he
simply
rejects
it
,
without
any
farther
notice
of
his
reason
again
,
save
onely
this
,
that
in
baptisme
such
a
discipleship
is
injoyn'd
as
is
by
preaching
the
Gospel
,
and
they
onely
are
disciples
that
are
believers
,
and
the
onely
are
appointed
to
be
baptized
,
who
in
their
own
persons
do
enter
into
Covenant
and
ingage
themselves
to
be
Christs
followers
,
and
this
is
again
but
a
pitifull
petitio
principii
,
a
denying
our
conclusion
when
the
premises
cannot
be
denyed
,
and
so
invincibly
inferre
the
conclusion
,
viz.
that
those
may
be
brought
to
and
received
into
discipleship
,
covenant
,
baptisme
,
which
in
their
own
persons
are
not
yet
able
to
come
to
Christ
,
as
those
Criples
may
be
born
by
others
to
Christ
,
who
wanted
strength
to
addresse
themselves
,
and
be
as
really
partakers
of
his
healing
miracles
,
as
those
who
came
to
him
on
their
own
legges
.
And
so
much
also
for
the
25th
Chapter
.
CHAP.
III.
Of
the
Apostolical
practice
in
this
matter
.
Sect.
1.
The
interpretation
of
1
Cor.
7.12
.
vindicated
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Sanctification
used
to
denote
baptisme
,
the
use
of
it
in
the
Fathers
and
Scripture
.
Tertullians
testimonie
:
designati
Sanctitatis
.
Origen
.
Author
Quaest
:
ad
Antiochum
.
Cyprian
.
Chrysostome
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
there
,
infant
children
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Epistles
.
S.
Augustines
words
examined
.
IN
his
last
Chapter
he
proceeds
to
the
view
of
those
§§
.
which
set
down
the
positive
part
of
our
basis
,
evidencing
the
opinion
and
sense
,
which
the
Apostles
had
of
Christ's
institution
,
and
of
his
intention
to
include
,
and
not
to
exclude
infants
from
baptisme
.
The
Apostles
sense
must
be
judged
by
their
own
usage
▪
and
practice
,
and
that
is
testified
to
us
two
waies
,
1.
by
one
considerable
remain
and
indication
of
it
in
S.
Paul
,
2.
By
the
practice
of
the
first
and
purest
ages
of
the
Church
,
receiving
infants
to
baptisme
,
and
so
testifying
the
Apostolical
usage
,
and
farther
affirming
that
they
received
it
by
tradition
from
the
Apostles
.
The
remain
,
and
indication
in
S.
Paul
is
in
the
known
place
of
1
Cor.
7.12
.
where
speaking
of
the
believers
children
he
saith
v.
14
▪
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
but
now
are
they
holy
,
i.
e.
it
is
the
present
practice
of
the
Church
(
that
Apostolical
Church
in
S.
Paul's
time
)
to
admit
to
baptisme
the
infant
chldren
of
parents
,
of
whom
one
is
Christian
though
not
of
others
.
That
this
is
the
meaning
of
[
holy
]
is
there
made
evident
,
as
by
other
arguments
,
so
by
this
,
that
the
antient
Fathers
who
knew
the
sacred
dialect
,
call
baptisme
Sanctification
,
Eum
qui
natus
est
,
baptizandum
&
sanctificandum
,
in
Cyprian
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
be
sanctifyed
when
they
have
no
feeling
of
it
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
let
him
be
sanctified
from
the
infancie
,
i.
e.
baptized
then
,
in
Gregorie
Nazianzen
.
To
which
testimonies
,
and
the
rest
which
is
there
produced
out
of
the
agreement
of
the
Jewish
style
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sanctifications
for
baptismes
,
to
which
agrees
Maecarius's
saying
of
the
Jewish
baptisme
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
it
sanctifies
the
flesh
,
Hom.
47.
p.
509.
)
because
the
main
difficulty
of
the
interpretation
consists
herein
,
I
sh●ll
now
adde
more
,
one
very
antient
before
any
of
these
(
within
less
then
an
100.
years
after
the
death
of
S.
John
)
Tertullian
de
Animâ
,
c.
39.
where
speaking
of
infants
,
and
saying
,
ex
sanctificato
alterutro
sexu
sanctos
procreari
,
that
when
either
the
father
or
mother
is
sanctified
(
i.
e.
received
as
a
believer
by
baptisme
into
the
Church
,
the
children
are
holy
&c.
(
clear
evidences
of
the
notion
of
the
word
)
this
he
there
proves
by
these
very
words
of
this
Apostle
,
Caeterum
,
inquit
,
immundi
nascuntur
,
else
(
so
caeterum
in
Tertullian's
style
is
known
to
be
put
for
alioqui
or
the
Greek
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
were
your
children
unclean
,
adding
in
stead
of
these
other
words
[
but
now
are
they
holy
]
quasi
designatos
tamen
sanctitatis
&
per
hoc
etiam
salutis
,
intelligi
volens
fidelium
filios
,
hereby
willing
that
we
should
understand
that
the
children
of
believers
are
the
designed
,
or
the
sealed
of
holyness
(
in
the
sense
,
I
conceive
,
wherein
they
that
are
baptized
are
by
the
antients
frequently
said
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
be
sealed
)
and
thereby
of
salvation
also
:
And
all
this
,
saith
he
,
thus
urged
by
the
Apostle
,
ut
hujus
spei
pignora
matrimoniis
quae
retinenda
censuerat
,
patrocinarentur
,
that
this
hope
might
be
a
pledge
to
ingage
the
believing
wife
or
husband
not
to
part
from
the
unbeliever
,
And
he
yet
farther
addes
(
still
to
the
confirming
of
this
interpretation
)
Alioqui
meminerat
Dominicae
definitionis
,
Nisi
quis
nascatur
ex
aquâ
&
spiritu
,
non
introibit
in
regnum
Dei
,
i.
e.
non
erit
Sanctus
.
Otherwise
(
or
if
this
argument
of
the
Apostle
had
not
been
sufficient
)
he
would
have
mentioned
the
definition
of
Christ
,
that
unless
one
be
born
of
water
and
the
Spirit
(
i.
e.
baptized
)
he
shall
not
enter
into
the
kingdome
of
God
,
i.
e.
shall
not
be
holy
,
shewing
still
of
what
holyness
he
understands
the
Apostles
speech
,
that
which
the
child
of
the
believer
is
made
partaker
of
by
baptisme
,
concluding
,
Ita
omnis
anima
usque
eo
in
Adam
censetur
donec
in
Christo
recenseatur
,
tamdiu
immunda
quamdiu
recenseatur
,
Every
soul
is
so
long
inrolled
in
Adam
till
it
be
inrolled
anew
in
Christ
,
and
is
so
long
unclean
till
it
be
thus
anew
inrolled
,
which
as
it
supposes
every
child
of
Adam
to
be
impure
,
till
he
be
thus
by
baptisme
made
a
child
of
Gods
,
a
member
of
Christ
,
so
it
gives
a
full
account
of
that
uncleanesse
,
and
that
holyness
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
the
former
the
state
of
a
child
of
Adam
unbaptized
,
the
later
of
him
that
by
baptisme
is
initiated
and
matriculated
into
Christ
.
And
to
this
agrees
perfectly
that
of
Origen
(
of
the
same
age
,
a
very
few
years
after
Tertullian
)
speaking
of
the
Apostles
(
from
whom
,
saith
he
,
the
Church
received
by
tradition
that
infants
should
be
baptized
)
Sciebant
enim
illi
quibus
mysteriorum
secreta
commissa
sunt
divinorum
,
quia
essent
in
omnibus
genuinae
sordes
peccati
,
quae
per
aquam
&
spiritum
ablui
deberent
,
They
to
whom
the
secrets
of
the
divine
mysteries
or
Sacraments
were
committed
,
knew
that
there
are
in
all
the
connatural
pollutions
of
sin
,
which
ought
to
be
washt
away
by
water
and
the
spirit
,
giving
us
to
understand
what
uncleanness
and
holyness
it
is
,
that
children
are
capable
of
,
the
uncleanness
of
their
birth
from
Adam
,
and
the
cleanness
or
sanctity
of
Christian
baptisme
.
So
Athanasius
*
Quaest
.
ad
Antioch
.
114.
(
or
whosoever
it
is
under
the
name
of
that
antient
Father
)
where
the
salvation
of
the
baptized
infants
is
concluded
by
him
upon
force
of
those
two
texts
,
Suffer
little
children
to
come
unto
me
;
and
,
now
are
your
children
holy
,
whereto
he
there
sets
parallel
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
baptized
infants
of
believers
,
as
the
plain
paraphrase
of
the
Apostles
words
.
To
these
I
farther
adde
another
passage
of
*
Cyprian
,
together
with
the
66.
Bishops
that
were
in
Councel
with
him
in
their
Epistle
to
Fidus
,
where
speaking
of
the
baptisme
of
infants
and
expressely
forbidding
that
any
such
should
be
hindred
or
kept
from
it
,
he
brings
for
proof
of
it
the
words
of
S.
Peter
,
that
the
Lord
had
said
unto
him
that
he
should
count
none
common
or
unclean
,
where
it
appears
what
was
that
Holy
Fathers
notion
of
common
or
unclean
,
such
as
might
be
refused
baptisme
,
and
consequently
they
which
are
not
such
,
but
on
the
contrary
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
clean
or
holy
(
and
such
saith
Paul
here
are
the
believers
children
)
are
to
be
admitted
thither
.
Upon
which
words
of
S.
Cyprian
*
S.
Augustine
speaking
saith
,
he
made
no
new
decree
,
but
kept
most
firme
the
faith
of
the
Church
,
&
mox
natum
rite
baptizari
posse
cum
suis
coepiscopis
censuit
,
and
he
and
his
fellow
Bishops
resolved
that
a
child
might
duely
be
baptized
as
soon
as
born
.
So
*
S.
Chrysostome
in
his
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
them
that
were
to
be
baptized
,
speaking
of
the
several
titles
of
baptisme
,
applies
unto
it
that
of
the
Apostle
1
Cor.
6.11
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
but
ye
are
washed
,
but
ye
are
sanctified
:
*
and
again
,
of
those
that
were
baptized
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Scripture
pronounces
them
not
onely
made
clean
but
just
and
holy
also
.
So
*
Gregorie
Nyssene
in
like
manner
,
Glaphyr
:
in
Exod.
l.
2.
speaking
of
him
that
deferres
baptisme
to
old
age
,
saith
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&c.
he
is
sanctified
indeed
,
i.
e.
baptized
,
but
brings
in
no
profit
to
God.
And
*
Comm
:
in
Is
.
l.
1.
Or.
1.
speaking
of
baptisme
again
,
and
the
sufficiency
to
wash
away
sin
,
he
addes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
But
they
are
once
sanctified
,
i.
e.
baptized
—
But
I
need
no
more
such
like
suffrages
.
This
I
have
both
there
(
§§
.
34
,
35
,
36
,
37.
)
and
here
thus
largely
deduced
,
because
in
this
one
matter
all
the
difficulty
consists
,
and
if
it
be
once
granted
that
this
is
the
meaning
of
[
Now
are
your
children
holy
]
then
here
is
an
evidence
undenyable
of
the
Apostles
practice
of
baptizing
infants
,
and
consequently
an
irrefragable
testimonie
of
their
sense
of
Christs
institution
,
including
,
not
excluding
infants
.
And
so
this
is
a
short
and
clear
way
of
preventing
all
Mr.
T.
his
indevours
and
pains
(
so
largely
taken
)
to
invalidate
my
conclusion
from
this
place
of
the
Apostle
,
and
I
need
not
now
be
farther
sollicitous
for
my
paraphrase
on
all
those
3.
verses
,
wherein
he
would
fain
find
out
some
excesses
and
defects
,
some
insertions
and
omissions
;
If
such
there
were
(
as
I
doubt
not
to
evidence
there
are
none
)
it
would
be
little
for
his
advantage
,
as
long
as
the
interpretation
of
the
last
words
[
but
now
are
they
(
i.
e.
your
children
)
holy
]
appears
to
be
this
,
[
but
now
are
your
infant
children
partakers
of
the
priviledge
of
baptisme
]
for
this
one
part
of
that
verse
concludes
all
that
I
pretend
,
or
he
oppugneth
:
And
this
I
hope
is
now
cleared
to
be
no
singular
interpretation
of
mine
,
but
that
which
(
beside
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
rational
importance
of
the
Context
concluding
it
)
the
style
of
Scripture
and
the
uniforme
attestation
of
the
antientest
writers
assign
to
it
,
so
that
there
can
be
no
reason
for
doubting
in
it
.
Yet
because
this
is
one
of
the
exuberancies
objected
to
my
paraphrase
(
and
the
onely
one
which
I
can
without
impertinence
take
notice
of
)
that
the
term
[
young
children
of
Christians
—
]
is
more
then
is
in
the
text
,
which
hath
onely
[
your
children
]
which
saith
he
,
is
not
restrained
to
infancie
,
I
shall
briefely
remove
this
exception
,
1.
By
the
authority
of
Tertullian
just
now
produced
,
who
interpreted
it
of
their
infant
children
,
as
appeared
both
by
the
express
words
[
sanctos
procreari
]
and
the
[
caeterum
immundi
nascerentur
]
and
by
the
occasion
of
that
discourse
in
that
place
,
which
was
the
immunda
nativitas
ethnicorum
,
the
unclean
birth
of
heathens
children
,
and
the
unlawfulnesse
of
baptizing
them
,
unlesse
one
of
the
parents
were
Christian
.
To
which
may
be
added
also
Nazianzens
phrase
forementioned
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
being
sanctified
from
infancie
(
for
so
sure
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
child
before
or
soon
after
birth
,
saith
Hesychius
,
and
Aristophanes
the
Grammarian
cited
by
*
Eustathius
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
child
new
born
)
which
in
all
probability
referres
to
this
place
of
the
Apostle
,
and
so
renders
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
their
children
by
their
infant
children
.
2dly
.
T
is
as
manifest
by
the
general
doctrine
of
the
Fathers
,
when
they
speak
of
the
faith
of
parents
profiting
their
children
,
meaning
alwaies
their
infant
children
,
brought
to
baptisme
by
the
faith
of
their
parents
,
before
they
are
personally
capable
of
having
faith
themselves
.
3dly
.
By
the
inconveniences
which
must
follow
in
case
it
be
interpreted
of
any
other
but
infant
children
.
For
suposing
them
come
to
years
of
understanding
,
and
capacity
,
they
shall
then
either
be
supposed
to
have
received
the
faith
or
to
remain
in
infidelity
:
If
they
have
received
the
faith
&
then
be
baptized
,
t
is
evident
that
this
benefit
comes
not
to
them
upon
any
consideration
of
the
faith
of
the
parent
,
but
upon
their
own
personal
profession
,
and
consequently
that
these
cannot
be
spoken
of
by
the
Apostle
in
that
place
,
where
he
makes
the
sanctification
or
baptisme
of
the
children
a
benefit
of
the
believing
parents
cohabiting
with
the
unbeliever
,
and
as
Tertullian
saith
,
patropinium
,
a
plea
to
move
the
beleever
not
to
depart
.
But
if
they
have
lived
to
years
and
not
received
the
faith
,
t
is
then
certain
that
they
may
not
be
baptized
at
all
;
And
so
t
is
manifest
it
must
be
understood
of
the
infant
(
uncapable
)
children
,
and
none
else
.
T
is
true
that
Mr.
T.
also
excepteth
against
the
paraphrasing
of
[
holy
]
by
[
admitted
to
baptisme
]
affirming
this
to
be
a
sense
of
the
word
,
no
where
else
found
.
But
this
I
hope
I
have
cleared
already
,
both
from
the
usage
of
the
word
among
the
Jewish
and
first
Christian
writers
,
and
might
farther
do
it
even
by
this
Apostles
dialect
,
who
in
his
inscriptions
of
most
of
his
Epistles
to
the
Churches
,
calls
all
those
to
whom
he
writes
,
i.
e.
the
baptized
Christians
of
those
Churches
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
,
Rom.
1.17
.
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sanctified
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
,
1
Cor.
1.2
.
and
again
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
,
2
Cor.
1.1
.
and
Eph.
1.1
.
Phil.
1.1
:
Col.
1.1
.
among
whom
no
doubt
there
were
many
who
were
no
otherwise
holy
or
sanctified
,
then
as
all
baptized
Christians
are
capable
of
that
style
.
But
I
shall
need
adde
no
more
of
that
to
what
hath
been
already
so
largely
said
.
And
the
parts
of
my
interpretation
being
thus
cleared
,
that
their
children
]
were
their
babes
or
infants
,
and
their
being
holy
]
their
being
baptized
,
t
is
sure
I
cannot
be
concerned
in
his
conclusion
,
that
he
never
read
or
heard
any
exposition
antient
or
modern
so
expounding
as
this
Doctor
or
Dictator
doth
,
nor
do
I
think
he
can
shew
any
]
I
hope
now
he
will
alter
his
mind
,
and
acknowledge
that
it
was
his
own
fault
,
that
this
interpretation
seemed
so
new
and
strange
to
him
.
As
for
the
one
place
of
S.
Augustine
produced
by
him
(
it
should
be
,
l.
2.
de
Pecc
.
Mer.
&
remiss
.
c.
26.
)
to
the
seeming
prejudice
of
this
interpretation
,
Ac
per
hoc
&
illa
sanctificatio
cujuscunque
modi
sit
quam
in
filiis
fidelium
esse
dixit
Apostolus
,
ad
istam
de
baptismo
&
peccati
origine
vel
remissione
quaestionem
omnino
non
pertinet
]
it
will
easily
be
reconciled
to
it
,
if
we
but
mark
what
question
it
is
,
that
there
he
speaks
of
,
even
that
which
he
had
then
in
hand
,
viz.
whether
baptisme
were
necessary
to
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
entring
the
kingdome
of
heaven
.
That
this
was
the
question
in
hand
appeareth
by
the
words
immediately
precedent
,
which
are
these
sanctificatio
,
Catechumen●
si
non
fuerit
baptizat●●
,
non
ei
valet
ad
in●randum
regnum
coelorum
aut
ad
peccatorum
remissionem
,
The
sanctification
of
a
Catechumenus
(
what
that
is
he
had
mentioned
before
,
Catechumenos
secundum
quendam
modum
suum
per
signum
Christi
&
orationem
impositionis
manuum
puto
sanctificari
,
that
some
kind
of
sanctification
which
the
unbaptized
might
have
by
prayer
and
imposition
of
hands
,
of
which
we
sometimes
read
in
the
antients
,
as
hath
elsewhere
been
shewed
)
profits
him
not
for
the
entring
the
kingdome
of
heaven
,
or
obteining
remission
of
sins
,
unless
he
be
baptized
.
And
therefore
that
sanctification
of
whatsoever
kind
it
is
,
viz.
if
it
be
without
baptisme
,
belongs
not
,
saith
he
,
to
the
question
then
in
hand
concerning
baptisme
and
the
original
and
pardon
of
sin
.
Here
then
I
suppose
is
Saint
Augustines
meaning
.
The
adversaries
with
whom
he
disputes
(
the
Pelagians
)
to
maintain
the
no
necessity
of
baptizing
infants
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
made
use
of
that
text
,
and
concluded
from
it
the
sanctitie
of
the
Christian
infant
birth
,
before
,
and
without
baptisme
:
To
this
he
answers
,
without
any
strict
examination
of
the
importance
of
that
text
,
that
whatsoever
sanctification
it
can
be
imagined
to
be
,
that
the
Apostle
speakes
of
,
except
it
be
that
of
baptisme
,
it
cannot
avail
to
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
&c.
Some
improper
kind
of
sanctification
,
saith
he
,
he
may
confesse
,
secundum
quendam
modum
,
in
him
that
is
not
yet
baptized
,
but
that
without
baptisme
non
valet
ad
intrandum
,
is
not
of
force
for
entring
into
the
kingdome
of
heaven
,
and
therefore
whatsoever
sanctification
that
is
(
viz.
Whatsoever
without
baptisme
)
it
belongs
not
to
his
question
then
before
him
,
and
so
the
Apostles
words
can
have
no
force
against
him
.
This
I
suppose
then
to
be
in
brief
S.
Augustines
meaning
in
that
place
,
that
t
is
not
the
holinesse
of
the
Christian
infants
birth
,
but
of
their
baptisme
,
which
stands
them
in
stead
toward
the
kingdome
of
heaven
:
And
then
that
,
as
it
is
no
evidence
on
my
side
,
that
he
interpreted
that
place
to
the
Cor.
as
I
interpret
it
,
so
it
affirmes
nothing
to
the
contrary
,
but
leaves
it
in
medio
,
having
his
advantages
other
wayes
against
the
disputers
.
However
for
the
substance
,
his
accord
with
us
is
evident
and
his
conclusion
firme
both
in
that
place
,
and
l.
3.
de
Pecc
.
mer.
&
Remiss
.
c.
12.
Illud
sine
dubitatione
tenendum
,
quaecunque
illa
sanctificatio
sit
,
non
valere
ad
Christianos
faciendos
,
atque
ad
dimittenda
peccata
,
nisi
Christiana
atque
Ecclesiasticâ
institutione
&
Sacramentis
●ffici
〈◊〉
fidele●
.
It
is
to
be
held
without
doubting
,
that
whatsoever
that
sanctification
be
▪
it
availes
not
to
the
making
them
Christians
and
to
the
obteining
remission
of
sins
,
unlesse
by
Christian
and
Ecclesiastical
institution
,
and
by
the
Sacraments
they
be
made
faithfull
.
This
is
all
that
I
can
seasonably
return
for
the
vindicating
of
my
paraphrase
,
It
would
be
too
immoderate
an
excursion
to
take
notice
of
all
his
pretended
objections
to
the
former
part
of
it
,
which
concerns
the
cohabiting
of
the
believer
with
the
unbeliever
,
which
I
assure
Mr.
T.
were
easy
fully
to
answer
,
and
shew
his
mistakes
in
each
particular
,
if
the
matter
of
our
present
dispute
did
require
,
or
would
well
bear
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
that
length
,
or
if
I
thought
it
in
the
least
degree
usefull
to
the
reader
,
that
I
should
farther
explain
the
grounds
of
my
paraphrase
,
then
as
they
are
already
laid
before
him
,
Sect.
31.
&c.
Yet
because
the
reasons
which
I
there
tendred
for
the
paraphrase
taken
from
the
notations
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hath
been
sanctified
]
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
not
to
,
but
)
by
the
wife
]
and
by
the
plain
consequents
,
what
knowest
thou
ô
wife
,
whether
thou
shalt
save
thy
husband
—
are
by
Mr.
T.
examined
with
an
endeavour
to
confute
them
,
and
so
to
overthrow
the
whole
paraphrase
,
it
may
perhaps
be
thought
usefull
that
I
should
take
a
view
of
those
his
indeavors
,
and
therefore
that
I
shall
now
proceed
to
do
,
and
shall
there
meet
with
by
the
way
what
was
most
material
in
his
former
exceptions
against
my
paraphrase
.
Sect.
2.
The
rendring
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
[
hath
been
sanctified
]
defended
.
S.
Hieromes
testimonie
.
Enallages
must
not
be
made
use
of
without
necessity
.
No
advantage
from
it
here
.
Feigned
instances
of
Enallage
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
FIrst
then
,
to
my
first
evidence
taken
from
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hath
been
sanctified
]
referring
to
some
past
known
examples
and
experiences
,
of
this
kind
(
of
a
wives
converting
the
husband
&c.
)
he
hath
a
double
answer
,
1.
That
as
my
paraphrase
expresseth
it
,
it
should
signifie
not
onely
that
an
unbelieving
husband
hath
been
sanctified
,
but
also
that
there
is
hope
they
will
,
and
so
it
should
note
not
only
some
example
past
,
but
also
some
to
come
,
of
which
there
can
be
a
lesse
reasonable
account
given
then
of
putting
it
in
the
present
tense
in
English
.
2.
That
the
Enallage
or
change
of
tense
is
frequent
,
c.
11.14
▪
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
present
tense
for
the
future
,
and
here
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
in
the
next
verse
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
preter
for
the
present
,
and
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
,
not
,
hath
been
,
but
is
sanctified
,
or
if
in
the
preter
tense
,
yet
that
to
be
understood
of
a
past
thing
yet
continued
,
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Joh.
3.18
.
notes
an
act
still
continued
in
force
.
To
these
two
I
reply
briefely
,
and
first
to
the
former
(
the
same
which
he
had
mentioned
before
,
and
excepted
against
as
an
excesse
in
my
paraphrase
,
but
both
there
and
here
without
the
least
cause
;
)
For
in
my
paraphrase
,
I
look
upon
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
a
verbe
of
the
preter
tense
,
and
as
such
onely
adapt
the
sense
to
it
,
referring
it
not
to
future
hopes
but
to
past
experiences
or
examples
;
Onely
because
examples
are
rhetorical
syllogismes
,
and
what
hath
been
frequently
experimented
may
also
reasonably
be
hoped
,
I
suppose
that
the
Apostle
so
meant
these
examples
,
as
grounds
of
hoping
the
like
for
the
future
,
not
making
this
of
the
future
any
part
of
the
sense
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
preter
,
but
explicating
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
rational
importance
(
which
is
somewhat
more
then
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
of
the
Apostles
speech
,
and
supposing
this
conclusion
to
ly
hid
under
this
premisse
,
as
it
is
ordinary
in
all
discourse
to
set
down
the
premisses
distinctly
,
leaving
the
conclusion
by
every
ones
reason
to
be
drawn
from
thence
,
without
setting
it
down
explicitely
.
Wherein
that
I
was
not
mistaken
,
I
had
all
assurance
from
v.
16.
where
the
argument
is
prest
,
and
the
conclusion
inferred
more
explicitly
,
For
what
knowest
thou
,
ô
wife
,
whether
thou
shalt
save
thy
husband
—
and
the
like
mentioned
in
the
Paraphrase
from
1
Pet.
3.1
.
And
herein
I
have
the
authority
of
S.
Hierome
;
as
for
my
rendring
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
woman
(
so
I
find
it
,
per
mulierem
,
in
his
7th
Epist
.
ad
Laetam
,
and
so
Marianus
Victorius
in
his
Scholia
assures
us
,
all
the
Copies
antient
and
printed
,
read
it
)
so
also
for
this
part
of
my
Paraphrase
,
exemplum
refert
(
saith
he
on
the
place
)
quia
saepe
contigerit
ut
lucrifieret
vir
per
mulierem
,
Vnde
&
Beatus
Petrus
ait
,
ut
siquis
non
credideret
verbo
,
per
mulierum
conversationem
sine
verbo
lucrifierent
,
id
est
,
cùm
viderint
eas
in
melius
commutatas
,
cognoscant
omnes
Dei
legem
ita
confuetudine
inveterata
potuisse
mutari
,
He
produceth
an
example
because
,
saith
he
,
it
hath
often
happened
that
the
husband
hath
been
gained
by
the
wife
,
according
to
that
of
S.
Peter
,
that
if
any
man
believe
not
the
word
,
he
should
without
the
word
be
gained
by
the
conversation
of
the
wife
,
that
is
,
that
when
they
shall
see
them
changed
to
the
better
,
all
may
know
that
the
Law
of
God
might
have
been
taken
in
exchange
for
so
inveterate
a
custome
.
And
so
again
Ep.
7.
ad
Laetam
,
speaking
of
the
like
example
,
Bene
,
saith
he
,
felicitérque
expectavimus
;
Sancta
&
fidelis
domus
virum
sanctificat
infidelem
,
we
have
well
and
happily
expected
(
i.
e.
not
mist
of
our
expectation
)
an
holy
and
faithfull
house
sanctifies
an
unbeliever
,
adding
his
conceipt
,
ipsum
Jovem
,
si
habuisset
talem
cognationem
,
potuisse
in
Christum
credere
,
that
Jupiter
himself
if
he
had
had
such
a
kindred
,
might
have
been
brought
to
the
faith
of
Christ
.
As
for
his
2d
answer
,
I
acknowledge
such
Enallages
to
be
ordinarie
in
the
Hebrew
,
and
sometimes
,
but
more
rarely
found
in
the
Hebraizing
Greeks
,
or
Hellenists
,
and
consequently
that
where
the
context
will
not
bear
the
sense
of
the
tense
which
is
used
,
there
may
be
place
for
this
Grammatical
figure
,
which
yet
is
not
to
be
made
use
of
unnecessarily
.
Accordingly
,
if
there
were
any
convincing
reason
offered
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
preter
tense
]
could
not
be
born
,
I
should
not
then
doubt
to
interpret
it
by
this
figure
,
either
in
the
present
or
some
other
tense
:
But
when
(
as
here
it
is
evident
)
there
is
no
such
necessity
,
then
1.
I
cannot
think
fit
to
do
so
,
(
t
is
dangerous
to
forsake
the
literal
sense
,
when
it
may
be
commodiously
reteined
,
and
fly
to
either
a
Rhetorical
,
or
Grammatical
figure
)
and
having
no
motive
to
do
so
,
I
am
next
to
consider
,
what
is
the
properest
importance
of
that
phrase
in
that
tense
wherein
it
is
used
,
and
then
I
could
not
(
I
believe
)
have
fallen
upon
any
thing
more
natural
,
then
that
the
preter
forme
of
speech
referred
to
the
past
experiences
,
&c.
This
is
a
full
satisfaction
to
his
answer
,
yet
I
may
in
the
2d
place
ex
abundanti
adde
thus
much
more
,
that
the
utmost
that
he
can
pretend
to
by
the
enallage
(
whether
of
the
preter
for
the
present
,
or
of
the
preter
understood
of
a
past
thing
yet
continued
)
is
as
commodious
for
my
interpretation
,
as
the
preter
is
:
For
if
it
be
in
the
present
,
then
the
importance
will
be
,
that
it
is
a
matter
of
present
daily
experience
;
if
in
the
past
continued
,
then
that
it
is
matter
both
of
past
and
present
experience
that
the
unbeliever
is
thus
wrought
upon
by
the
believer
,
and
brought
into
the
Church
by
baptisme
,
and
this
a
just
ground
of
hope
,
that
so
it
may
be
again
in
any
particular
instance
,
and
so
a
competent
motive
that
the
believing
wife
should
abide
with
the
infidel
husband
,
and
not
depart
as
long
as
he
will
live
peaceably
with
her
,
and
this
sure
was
S.
Hieromes
understanding
in
the
words
newly
cited
,
exemplum
refert
,
quia
saepe
contigerit
&c.
the
Apostle
makes
instance
,
produceth
example
,
that
this
hath
(
and
doth
)
ordinarily
come
to
passe
;
And
to
that
also
exactly
agrees
the
16th
verse
,
For
how
knowest
thou
&c.
As
for
Mr.
T.
his
instances
of
Euallage
,
though
now
I
may
safely
yield
them
all
,
and
rather
gain
then
lose
by
them
,
I
shall
yet
in
the
last
place
adde
my
sense
,
that
no
one
of
them
is
any
way
convincing
;
that
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
,
c.
1.
l.
24.
for
his
passion
was
now
so
neer
approaching
,
that
it
might
very
fitly
be
represented
as
present
,
and
so
that
be
the
force
of
the
present
tense
.
That
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
not
pertinent
for
certainly
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
is
not
for
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
was
]
which
is
the
enallage
of
tenses
,
nor
is
there
any
necessity
it
should
be
for
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
(
the
enallage
of
modes
)
the
rendring
is
proper
,
else
are
your
children
unclean
,
and
exactly
all
one
with
else
were
,
the
change
of
the
mode
not
changing
the
sense
in
this
matter
;
which
was
the
cause
why
I
followed
the
English
rendring
,
and
made
no
change
in
that
translation
.
As
for
his
3d
instance
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
v.
15.
which
he
saith
is
manifestly
put
in
the
preter
tense
for
the
present
,
I
cannot
be
convinced
of
it
,
The
context
will
well
bear
the
preter
tense
yet
continued
[
no
Law
of
Christ
hath
or
doth
thus
inslave
her
]
or
the
preter
tense
simply
[
she
by
entring
the
bonds
of
marriage
hath
not
thus
inslaved
her self
]
that
she
should
think
her self
bound
to
do
any
thing
contrarie
to
her
religion
in
order
to
continuing
with
her
husband
.
As
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Joh.
3.18
.
I
wonder
it
could
be
thought
fit
to
be
produced
to
the
prejudice
of
the
preter
sense
,
when
the
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
already
]
which
is
present
,
is
an
evident
proof
of
the
preter
sense
,
and
if
it
be
continued
as
well
as
past
(
he
that
hath
been
condemned
remaining
still
under
condemnation
)
this
is
still
perfectly
agreeable
to
my
notion
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
unbeliever
oft
hath
been
,
and
daily
is
converted
,
and
brought
to
baptisme
by
the
believer
.
And
so
much
for
all
the
grounds
of
his
first
exception
,
and
his
two
answers
to
my
inference
from
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
]
Sect.
3.
The
rendring
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
woman
]
defended
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Col.
1.23
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Act.
4.
Ireneus
no
Latine
author
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Act.
7.
Gal.
1.16
.
1
Pet.
1.5
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Deut.
28.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Psal
.
68.
My
proof
of
the
interpretation
from
the
context
.
THE
2d
concernes
the
rendring
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
I
read
,
[
by
the
woman
]
but
he
[
to
the
woman
]
as
[
to
]
is
a
note
of
the
dative
case
,
and
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
redundant
.
And
the
reason
,
saith
he
,
that
he
still
adheres
to
his
way
,
is
,
be
-
because
this
seems
to
him
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
in
himself
unsanctified
,
yet
in
or
to
his
wife
he
is
as
if
he
were
sanctified
,
it
's
all
one
in
respect
of
conjugal
use
,
as
if
be
were
sanctified
.
To
this
reason
I
have
many
things
to
answer
,
1.
That
the
very
rendring
it
,
is
the
begging
the
question
,
which
is
onely
this
(
in
this
matter
)
whether
this
be
the
fairest
,
easiest
,
and
most
congruous
sense
,
and
must
not
be
here
supposed
,
when
it
should
be
proved
.
2dly
.
That
if
it
were
the
fairest
sense
,
yet
if
the
words
bear
it
not
,
it
must
not
be
affixt
to
them
,
if
it
be
more
capable
of
another
;
and
whether
they
will
bear
it
or
no
,
is
the
question
again
,
on
occasion
of
which
this
inquiry
is
made
into
the
use
of
the
preposition
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
to
suppose
again
that
it
will
signifie
[
to
]
in
the
dative
sense
,
before
it
is
proved
it
will
,
is
a
second
begging
the
question
,
a
paralogisme
in
stead
of
a
reason
.
3dly
.
The
fairenesse
of
the
sense
(
simply
taken
)
is
not
attempted
to
be
proved
,
which
yet
doth
stand
in
great
need
of
it
;
For
beside
the
redundance
,
or
unusual
sense
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
some
other
parts
of
the
rendring
are
none
of
the
fairest
,
As
1.
the
believer
may
abide
]
as
if
it
were
simply
free
to
abide
or
not
abide
,
whereas
in
the
present
case
(
when
the
unbeliever
is
willing
to
abide
with
the
believer
)
the
believer
is
by
the
Apostle
counselled
at
least
,
if
not
commanded
(
and
that
is
more
then
a
liberty
,
that
he
may
)
To
him
the
Apostle
saith
(
and
his
sayings
have
sure
authority
with
them
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
let
him
not
put
away
.
Nay
the
interdict
of
Christ
belonging
to
all
,
but
that
one
case
of
fornication
,
Mat.
5.
and
Mat.
19.
it
is
evident
that
by
force
thereof
the
believing
man
must
not
put
away
the
unbeliever
,
that
is
guilty
of
no
more
but
unbeliefe
;
And
accordingly
the
preface
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
But
for
the
rest
(
or
,
for
the
other
questions
,
v.
1.6.8.10
.
)
say
I
,
not
the
Lord
]
must
be
applied
not
to
the
immediate
consequents
,
of
the
believers
not
putting
away
the
unbeliever
,
that
will
stay
with
him
(
for
that
had
been
determined
by
Christ
in
the
Negative
)
but
to
v.
15.
If
the
unbelieving
depart
,
i.
e.
if
the
unbeliever
wlll
not
dwell
with
the
believer
,
except
the
believer
forsake
his
,
or
her
religion
,
what
shall
be
done
then
?
And
to
that
the
Apostles
counsel
is
,
that
mariage
inslaves
not
the
believer
so
far
.
All
which
is
a
competent
prejudice
to
that
part
of
Mr.
T.
his
sense
,
The
believer
may
abide
,
For
if
that
be
it
,
even
when
the
unbeliever
is
willing
to
abide
,
then
she
may
also
depart
,
if
she
rather
choose
,
which
will
be
found
contrary
to
Christ's
precept
,
and
so
may
not
be
admitted
.
2dly
.
In
this
rendring
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
englished
(
not
by
is
or
hath
been
sanctified
,
but
)
by
[
is
as
if
he
were
sanctified
]
which
indeed
acknowledgeth
that
he
is
not
truely
(
in
any
respect
)
sanctified
,
and
then
sure
this
will
be
a
strange
construction
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
unbeliever
(
is
not
sanctified
but
)
is
as
if
he
were
sanctified
,
when
yet
literally
it
must
be
rendred
the
unbeliever
hath
been
,
or
(
to
gratifie
Mr.
T.
)
is
or
continues
to
be
sanctified
:
For
what
is
this
but
to
interpret
an
affirmative
by
interposing
a
negation
,
he
is
sanctified
,
by
he
is
not
?
for
so
assuredly
he
is
not
,
if
he
onely
be
as
if
he
were
.
With
this
let
any
man
compare
the
interpretation
I
have
given
,
the
unbeliever
hath
been
sanctified
by
the
believer
,
i.
e.
examples
there
are
of
such
as
have
been
thus
converted
from
their
unbeliefe
,
and
this
sense
inforced
by
the
interrogation
,
v.
16.
For
what
knowest
thou
,
ô
woman
,
whether
thou
shalt
save
the
man
&c.
and
by
S.
Peters
aphorisme
of
daily
observation
,
1
Pet.
3.1
.
the
husband
that
obeyes
not
the
word
,
i.
e.
the
unbeliever
,
may
probably
be
gained
by
the
conversation
of
the
wife
,
and
then
let
him
impartially
passe
judgement
,
which
is
the
fairest
and
easiest
rendring
.
His
2d
reason
is
,
because
though
the
Dr.
deny
it
,
yet
(
saith
he
)
I
averre
,
that
the
notion
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
to
,
as
a
sign
of
the
dative
case
,
is
found
more
then
once
in
the
New
Testament
.
The
truth
of
this
I
must
now
examine
by
the
proofs
offered
for
the
affirmation
.
And
his
first
proofe
,
is
from
Mat.
17.12
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
This
,
saith
he
,
cannot
be
eluded
,
because
the
same
speech
is
Mar.
9.13
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
rendred
by
Beza
in
the
former
place
,
fecerunt
ei
,
they
did
to
him
,
2.
Whereas
the
Doctor
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
used
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
upon
him
or
against
him
,
It
had
been
meet
the
Doctor
should
have
given
one
instance
at
least
of
such
construction
,
which
,
saith
he
,
I
do
not
believe
he
can
do
.
To
this
I
answer
,
1.
By
two
ready
instances
in
one
verse
,
Lu.
23.31
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
If
they
do
these
things
(
our
ordinary
English
reades
in
a
green
tree
,
but
the
sense
and
propriety
directs
us
to
)
on
the
green
tree
,
what
shall
be
done
on
the
dry
?
here
is
the
very
phrase
that
is
used
in
that
place
of
Matthew
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
then
for
S.
Markes
using
(
in
the
parallel
place
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
that
proves
not
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
redundant
in
S.
Matthew
,
or
that
it
was
a
bare
sign
of
the
dative
case
,
it
being
free
to
S.
Marke
to
use
any
other
expression
,
different
from
S.
Matthew
,
so
he
reteined
the
sense
,
as
it
is
clear
in
this
place
he
doth
,
doing
injuries
to
him
,
being
all
one
in
effect
with
upon
or
against
him
,
though
the
phrases
are
not
the
same
,
which
no
way
inferres
that
when
the
change
of
the
phrase
changes
the
sense
,
it
were
lawfull
so
to
varie
it
,
as
in
the
place
we
have
in
hand
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
't
is
on
both
sides
supposed
to
do
.
A
2d
instance
which
he
conceives
cannot
be
eluded
,
is
Col.
1.23
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
was
preached
to
every
creature
,
and
this
he
proves
to
be
the
onely
rendring
▪
1.
Because
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
preach
,
is
commonly
with
a
dative
case
of
the
object
,
and
though
,
1
Tim.
3.16
.
it
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
yet
our
translators
,
and
the
vulgar
,
and
Beza
read
it
unto
the
Gentiles
,
as
if
there
it
noted
onely
a
dative
case
,
and
if
it
were
among
the
Gentiles
,
there
,
yet
here
Col.
1.23
.
it
cannot
be
so
,
because
the
object
is
in
the
singular
number
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
when
it
is
for
among
,
is
joyned
still
with
a
noun
of
the
plural
:
and
2.
That
which
,
saith
he
,
puts
this
out
of
all
doubt
,
is
,
that
the
phrase
Col.
1.
answers
Mar.
15.16
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
But
to
all
this
the
answer
is
ready
,
by
observing
the
exact
notation
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
whole
creation
(
as
we
render
it
Rom.
8.22
.
)
as
that
signifies
the
whole
,
but
especially
the
Gentile
world
,
and
accordingly
is
exprest
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Mat.
28.
and
farther
explained
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
whole
world
,
to
which
in
S.
Mark
they
are
appointed
to
go
,
when
they
were
thus
to
preach
the
Gospel
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
this
whole
creation
.
Now
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
this
notion
it
is
clear
,
that
though
it
be
in
the
singular
number
,
yet
that
hath
the
power
of
the
plural
,
as
the
word
[
world
]
and
the
like
,
which
every
body
knowes
,
is
a
noun
of
Multitude
,
and
so
is
creation
,
when
it
is
thus
taken
for
the
whole
created
world
,
meaning
this
world
of
men
,
the
nations
or
people
of
the
world
.
And
then
there
can
be
no
doubt
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
is
most
exactly
thus
to
be
rendred
,
preached
in
,
or
among
the
whole
creation
,
as
Gal.
1.16
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
preach
in
the
nations
,
or
among
the
Gentiles
,
and
so
1
Tim.
3.16
.
also
,
though
the
sense
being
no
way
altered
by
rendring
it
unto
the
whole
creation
,
or
every
creature
,
and
to
the
Gentiles
,
it
matters
little
though
it
be
promiscuously
thus
rendred
in
all
these
places
,
which
yet
must
not
prescribe
for
other
places
,
where
the
sense
is
so
much
changed
by
the
divers
rendring
,
as
in
this
case
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
is
observable
,
where
therefore
the
literal
rendring
being
retained
,
we
are
not
reasonably
to
conclude
any
more
from
it
,
then
that
literal
rendring
will
afford
us
.
As
for
the
parallel
phrase
Mar.
16.
that
doubtless
can
prove
nothing
,
1.
Because
the
places
are
not
,
nor
can
be
thought
parallel
,
2.
Because
if
they
were
,
(
as
of
Mat.
28.
and
Mar.
16.
hath
been
granted
)
yet
the
parallel
lying
onely
in
the
sense
,
and
that
being
all
one
,
whether
they
preacht
to
or
among
the
Gentiles
,
this
no
way
concludes
that
the
phrases
are
the
same
,
or
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
one
redundant
,
which
is
the
onely
thing
for
the
proving
of
which
this
parallel
is
produced
,
but
of
that
I
have
formerly
spoken
.
His
third
instance
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Act.
4.12
.
which
he
cannot
yet
conceive
,
but
that
it
is
better
rendred
,
to
men
,
then
among
men
.
And
his
reasons
are
,
1.
Because
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
hath
most
regularly
and
consequently
a
dative
case
of
the
person
after
it
.
2.
Because
if
it
had
been
among
men
,
it
had
been
to
be
placed
after
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
other
,
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
be
read
,
to
men
,
not
,
among
men
.
3.
It
seems
no
good
sense
,
nor
true
,
that
Christ
was
a
name
given
among
men
,
for
though
he
were
among
men
,
yet
he
was
given
from
above
.
To
all
which
he
addes
the
judgement
of
Irenaeus
,
l.
3.
c.
12.
cited
by
Beza
,
and
a
parallel
phrase
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Act.
7.44
.
To
these
I
answer
,
1.
That
t
is
true
that
when
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
hath
any
case
of
the
person
following
and
governed
by
it
,
that
is
constantly
the
dative
,
but
that
is
no
way
applicable
to
this
phrase
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
there
the
persons
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
are
governed
by
the
preposition
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
To
the
2d.
That
the
construction
by
among
,
is
very
good
,
placing
it
after
given
,
there
is
no
other
name
given
among
men
,
i.
e.
no
means
of
salvation
afforded
by
God
,
and
continued
among
men
.
To
the
3d.
That
Christ's
being
given
from
above
,
no
way
prejudges
his
being
given
among
men
,
both
because
the
benefit
of
this
gift
is
as
a
common
donative
,
distributed
among
men
,
and
also
because
this
gift
is
dispenst
in
forme
of
humane
flesh
,
Christ
is
become
man
,
and
to
be
found
and
seen
among
men
.
And
to
the
last
,
for
the
place
of
Irenaeus
,
t
is
strange
that
neither
Mr.
T.
nor
Beza
whom
he
transcribed
,
should
remember
that
Irenaeus
wrote
Greek
,
and
that
as
the
Latine
translation
[
datum
hominibus
]
is
not
written
by
Irenaeus
,
so
there
is
no
question
but
Irenaeus's
Greek
was
the
same
with
the
text
in
the
Acts
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
then
the
Translator
(
barbarous
enough
through
that
whole
book
)
is
to
be
reformed
by
the
Author
,
and
not
the
Author
judged
of
by
the
Translator
;
Or
if
he
were
,
and
Irenaeus's
Greek
did
really
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
without
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
as
the
Translator
doth
[
hominibus
]
without
[
in
]
then
I
must
resolve
,
that
the
copie
of
the
Scripture
,
which
he
followed
,
did
so
read
before
him
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
and
if
so
,
then
what
proof
can
Mr.
T.
have
from
thence
that
in
other
places
or
phrases
,
where
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
found
in
all
copies
,
it
shall
be
redundant
,
and
signifie
no
more
,
then
if
it
were
not
to
be
found
there
?
As
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
it
must
certainly
be
rendred
,
among
the
Fathers
,
thus
,
the
tabernacle
of
witness
was
among
our
Fathers
in
the
wilderness
:
T
is
pity
the
reader
should
be
exercised
and
detained
with
such
debates
as
these
,
with
which
yet
in
obedience
to
Mr.
T.
I
must
farther
importune
him
.
For
a
4th
instance
he
again
resumes
that
of
Gal.
1.16
.
and
2
Pet.
1.5
.
That
Gal.
1.
where
of
God
the
Apostle
saith
,
that
he
was
pleased
to
reveale
his
own
sonne
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
when
I
had
rendred
that
by
,
or
through
me
,
to
others
,
This
exposition
,
saith
he
,
makes
the
Apostle
tautologize
ineptly
.
This
strange
undecent
expression
I
wish
had
been
spared
,
for
certainly
there
was
little
temptation
for
it
:
why
,
I
pray
,
might
not
the
Apostle
without
incurring
either
part
of
that
censure
,
say
,
God
was
pleased
through
me
to
reveal
his
sonne
,
and
by
way
of
explication
,
(
and
withall
to
denote
the
designation
of
that
Apostle
to
his
peculiar
province
,
as
the
Apostle
of
the
uncircumcision
)
adde
,
that
I
might
preach
the
Gospel
to
the
Gentiles
.
Certainly
every
explication
of
an
obscurer
or
narrower
,
by
a
clearer
or
larger
phrase
,
is
not
inept
tantologie
,
but
that
which
all
writers
which
have
desired
to
speak
intelligibly
,
have
always
been
full
of
.
And
yet
2dly
the
latter
part
here
▪
of
his
preaching
the
Gospell
to
the
Gentiles
(
he
being
peculiarly
the
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
,
as
Peter
and
John
were
of
the
Jewes
wheresoever
dispersed
)
is
more
then
was
pretended
to
be
said
by
my
rendring
and
paraphrasing
the
former
part
of
it
;
for
in
that
those
others
had
not
been
defined
,
who
they
were
,
or
limited
to
the
Gentiles
.
This
Mr
T.
adverted
not
in
his
objection
,
I
desire
he
will
now
take
notice
of
it
.
For
that
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
I
need
adde
no
more
to
what
I
had
before
said
,
that
it
is
most
fully
rendred
thus
,
unto
or
over
and
above
your
faith
superadde
virtue
,
or
fortitude
.
Two
places
,
he
saith
,
he
had
formerly
produced
out
of
the
old
Testament
,
Deut.
28.60
.
and
2
Kin.
7.27
.
and
now
addes
one
more
,
Psal
.
68.18
.
But
besides
that
three
onely
places
in
the
whole
old
Testament
,
would
never
inferre
that
so
it
must
be
in
this
place
of
the
new
,
there
being
many
more
to
preponderate
for
the
contrary
,
and
there
being
no
pretense
of
necessity
that
thus
it
must
be
here
,
besides
this
,
I
say
,
it
will
be
found
,
that
these
three
will
be
of
no
availe
to
him
.
Of
the
two
former
the
2d
is
not
,
there
be
but
20.
vers
.
in
that
Chapter
,
and
therefore
no
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
27th
:
and
for
the
former
we
well
read
it
,
unto
thee
,
where
the
72.
reads
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
ordinary
way
of
acception
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
lastly
,
for
his
new
sprung
testimonie
,
Psal
.
68.18
.
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
which
saith
he
the
Apostle
hath
Eph
▪
4.8
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
he
takes
to
be
more
then
enough
to
refute
the
Doctor
,
t
is
presently
visible
that
it
hath
no
manner
of
force
in
it
;
For
though
those
two
places
are
perfectly
parallel
,
as
to
the
matter
,
yet
for
the
expression
t
is
evidently
very
different
,
in
one
[
thou
hast
received
]
in
the
other
[
he
hath
given
]
and
so
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
or
among
men
]
must
of
all
necessity
differ
from
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
men
]
For
how
could
it
be
sense
to
fay
,
thou
hast
received
gifts
to
men
?
yet
so
it
must
be
,
to
make
good
Mr.
T.
his
observation
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
to
,
or
is
redundant
,
or
the
note
of
a
dative
case
.
And
so
he
never
had
a
more
improper
season
for
his
triumphs
;
never
lesse
cause
to
tell
others
of
taking
ad
randum
,
when
he
himself
was
so
far
removed
from
all
appearance
of
demonstration
.
And
so
much
for
the
Grammatical
notation
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
very
unfit
to
have
exercised
us
thus
long
,
but
that
Mr.
T.
would
have
it
so
,
and
words
are
the
meanes
of
conveighing
realities
unto
us
,
and
mistakes
in
them
(
though
minute
)
may
be
of
substantiall
importance
.
My
3d
proof
produced
for
my
interpretation
of
the
first
part
of
v.
14.
which
to
me
put
it
out
of
all
doubt
,
by
comparing
it
with
the
reason
subjoyned
,
For
what
knowest
thou
,
ô
wife
,
whether
thou
shalt
save
thy
husband
;
or
how
knowest
thou
,
ô
man
,
whether
thou
shalt
save
thy
wife
?
]
he
comes
next
to
examine
,
and
hath
many
exceptions
against
it
,
all
which
(
without
losing
time
in
repeating
and
viewing
them
severally
)
will
be
soon
dispelled
by
a
right
understanding
of
the
force
of
the
Apostles
argument
as
there
I
conceive
it
to
ly
,
Thus
v.
14.
It
is
matter
of
ordinary
observation
,
that
unbelieving
husbands
have
been
brought
to
the
faith
and
baptisme
by
the
believing
wife
,
therefore
I
now
exhort
and
counsel
the
believer
not
to
depart
from
the
unbeliever
,
in
case
the
unbeliever
be
willing
to
stay
,
v.
13.
for
this
reason
,
v.
16.
because
what
hath
been
so
oft
,
may
very
probably
be
hoped
again
,
and
consequently
upon
the
premises
the
believer
hath
ground
to
hope
,
that
she
may
in
time
gain
the
husband
to
the
faith
,
and
that
,
being
so
fair
a
reward
in
her
view
(
the
saving
or
rescuing
him
from
infidelitie
,
to
Christ
)
may
well
inforce
the
counsel
of
the
Apostle
,
not
to
depart
from
him
,
as
long
as
,
without
sin
,
she
is
permitted
to
stay
.
By
which
it
appeares
that
this
v.
16.
is
not
a
bare
explanation
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
v.
14.
(
on
which
Mr.
T.
his
exceptions
principally
depend
)
but
an
application
of
the
argument
formerly
proposed
,
but
now
more
signally
brought
home
to
them
,
under
the
forme
of
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
what
—
]
by
this
means
to
reinforce
his
conclusion
of
their
not
departing
for
the
cause
of
infidelitie
:
If
the
reader
will
but
observe
what
is
thus
visible
,
he
will
want
no
more
help
,
to
get
out
of
the
intricacies
,
and
toiles
,
which
Mr.
T
:
hath
here
spred
for
him
in
this
matter
,
which
is
in
it self
so
manifest
,
as
nothing
can
be
added
to
it
,
if
either
the
text
or
my
paraphrase
may
be
permitted
to
speak
for
it self
.
Sect.
4.
Mr.
T.
his
mistake
of
my
sense
.
The
argument
à
genere
ad
speciem
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
How
the
husband
is
said
to
be
baptized
by
the
wife
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
partial
washings
.
The
proportion
betwixt
legal
holyness
,
and
baptisme
.
Difference
between
relative
and
real
sanctification
.
The
testimonies
of
the
antient
,
for
and
against
my
interpretation
.
HIS
exceptions
to
the
former
part
of
my
paraphrase
being
now
ended
,
I
must
attend
what
he
hath
to
say
against
the
latter
part
of
it
,
that
which
concernes
our
matter
in
hand
more
neerly
;
The
words
are
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
else
were
your
children
unclean
,
but
now
are
they
holy
,
i.
e.
upon
that
score
it
is
that
Christians
children
are
admitted
to
baptisme
,
viz.
because
by
their
living
in
the
familie
with
the
Christian
parent
they
probably
will
(
and
ought
to
)
be
brought
up
in
the
faith
—
and
the
Church
(
requiring
and
receiving
promise
from
the
parents
)
reasonably
presumes
they
will
,
and
so
admits
them
to
baptisme
.
This
argument
of
the
Apostles
thus
explained
in
my
paraphrase
(
or
if
he
yet
will
have
it
more
plainly
thus
,
The
Church
upon
confidence
that
the
believers
children
will
be
brought
up
in
the
faith
,
receives
them
to
baptisme
when
they
are
infants
;
And
upon
the
same
grounds
of
hope
,
that
your
abiding
with
the
unbelieving
husband
may
in
time
convert
him
(
as
by
experience
it
hath
oft
been
found
)
I
advise
you
not
to
depart
from
him
,
if
he
will
live
with
you
;
For
what
knowest
thou
whether
thou
shalt
save
thy
husband
,
&c.
)
Mr.
T.
hath
made
a
shift
not
to
understand
,
and
substituted
another
way
of
arguing
in
my
name
,
in
stead
of
it
,
p.
331.
And
having
done
so
I
must
leave
him
to
combate
with
the
shadow
of
his
own
creating
,
no
part
of
his
impression
lighting
upon
that
,
which
alone
I
professe
to
be
my
meaning
in
it
;
which
I
leave
him
or
the
reader
to
see
,
in
the
particulars
proposed
by
him
,
but
must
not
now
be
so
impertinent
,
as
to
lose
time
in
the
pursuit
of
them
.
But
the
reasons
produced
for
my
thus
interpreting
,
he
next
proceeds
to
examine
,
and
I
must
take
care
to
vindicate
them
.
My
first
reason
is
,
because
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
holy
,
noting
a
relative
holynesse
,
a
setting
apart
to
God
,
and
the
lowest
degree
of
that
imaginable
being
the
initiating
into
the
Church
by
baptisme
,
this
must
in
reason
be
here
noted
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
,
as
all
visible
professors
,
Ezr.
9.2
.
are
the
holy
seed
,
and
in
the
Epistles
of
the
Apostles
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
.
To
this
he
answers
,
that
it
being
all
granted
,
confirmes
not
the
Doctors
exposition
,
because
t
is
no
good
argument
à
genere
ad
speciem
affirmativè
,
and
because
infants
are
not
visible
professors
.
But
sure
when
the
species
is
such
,
that
he
that
hath
not
that
,
hath
not
any
part
of
the
genus
,
the
argument
will
thus
hold
very
irrefragably
:
Suppose
that
of
the
Deacon
to
be
the
lowest
order
of
officers
of
the
Church
,
and
that
without
which
there
is
no
ascending
to
any
higher
degree
in
the
ministerie
,
will
not
then
the
argument
hold
;
He
hath
some
degree
Ecclesiastical
upon
him
,
therefore
sure
he
is
a
Deacon
?
Thus
sure
it
is
in
this
matter
,
the
relative
holyness
belongs
to
no
person
,
that
is
not
baptized
,
baptisme
is
the
lowest
degree
of
it
,
and
all
superior
degrees
of
Apostle
,
Prophet
,
&c.
in
the
Christian
Church
are
founded
in
that
,
therefore
if
the
infant
children
be
holy
,
the
infant
children
are
baptized
.
So
again
,
Baptisme
is
the
lowest
degree
of
visible
profession
,
therefore
if
these
that
are
said
to
be
holy
,
are
visible
professors
,
then
sure
they
are
baptized
;
And
so
there
is
no
force
in
that
whether
answer
or
exception
to
my
first
reason
.
My
2d
followes
from
the
notation
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Act.
10.14
.
for
those
that
must
not
be
received
into
the
Church
,
as
on
the
other
side
God's
cleansing
is
God's
reputing
him
fit
to
be
partaker
of
this
priviledge
,
whereby
it
appears
how
fitly
,
receiving
and
not
receiving
to
baptisme
]
are
exprest
by
[
holy
and
unclean
.
]
To
this
he
answers
by
acknowledging
the
conclusion
,
viz.
the
fitnesse
of
the
expression
,
All
his
exception
is
against
my
pr●misse
,
the
notion
of
unclean
,
Act.
10.
which
,
saith
he
,
signifies
there
not
onely
one
out
of
the
Church
,
but
also
one
that
a
Jew
might
not
go
in
to
,
or
eate
with
.
To
this
I
reply
,
that
my
conclusion
being
granted
,
I
may
safely
part
with
that
,
which
inferred
it
,
as
when
I
am
arrived
at
my
journeys
end
,
I
have
no
farther
need
,
or
use
of
my
horse
or
guide
that
brought
me
thither
:
Let
it
be
remembred
,
that
[
holy
and
unclean
]
fitly
expresse
those
that
are
received
,
or
not
received
to
baptisme
,
and
then
I
am
sure
I
have
not
offended
against
the
propriety
of
the
words
,
by
concluding
from
this
text
,
that
in
the
Apostles
time
the
believers
children
were
received
to
baptisme
;
And
if
I
have
as
little
offended
against
the
rational
importance
of
the
words
in
that
place
(
as
I
hope
hath
formerly
appeared
that
I
have
)
then
I
hope
I
am
perfectly
innocent
in
inducing
my
conclusion
.
As
for
the
use
of
the
phrase
Act.
10.
though
now
I
need
not
contend
,
yet
I
may
adde
,
that
the
notion
of
not
entring
to
,
and
eating
with
,
containing
under
it
this
other
of
not
baptizing
(
for
sure
he
might
not
baptize
those
to
whom
he
might
not
enter
)
and
the
baptizing
Cornelius
(
and
not
onely
entring
to
him
)
being
the
end
for
which
Peter
received
that
vision
,
I
still
adhere
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
that
places
signifies
one
peculiarly
that
must
not
be
received
into
the
Church
by
baptisme
;
and
the
holyness
,
on
the
contrary
,
reception
to
that
priviledge
.
My
3d
reason
being
taken
from
the
use
of
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
sanctifie
,
for
washing
any
part
of
the
body
,
and
on
occasion
of
that
,
mentioning
a
conjecture
that
the
use
of
holyness
for
baptisme
might
perhaps
intimate
that
the
primitive
baptisme
were
not
always
immersions
,
but
that
sprinkling
of
some
part
might
be
sufficient
;
he
hath
a
reply
to
each
of
these
;
To
the
former
,
that
if
this
reason
were
good
,
then
the
husbands
being
sanctified
by
the
wife
,
must
signifie
his
being
baptized
or
washed
by
her
;
to
the
latter
,
that
I
have
in
my
writings
so
oft
acknowledged
the
baptisme
of
the
Jewes
and
Christians
to
be
immersion
of
the
whole
body
,
that
I
ought
to
be
ashamed
to
say
the
contrary
,
and
that
I
can
hardly
believe
my self
in
it
.
To
these
I
answer
,
first
to
the
former
,
1.
That
I
that
affirme
sanctifications
among
the
Jewes
to
signifie
washings
,
do
also
know
that
it
hath
other
significations
,
and
that
that
signification
is
in
each
text
to
be
chosen
,
which
seems
most
agreeable
in
all
those
respects
which
are
to
be
considerable
in
the
pitching
on
any
interpretation
;
Consequently
that
the
wive's
baptizing
the
husband
being
a
thing
absurd
,
and
utterly
unheard
of
in
the
Church
of
God
,
whether
in
the
Apostles
or
succeeding
ages
,
this
sense
may
not
reasonably
be
affixt
to
it
,
whereas
the
baptizing
of
infants
by
the
antients
affirmed
to
be
received
from
the
Apostles
,
it
is
most
reasonable
to
understand
the
words
of
this
,
though
not
of
the
other
(
and
so
to
apply
the
observation
(
as
it
is
visible
I
did
)
to
the
latter
,
not
former
part
of
that
verse
.
And
yet
2.
if
we
shall
distinguish
of
the
notion
of
[
by
]
and
expound
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
woman
]
of
the
perswasion
,
that
the
woman
hath
used
to
bring
her
husband
to
baptisme
,
and
not
of
her
mysterie
in
baptizing
,
we
may
very
conveniently
so
interpret
the
former
part
of
the
verse
also
,
that
by
the
woman
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
unbelieving
husband
hath
been
brought
to
baptisme
,
viz.
by
being
brought
to
faith
,
to
which
this
priviledge
belongs
.
As
for
his
2d
exceptions
to
my
conjecture
,
founded
in
the
use
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sanctifications
for
partial
not
total
washings
,
1.
I
answer
,
that
I
mention
it
only
as
a
conjecture
,
with
a
perhaps
,
and
lay
no
more
weight
upon
it
:
2.
That
for
Christian
baptisme
I
no
where
affirme
that
it
was
onely
by
immersion
,
nor
on
the
other
side
that
it
was
always
by
sprinkling
,
but
disjunctively
,
either
by
one
or
the
other
(
as
by
the
words
cited
by
him
from
Prac
:
Cat
:
l.
6.
Sect.
2.
is
clear
)
supposing
indeed
that
Christ's
appointment
was
not
terminated
to
either
,
and
so
satisfied
by
either
.
My
last
reason
is
taken
from
the
effect
of
the
legal
uncleannesse
,
contrary
to
those
their
sanctifications
,
viz.
removing
men
from
the
congregation
;
agreeable
to
which
it
is
that
those
should
be
called
holy
,
who
in
the
account
of
God
,
stood
so
,
that
they
might
be
received
into
the
Church
;
To
this
he
answers
,
that
it
is
said
without
proof
that
the
uncleanness
excluding
from
,
and
sanctification
restoring
to
the
tabernacle
are
proportionable
to
the
notion
here
given
of
the
children
being
excluded
or
included
in
the
Church
,
asking
,
why
Cornelius
should
be
counted
out
of
the
Church
,
being
a
devout
man.
But
to
this
I
reply
,
that
that
which
is
so
manifest
needed
no
farther
proof
,
for
what
two
things
can
be
more
proportionable
,
or
answerable
the
one
to
the
other
,
then
the
Jewes
calling
those
unclean
,
and
holy
,
who
were
excluded
from
,
and
restored
to
the
tabernacle
,
and
the
Christians
calling
them
unclean
,
and
holy
,
that
were
excluded
from
,
and
received
into
the
Church
,
the
exclusion
and
reception
being
the
same
on
both
sides
,
as
also
the
uncleanness
and
holyness
,
and
the
proportion
lying
only
betwixt
the
Jewish
tabernacle
and
the
Christian
Church
,
which
surely
are
very
fit
parallels
as
could
have
been
thought
on
.
As
for
his
question
of
Cornelius
,
it
is
most
vain
,
the
whole
discourse
being
not
of
real
but
relative
sanctification
,
and
the
difference
most
visible
betwixt
that
sanctity
which
was
truely
in
him
in
respect
of
his
devotion
,
fearing
,
praying
&c.
and
that
outward
priviledge
of
admission
into
the
congregation
of
the
Jewes
,
which
alone
was
the
thing
which
in
the
account
of
God
,
or
sober
men
was
denyed
Cornelius
.
These
be
pitifull
sophismes
,
and
in
no
reason
farther
to
be
insisted
on
,
And
therefore
it
was
but
necessary
that
to
amuse
the
reader
,
he
should
here
adde
by
way
of
close
that
Augustine
aid
disclaim
this
interpretation
,
Hierome
and
Ambrose
gave
another
,
and
so
did
Tertullian
De
Anima
,
c.
39.
The
three
former
of
these
we
must
,
it
seems
,
take
upon
his
word
,
for
he
cites
not
the
places
where
they
give
that
other
interpretation
,
nor
pretends
he
that
they
gave
that
to
which
he
adheres
:
But
for
Tertullian
the
most
antient
of
these
,
by
the
place
here
cited
,
I
am
assured
what
credit
is
due
to
his
citations
,
having
set
down
the
words
at
large
from
that
c.
39.
de
Animâ
and
found
it
perfectly
to
accord
to
my
interpretation
.
The
like
hath
appeared
of
S.
Hierome
in
part
(
for
the
former
and
more
difficult
part
of
the
verse
)
the
man
hath
been
sanctified
,
exemplum
refert
,
saith
he
,
quia
saepe
contigerit
,
just
according
to
my
paraphrase
of
the
place
.
For
S.
Augustine
also
,
l.
2.
de
Pecc
.
Mer.
&
Remiss
.
c.
26.
(
which
I
suppose
the
place
he
means
)
I
have
already
accounted
.
And
for
the
Annotations
on
the
Epistles
,
which
go
under
S.
Ambrose's
name
,
as
I
have
not
commoditie
to
examine
them
,
so
they
are
known
and
universally
acknowledged
to
be
none
of
S.
Ambrose's
writings
;
And
then
it
is
competently
evident
how
little
he
hath
gained
by
this
unseasonable
appeal
to
testimonies
.
The
designe
,
I
suppose
,
was
to
prevent
the
force
of
my
allegations
,
For
in
that
place
as
an
appendix
to
the
use
of
the
word
,
holy
,
among
the
Jewes
,
I
had
added
the
acception
of
it
among
the
antient
Christian
writers
,
S.
Cyprian
,
Ep.
59.
Eum
qui
natus
est
baptizandum
,
&
sanctificandm
,
and
the
two
places
out
of
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
being
sanctified
when
they
are
not
(
through
want
of
years
)
sensible
of
it
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
sanctified
from
infancy
.
And
before
he
chooses
to
take
notice
of
these
,
he
brings
forth
his
names
of
Fathers
too
;
with
what
success
,
we
have
seen
,
and
shall
not
need
farther
to
consider
.
At
length
he
descends
to
take
notice
of
my
testimonies
,
and
to
them
he
hath
two
answers
,
1.
That
for
the
antients
of
the
third
or
fourth
Century
,
especially
for
the
Latine
Doctors
,
he
thinks
the
Doctor
knows
them
better
then
to
assert
that
they
knew
certainly
the
sacred
Dialect
,
adding
that
few
of
them
had
skill
in
Hebrew
or
Greek
.
2.
That
if
those
Fathers
knew
the
sacred
dialect
,
then
not
holy
but
sanctified
,
must
be
as
much
as
baptized
,
and
then
the
sense
is
,
that
the
unbeleeving
husband
is
baptized
by
the
wife
.
This
latter
answer
was
even
now
satisfied
to
the
full
,
To
the
former
then
I
reply
,
1.
That
of
the
two
antients
cited
by
me
,
the
former
was
crowned
a
Martyr
within
160
yeers
after
the
Apostles
age
,
and
the
latter
flourished
about
110
yeers
after
him
,
and
so
that
in
respect
of
their
time
they
are
no
way
incompetent
to
testify
what
was
the
sacred
language
,
the
writers
whereof
were
so
lately
gone
out
of
the
world
.
2dly
.
That
one
of
these
being
a
Greek
Doctor
,
and
he
agreeing
exactly
with
the
other
(
and
more
of
the
same
kind
I
have
now
produced
in
this
Rejoynder
)
there
can
here
be
no
pretense
for
Mr.
T.
either
to
prejudice
the
Latine
Doctors
skill
in
this
matter
,
or
to
say
they
had
no
skill
in
Greek
.
3dly
.
That
the
notion
that
they
had
of
the
word
,
being
the
very
same
,
that
the
Hebrews
were
so
lately
shown
to
have
had
of
it
,
there
was
as
little
colour
,
or
temptation
from
the
matter
in
hand
,
to
except
against
their
skill
in
Hebrew
.
4thly
.
That
either
of
these
antient
Doctors
knew
as
much
(
the
one
much
more
)
of
Greek
as
any
of
the
four
whom
just
now
Mr.
T.
had
vouched
for
the
interpreting
of
the
place
;
and
for
the
Hebrew
S.
Hierome
,
who
alone
was
better
skilled
in
that
,
concurred
with
me
in
the
main
part
(
and
basis
)
of
my
interpretation
.
Lastly
,
The
text
to
the
Corinthians
beeing
in
Greeke
,
certainly
Gregory
Nazianzen
was
as
great
a
Master
in
that
language
,
as
any
that
can
be
pretended
fit
to
be
confronted
against
him
,
and
with
that
concurrence
,
which
I
have
shewed
he
had
of
Origen
,
and
others
,
both
Greek
and
Latine
,
may
be
thought
worthy
to
be
heeded
by
Mr.
T.
for
a
matter
of
no
greater
weight
then
his
,
the
interpretation
of
word
,
especially
when
Mr.
T.
himself
hath
so
lately
joyned
his
suffrage
in
these
plain
words
,
I
deny
not
the
fitness
of
the
expressing
[
receiving
to
baptisme
]
by
the
terme
[
holy
.
]
And
so
much
for
those
exceptions
against
the
latter
part
of
my
paraphrase
of
that
verse
,
and
my
reasons
for
it
.
CHAP.
IV.
An
answer
to
Mr.
Tombes's
view
of
my
Conclusion
and
therein
the
sense
of
Antiquity
in
this
Question
.
Sect.
1.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
1
Cor.
7.
infant
children
.
The
Jewes
practice
.
Their
notion
of
[
holy
]
Baptisme
a
priviledge
of
believers
children
,
yet
is
communicated
to
others
whose
guardians
are
believers
.
The
several
sorts
of
holyness
all
vainly
mentioned
by
Mr.
T.
His
denyals
of
the
Conclusion
.
The
place
in
Tertullian
vindicated
.
S.
Hieromes
answer
to
Paulinus
.
Institutionis
disciplina
in
Tertullian
.
Candidati
Damoniorum
.
A
3d
denyal
of
the
Conclusion
.
The
use
of
baptisme
to
regenerate
&c.
No
prejudice
to
the
founding
it
in
the
Jewish
practice
.
His
art
of
diversion
to
put
off
answering
of
testimonies
.
The
way
of
Testimonies
insisted
on
.
AFter
this
examination
of
my
paraphrase
of
this
text
to
the
Corinthians
,
he
proceeds
to
the
conclusion
which
I
deduce
from
thence
,
which
is
no
other
then
my
premisses
,
viz.
my
confirmation
of
that
interpretation
,
had
regularly
inferred
,
that
the
infants
of
Christian
parents
were
by
the
Apostles
received
to
baptisme
.
But
to
this
he
will
object
also
,
not
onely
by
referring
to
his
former
performances
in
validating
the
premisses
(
to
which
I
shall
not
need
to
now
advert
,
having
refuted
his
answers
,
as
they
were
produced
)
but
by
denying
the
consequence
in
case
my
interpretation
were
granted
,
and
that
upon
these
accounts
,
1.
Because
it
is
not
clear
that
[
your
children
]
are
[
your
infants
]
the
Corinthians
having
(
for
ought
yet
hath
been
shewed
)
other
children
besides
infants
,
and
the
Jewes
baptizing
proselytes
,
children
females
under
12.
and
males
under
13.
years
old
,
not
according
to
their
will
,
but
of
the
Father
or
Court.
2.
Because
if
the
Apostle
should
by
[
holy
]
mean
a
priviledge
whereupon
they
were
baptized
he
should
conceive
otherwise
then
the
Jewes
did
,
who
conceived
all
unclean
whom
they
baptized
,
till
by
baptisme
they
cleansed
them
,
and
made
them
holy
.
3.
Because
there
is
no
priviledge
attributed
by
the
Apostle
to
the
Christians
infants
,
which
would
not
belong
to
the
infants
of
heathen
,
or
if
there
were
yet
it
might
not
be
baptisme
.
To
the
first
of
these
I
have
incidentally
answered
already
,
by
making
it
evident
,
not
that
the
Corinthians
had
no
other
children
beside
infants
(
I
have
no
want
of
such
ridiculous
evasions
)
but
that
the
children
which
are
there
spoken
of
were
infant
children
,
as
appeared
both
by
the
express
words
of
Tertullian
,
and
the
Author
of
Answers
ad
Antiochum
,
and
the
agreeableness
of
Nazianzen's
expressions
,
by
the
general
doctrine
of
the
Fathers
in
this
matter
,
and
by
the
inconveniences
which
were
consequent
to
the
interpreting
it
of
any
other
but
infant
children
,
meaning
by
them
such
as
are
either
strictly
infants
,
new
born
,
or
such
as
are
proportionable
to
these
,
having
not
arrived
to
maturity
of
understanding
,
and
capacity
of
professing
personally
for
themselves
.
For
this
I
must
refer
the
reader
to
that
place
-
And
for
the
practice
of
the
Jewes
,
which
I
acknowledge
to
be
as
is
here
suggested
,
not
to
baptize
any
proselytes
children
by
their
own
wills
or
professions
,
till
they
be
,
the
female
at
the
full
age
of
12.
the
male
of
13.
years
,
sure
it
makes
nothing
against
me
,
for
they
that
thus
baptized
the
proselytes
children
,
all
under
that
age
,
by
the
profession
of
others
,
did
also
baptize
their
infant
children
in
the
same
manner
,
and
all
that
I
pretend
from
that
place
is
,
that
the
believers
infants
were
admitted
to
baptisme
,
if
infants
they
were
,
not
doubting
but
if
they
were
of
greater
years
they
were
baptized
also
,
if
before
they
were
fit
to
profess
for
themselves
,
then
by
their
parents
or
the
Churches
,
but
if
fit
to
answer
for
themselves
,
then
by
their
own
profession
.
To
the
2d
I
say
,
that
by
[
holy
]
the
Apostle
means
the
priviledge
of
admission
to
baptisme
,
because
in
baptisme
they
were
received
into
the
Church
,
and
so
made
relatively
holy
;
And
the
very
same
was
the
Jewes
notion
of
holyness
,
when
they
called
baptismes
,
Sanctifications
,
and
conceived
those
that
were
unclean
to
be
made
holy
by
that
means
,
This
holyness
is
the
terme
of
the
motion
in
both
their
usages
of
the
word
.
To
the
3d
,
1.
I
suppose
it
evident
by
my
interpretation
,
that
the
holyness
which
belonged
to
the
believers
children
was
a
priviledge
,
and
that
not
common
to
the
unbelievers
children
,
unless
they
were
by
the
charity
of
the
Church
or
some
member
thereof
(
having
power
,
and
assuming
to
make
use
of
that
power
,
to
bring
them
up
in
the
knowledge
of
their
baptismal
vow
)
brought
to
baptisme
,
and
then
those
supplied
the
place
of
the
parents
,
and
the
children
equally
received
the
same
benefit
by
that
charity
,
as
if
their
own
parents
had
done
it
for
them
;
and
there
being
no
reason
here
offered
to
the
contrarie
,
but
a
reference
to
another
place
,
which
I
have
not
commodity
to
consult
or
examine
,
there
is
nothing
that
exacts
any
farther
reply
from
me
.
The
same
will
satisfie
the
latter
part
of
this
last
suggestion
,
for
to
prove
that
if
there
were
a
priviledge
,
yet
it
might
not
be
baptisme
,
he
produceth
this
reason
,
that
baptisme
according
to
the
fathers
opinion
and
practice
belonged
to
unbelievers
children
also
,
if
they
were
brought
:
which
being
willingly
granted
,
&
so
the
matter
cleared
,
that
the
children
of
believers
were
to
be
admitted
to
baptisme
,
when
the
very
unbelievers
children
,
if
brought
&
assumed
for
by
others
,
which
were
not
their
parents
were
to
be
admitted
,
It
certainly
followes
not
from
thence
,
that
the
believers
children
were
not
admitted
,
or
that
their
admission
was
not
a
priviledge
of
believers
children
,
For
so
still
it
was
,
though
by
parity
of
reason
,
and
by
the
charity
of
the
Church
it
was
communicated
to
some
others
:
viz.
those
that
were
brought
by
friends
or
guardians
,
though
not
by
parents
,
for
so
still
this
priviledge
belonged
not
to
those
unbelievers
children
,
who
lived
in
their
parents
power
,
&
were
not
thus
undertaken
for
by
believers
.
The
short
is
,
baptisme
was
a
priviledge
of
the
believers
infants
undertaken
for
by
their
parents
,
and
by
analogie
communicated
to
those
who
were
undertaken
for
by
others
,
whose
charitie
and
pietie
supplyed
the
place
of
believing
parents
,
but
was
not
communicated
simply
or
indifferently
to
all
children
of
unbelievers
,
and
herein
the
priviledge
consisted
.
As
for
the
other
imagined
priviledge
,
which
he
names
,
belonging
to
infants
,
If
it
be
that
of
real
,
actual
,
inward
holyness
,
I
discern
not
Mr.
T.
hath
any
kindnesse
to
it
,
(
nor
can
he
without
destroying
his
own
hypotheses
)
and
therefore
it
matters
not
what
others
imagine
;
If
it
be
federal
external
holynesse
,
that
I
suppose
to
be
the
same
with
baptismal
holynesse
,
baptisme
being
the
entrance
into
that
Covenant
,
And
for
holynesse
in
hope
and
expectation
,
1.
that
cannot
denote
actually
holy
(
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
notes
)
unlesse
by
holy
we
mean
in
the
relative
sense
,
consecration
or
designation
to
holynesse
,
and
then
it
is
all
one
with
baptisme
again
,
the
solemnity
of
that
consecration
.
Before
he
leaves
the
survey
of
my
conclusion
,
he
will
again
resume
what
he
had
said
without
all
degree
of
truth
in
the
beginning
,
and
yet
doth
it
with
great
incitation
,
First
,
saith
he
,
it
is
false
that
Christ
founded
his
institution
in
the
Jewish
practice
.
But
this
I
suppose
in
Mr.
T.
to
be
no
other
then
a
mentiris
Bellarmine
,
or
that
most
inartificiall
thing
,
the
denying
a
conclusion
which
had
been
inferred
by
competent
premisses
.
And
for
the
reason
added
to
his
negation
,
that
it
would
utterly
overthrow
all
baptisme
after
the
first
conversion
of
progenitors
,
that
hath
been
largely
answered
here
,
and
grounds
laid
for
it
in
the
resolution
of
the
Quare
,
by
the
Jewish
practice
of
baptizing
the
children
of
natives
,
as
well
as
of
proselytes
,
and
so
of
those
that
are
born
never
so
many
ages
after
the
first
conversion
.
And
I
must
not
again
so
often
repeat
the
same
thing
.
In
the
same
causelesse
fit
of
incitation
,
he
farther
goes
on
,
2dly
.
saith
he
,
It
is
false
that
there
is
any
evidence
in
the
Apostles
words
,
1.
Cor.
7.14
.
of
such
a
Custome
of
baptizing
Christians
and
their
children
.
But
that
I
humbly
conceive
,
is
the
denying
my
conclusion
again
,
having
all
this
while
laboured
to
clear
this
evidence
in
the
tract
,
and
here
vindicated
it
from
all
objections
,
which
seemed
to
have
the
least
force
in
them
:
And
whereas
he
here
addes
no
other
reason
to
his
negation
,
but
his
own
not
thinking
that
ever
any
of
the
Fathers
did
interpret
the
Apostles
words
as
this
Doctor
doth
,
adding
that
Tertullians
words
de
Anima
,
c.
39.
are
not
an
exact
parallel
to
the
Apostles
speech
(
which
I
must
suppose
I
have
now
shewed
it
is
)
that
Ambrose
and
Hierome
interpret
them
of
legitimation
in
birth
,
Augustine
what
way
soever
,
not
to
baptisme
(
of
each
of
which
I
have
spoken
already
also
)
all
that
I
shall
need
adde
,
is
onely
this
.
1.
That
still
if
this
argument
were
exactly
true
,
yet
it
is
but
a
negative
argument
à
testimonio
,
which
never
was
availeable
in
any
dispute
:
2.
That
if
the
Fathers
do
not
fully
interpret
this
place
as
I
now
do
,
yet
I
have
brought
some
suffrages
and
other
competent
grounds
out
of
the
Fathers
for
my
way
of
interpreting
it
:
3.
That
what
he
hath
said
for
the
invalidating
the
Testimonie
out
of
Tertullian
,
hath
certainly
no
force
in
it
,
as
shall
now
briefely
appear
by
this
view
of
what
he
saith
.
It
is
this
,
1.
That
the
termes
candidati
sanctitatis
,
or
designati
sanctitatis
,
or
candidati
fidei
in
Hieroms
Epis
.
153.
to
Pauliniu
,
do
note
not
that
they
were
baptized
,
but
that
they
were
in
designation
of
being
believers
and
baptized
,
intended
to
be
holy
by
the
parents
,
to
be
bred
up
to
the
faith
and
so
baptized
.
2.
That
what
the
Doctor
talkes
of
Tertullian
as
saying
they
were
holy
,
i.
e.
baptized
,
ex
seminis
praerogativâ
,
it
is
a
manifest
mistake
,
for
1.
The
holynesse
he
ascribes
to
believers
children
was
not
onely
by
prerogative
of
birth
but
also
ex
institutionis
disciplinâ
by
the
discipline
of
their
instruction
which
is
afore
baptisme
.
2.
The
prerogative
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
principally
recites
.
To
this
I
answer
by
degrees
,
1.
By
viewing
the
place
in
S.
Hierom
,
to
which
he
referres
me
for
the
explication
of
the
phrase
,
candidati
or
designati
sanctitatis
.
That
Epistle
to
Paulinus
is
hastily
written
in
answer
to
two
questions
of
Paulinus
his
proposing
.
To
the
later
,
being
this
,
quomodo
sancti
sint
qui
de
fidelibus
,
i.
e.
baptizatis
nascantur
(
which
plainly
referres
the
matter
to
these
words
of
the
Apostles
,
how
the
children
born
of
believing
parents
are
holy
]
he
gives
a
very
short
solution
,
being
taken
off
by
the
hast
of
the
post
and
the
multitude
of
other
letters
,
he
had
to
write
.
All
that
he
is
permitted
to
say
is
this
.
De
secundo
problemate
tuo
Tertullianus
in
libris
de
monogamiâ
disseruit
,
asserens
sanctos
dici
fidelium
filios
quòd
quasi
candidati
sint
fidei
,
&
nullis
Idololatriae
sordibus
polluantur
.
Simúlque
considera
quòd
&
vasa
sacra
in
tabernaculo
legimus
,
&
caetera
quae
ad
ritum
ceremoniarum
pertinent
,
cum
utique
sancta
esse
non
possint
nisi
ea
quae
sentiunt
&
venerantur
Deum
.
Idioma
igitur
Scripturarum
est
ut
interdum
sanctos
pro
mundis
&
purificatis
&
expiatis
nominent
,
sicut
&
Betsabee
sanctificata
dicitur
ab
immunditia
sua
,
&
ipsum
templum
sanctuarium
nominatur
.
Of
your
second
probleme
Tertullian
hath
discoursed
in
his
Books
de
monogamia
,
affirming
the
children
of
believers
to
be
called
holy
,
because
they
were
as
it
were
candidates
of
Faith
,
and
not
polluted
with
any
of
the
filth
of
idolatrie
.
Withall
consider
that
also
we
read
that
the
vessels
in
the
tabernacle
are
holy
,
and
the
other
things
which
belong
to
the
rite
of
ceremonies
,
when
yet
nothing
can
(
really
)
be
holy
but
what
have
sense
,
and
worship
God.
It
is
therefore
an
idiome
of
the
Scriptures
to
use
the
word
holy
for
those
that
are
clean
,
and
purified
and
expiated
,
as
Bathseba
is
said
to
be
sanctified
from
her
uncleannesse
and
the
temple
is
called
the
Sanctuary
.
And
so
he
is
abruptly
broken
off
,
meaning
to
have
said
much
more
on
that
subject
,
this
,
as
he
solemnly
protests
(
testis
est
mihi
conscientiae
meae
Deus
)
being
but
the
procinctus
&
exordium
,
the
preparation
and
beginning
of
his
interpretation
.
If
he
had
gone
on
to
have
perfected
his
answer
to
Paulinus's
quaere
,
he
would
probably
have
more
perfectly
cleared
the
whole
difficulty
.
As
it
is
,
here
is
nothing
in
the
least
wise
to
our
prejudice
,
nor
to
the
proving
that
which
Mr.
T.
undertakes
,
that
Tertullians
words
de
Anima
do
not
affirme
the
baptizing
of
the
believers
children
.
For
1.
This
of
Tertullian
is
not
the
place
that
S.
Hierome
referres
to
,
but
some
other
in
his
Bookes
de
Monog
.
that
one
Book
which
we
now
have
under
that
title
affording
us
no
such
discourse
on
that
subject
,
as
S.
Hierom
mentions
.
2dly
.
All
that
S.
Hierom
cites
out
of
that
(
not
this
)
place
of
Tertullian
,
is
very
reconcileable
with
what
Tertullian
saith
in
this
place
,
and
with
his
opinion
that
the
infants
of
Christians
were
baptized
,
for
,
saith
he
,
they
were
quasi
candidati
fidei
,
as
it
were
candidates
of
faith
,
Candidates
were
they
that
stood
for
any
office
qui
candida
sumptâ
veste
consulatum
▪
praeturam
&c.
postulabant
,
who
putting
on
white
garments
sued
for
any
office
,
and
so
candidates
of
faith
,
they
that
sue
,
for
this
condition
in
the
Church
of
God
,
that
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
believers
,
to
which
by
baptisme
they
are
assumed
,
and
accordingly
were
to
be
brought
to
the
font
,
like
such
candidates
,
in
white
garments
as
they
that
were
to
be
sanctified
,
i.
e.
baptized
,
among
the
Jewes
,
Exod.
16.10
.
were
also
to
wash
their
clothes
or
put
on
clean
garments
.
Again
when
he
saith
of
them
that
they
were
holy
as
the
vessels
of
the
Temple
were
holy
,
though
they
had
no
sense
,
this
is
the
clear
laying
of
a
ground
,
whereby
children
may
be
deemed
capable
of
this
relative
holynesse
,
which
is
to
be
had
by
baptisme
,
though
as
yet
they
are
not
capable
(
for
want
of
understanding
)
of
inherent
holynesse
.
Lastly
,
when
he
mentions
it
as
an
idiome
of
Scripture
to
call
them
holy
,
who
are
cleansed
,
purified
,
expiated
,
speaking
of
those
legal
lustrations
or
purifications
,
this
gives
an
account
of
S.
Pauls
using
the
word
in
the
Christian
Church
for
the
Christian
lustration
,
purification
,
expiation
,
i.
e.
for
baptisme
.
And
by
the
way
,
it
appears
by
S.
Hierome
that
he
useth
promiscuously
sancti
and
sanctificati
,
and
so
that
gives
us
authority
to
interpret
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
in
the
end
of
the
verse
,
in
the
same
sense
in
which
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
is
used
in
the
beginning
,
for
those
that
are
brought
and
received
to
baptisme
.
All
which
are
farre
enough
fom
serving
any
of
Mr.
T.
his
interests
,
and
might
have
inclined
him
to
have
omitted
that
testimonie
of
S.
Hieromes
,
if
he
had
more
maturely
considered
of
it
.
Nay
3.
I
must
adde
,
that
Mr.
T.
his
rendring
of
candidati
and
designati
sanctitatis
,
and
candidati
fidei
,
by
being
in
designation
of
being
believers
and
baptized
,
intended
to
be
holy
by
the
parents
,
to
be
bred
up
to
the
faith
and
so
baptized
,
is
a
most
groundlesse
inconvenient
interpretation
:
For
if
by
holynesse
and
faith
be
meant
inherent
holynesse
and
faith
,
then
baptisme
it self
is
the
ceremony
of
consecrating
and
designing
them
to
this
,
and
so
precedent
to
that
holynesse
(
not
subsequent
to
it
,
as
Mr.
T.
sets
it
)
and
accordingly
in
the
Church
writings
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
believers
,
is
never
bestowed
on
any
,
though
of
mature
age
and
knowledge
,
till
after
they
be
baptized
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
illuminate
and
believers
being
all
one
,
promiscuously
used
for
those
that
have
received
baptisme
,
in
opposition
to
catechumeni
,
those
that
have
not
yet
attained
it
:
But
if
holynesse
and
faith
be
the
relative
holynesse
,
then
infants
being
as
capable
of
that
as
vessels
in
the
Temple
,
they
might
be
presently
designed
and
consecrated
to
that
,
and
not
first
bred
up
in
the
faith
,
before
they
were
partakers
of
it
.
The
children
of
believers
,
I
willingly
grant
,
are
presumed
to
be
by
them
intended
to
be
bred
up
to
the
faith
,
but
it
that
intention
of
theirs
bring
forth
no
present
effect
,
if
they
do
not
bring
them
thus
early
,
and
enter
them
into
the
Church
by
baptisme
,
why
should
that
bare
intention
of
the
parents
give
them
the
style
of
holy
or
sanctified
,
or
how
should
these
infant
children
,
which
may
dy
before
they
come
to
those
years
,
receive
any
present
priviledge
or
benefit
,
by
that
which
is
thus
farre
removed
from
them
?
Now
for
the
2d
part
of
this
suggestion
,
that
what
I
say
from
Tertullian
,
that
they
were
holy
,
i.
e.
baptized
in
seminis
praerogativâ
,
is
a
mistake
,
I
must
answer
by
viewing
of
the
proofs
of
his
assertion
,
First
,
saith
he
,
the
holynesse
was
not
onely
by
prerogative
of
birth
,
but
ex
institutionis
disciplinâ
.
This
sure
is
a
strange
proof
,
It
is
not
so
,
because
it
is
not
onely
so
,
T
is
certain
that
Tertullian
saith
they
are
holy
ex
institutionis
disciplina
,
and
as
certain
that
they
are
as
much
so
by
prerogative
of
their
birth
,
the
words
are
most
clear
,
tam
ex
seminis
praerogativâ
quàm
ex
institutionis
disciplina
,
and
I
that
never
denyed
the
second
,
could
not
be
mistaken
in
affirming
the
first
.
Some
difficulty
I
suppose
there
may
be
,
what
Tertullian
(
who
did
not
excell
in
perspicuity
of
expressions
)
meant
by
institutionis
disciplina
.
My
opinion
(
gathered
from
the
observation
of
his
language
in
other
places
)
is
,
that
he
meant
the
doctrine
of
baptisme
instituted
by
Christ
in
his
Church
;
for
by
this
it
is
that
baptisme
was
allowed
to
those
that
were
ex
alterutro
sexu
sanctificato
procreati
,
born
of
parents
of
which
either
of
them
was
Christian
.
Thus
in
his
Book
De
Bapt.
c.
12.
he
uses
a
like
phrase
tingi
disciplinâ
religionis
,
to
be
sprinkled
with
the
discipline
of
religion
,
meaning
evidently
being
baptized
.
By
this
interpretation
of
that
phrase
,
the
whole
place
will
be
most
clear
,
in
reference
to
the
antecedents
,
thus
,
The
birth
of
all
men
by
nature
brings
impurity
into
the
world
with
them
;
the
children
of
heathens
have
this
mightily
inhansed
to
them
by
the
Superstitions
that
are
used
before
and
at
,
and
soon
after
their
birth
,
inviting
the
devil
to
come
and
take
possession
of
them
(
who
is
himself
very
ready
to
catch
them
)
and
so
making
them
as
soon
as
born
,
candidatos
daemoniorum
,
candidates
of
the
devils
,
ambitious
to
be
admitted
thus
early
into
their
service
;
Thus
every
one
hath
his
genius
,
i.
e.
his
devill
assigned
him
from
his
birth
,
and
so
no
birth
of
any
heathen
can
choose
but
be
polluted
,
Hinc
enim
Apostolus
—
for
from
hence
,
saith
he
,
it
is
that
the
Apostle
affirmes
that
whosoever
is
born
from
either
parent
Christian
,
is
holy
both
by
prerogative
of
seed
,
and
by
discipline
of
institution
,
i.
e.
hath
one
priviledge
by
nature
,
by
his
very
seed
(
by
being
born
of
a
Christian
,
not
an
heathen
)
that
he
is
not
so
polluted
by
their
idolatrous
ceremonies
,
and
so
is
in
some
degree
holy
,
in
that
respect
,
not
so
polluted
as
heathen
children
are
;
another
priviledge
he
hath
by
the
orders
and
rites
,
which
Christ
instituted
and
left
in
his
Church
,
viz.
that
of
reception
to
baptisme
,
whereby
he
is
consecrated
to
God
,
whereas
heathen
children
are
desecrated
to
devils
,
and
in
that
respect
also
they
are
called
holy
by
the
Apostle
,
citing
that
place
,
1
Cor.
7.
Caeterum
,
inquit
,
immundi
nascerentur
,
else
were
your
children
unclean
,
but
now
are
they
holy
,
adding
that
the
Apostle
in
those
words
means
,
that
the
children
of
believers
are
designati
sanctitatis
,
that
sure
must
signifie
that
they
are
initiated
into
Christ
by
the
Christian
rite
or
sign
or
ceremonie
of
baptisme
,
as
those
which
had
the
heathenish
ceremonies
used
upon
them
,
were
candidati
daemoniorum
,
candidates
of
the
devils
,
in
the
former
,
thus
early
admitted
and
initiated
into
their
sacra
.
How
farre
now
this
is
from
intimating
any
discipline
of
their
instruction
(
the
word
their
is
clearly
inserted
by
Mr.
T.
and
institutio
rendred
instruction
,
and
so
Christs
institution
turn'd
into
their
instruction
)
I
shall
not
now
need
farther
to
declare
,
nor
to
adde
ought
concerning
his
other
reason
taken
from
the
idolatrous
Superstitions
,
without
which
they
that
are
born
are
said
to
be
holy
,
for
how
farre
that
hath
here
place
,
I
have
already
manifested
also
.
In
this
fit
of
incitation
he
yet
farther
proceeds
,
3.
Saith
he
,
it
is
false
that
the
Jewish
practice
in
baptizing
proselytes
and
their
children
,
laid
the
foundation
of
infant
baptisme
:
But
as
this
is
like
the
former
,
a
meer
denying
of
my
conclusion
,
and
so
against
all
rules
of
discourse
,
in
the
first
place
,
so
is
it
not
attempted
to
be
proved
,
save
onely
by
the
negative
argument
à
testimonio
,
Neither
the
Scripture
,
saith
he
,
gives
any
hint
thereof
,
nor
any
of
the
antient
Christian
writers
,
no
nor
any
of
those
the
Doctor
cites
,
ever
derives
it
from
the
Jewish
practice
.
But
certainly
this
is
of
no
force
;
for
1.
So
long
as
none
of
all
these
deny
it
,
to
be
so
derived
,
and
when
the
matter
it self
speaks
it
and
the
agreement
between
what
we
find
in
the
Christian
Church
with
what
we
find
among
the
Jewes
,
there
is
no
want
either
of
truth
or
sobriety
in
my
assertion
,
that
Christs
institution
of
baptisme
was
founded
in
the
Jewish
practice
of
baptizing
their
natives
and
their
proselytes
,
and
that
their
custome
being
to
baptize
infant
children
,
Christs
institution
also
being
by
the
Apostles
understood
to
belong
to
the
infant
childrens
baptisme
was
in
that
respect
also
conformable
to
the
Jewish
copy
,
and
so
still
the
Jewish
practice
the
foundation
of
the
Christian
.
What
he
addes
from
several
antient
testimonies
,
shortly
pointed
at
,
that
they
shew
that
the
Fathers
took
the
baptisme
of
infants
not
to
have
foundation
in
the
Jewish
practice
,
but
in
the
conceit
they
had
that
baptisme
did
regenerate
,
give
grace
and
save
,
and
was
necessary
for
them
to
enter
into
the
kingdome
—
hath
nothing
of
weight
in
it
,
For
1.
Their
conceiting
that
baptisme
had
this
force
from
Christs
institution
,
no
way
prejudges
Christs
founding
his
institution
in
the
foregoing
Jewish
practice
.
T
is
as
if
he
should
thus
argue
,
the
Fathers
conceived
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
to
be
usefull
for
the
confirming
of
our
faith
,
therefore
they
took
that
Sacrament
not
to
be
sounded
in
the
postcoenium
of
the
Jewes
.
They
conceived
imposition
of
hands
to
conferre
a
Character
on
those
that
were
thus
ordained
to
holy
orders
,
therefore
this
was
not
founded
in
the
Jewish
custome
of
receiving
Doctors
into
the
Sanhedrim
by
laying
on
of
hands
.
The
foundation
of
the
institution
is
one
thing
,
and
the
benefits
of
it
being
instituted
is
another
,
and
yet
both
these
are
found
to
belong
to
the
same
thing
.
2dly
.
Their
very
opinion
that
baptisme
did
regenerate
,
and
was
necessary
to
enter
into
the
kingdome
,
as
it
is
taken
by
the
Fathers
from
the
words
of
Christ
to
Nicodemus
Joh.
3.
Except
a
man
be
born
again
,
v.
3.
and
that
of
water
—
v.
5.
(
by
baptisme
)
he
cannot
enter
into
the
kingdome
of
God
,
so
was
that
speech
of
Christ
,
taken
from
the
customary
doctrine
of
the
Jewes
,
among
whom
baptisme
was
said
to
regenerate
,
and
to
enter
into
the
Church
,
as
that
was
the
portal
to
the
kingdome
of
God
,
and
accordingly
when
Nicodemus
seems
not
to
understand
it
,
Christ
appeals
to
the
Jewish
doctrine
or
tradition
,
Art
thou
a
Ruler
,
a
Master
in
Israel
and
knowest
not
these
things
?
and
therefore
again
those
perswasions
of
the
Fathers
are
far
from
unreconcileable
with
that
which
I
have
affirmed
of
the
founding
the
Christian
in
the
Jewish
baptisme
.
Nay
4.
That
the
Fathers
in
their
discourses
of
baptisme
do
ordinarily
lay
the
foundation
of
it
in
Moses
or
the
baptisme
of
the
Jewes
(
and
so
might
as
well
found
the
baptisme
of
Christian
infants
there
,
the
Jewes
baptisme
,
as
hath
appeared
,
belonging
to
such
)
hath
formerly
been
evidenced
from
Gregorie
Nazianzen
,
Orat.
39.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
and
so
from
others
also
.
What
he
now
addes
of
womens
baptizing
among
Papists
and
the
allowance
thereof
formerly
among
us
,
of
private
baptisme
,
of
the
use
of
propounding
questions
to
the
infant
which
he
is
pleased
to
style
ridiculous
,
of
the
sureties
answering
in
the
childs
behalf
,
and
expressing
their
desire
to
be
baptized
into
the
faith
recited
,
of
the
custome
of
baptizing
onely
at
Easter
and
Whitsontide
,
of
sprinkling
or
powring
water
on
the
face
,
of
a
confession
in
the
Pract.
Cat.
that
all
men
were
instructed
antiently
before
they
were
baptized
,
is
all
amast
together
,
if
it
might
be
,
to
make
up
one
accumulative
argument
,
but
is
utterly
insufficient
to
do
so
.
All
that
he
concludes
from
the
mention
of
all
these
,
is
but
his
own
resolution
not
to
answer
the
testimonies
which
I
had
alledged
from
the
Fathers
,
to
prove
that
Infant
baptisme
was
an
Apostolical
tradition
.
His
words
are
these
,
upon
the
mentioning
of
those
particulars
▪
[
And
therefore
for
the
present
I
shall
put
by
the
answering
of
the
stale
and
rotten
allegations
out
of
the
Fathers
for
infant
baptisme
brought
by
the
Doctor
,
because
having
said
so
much
.
Here
indeed
by
his
[
therefore
]
I
am
told
the
reason
why
he
was
willing
to
mention
those
other
particulars
so
causelesly
and
unseasonably
,
viz.
by
way
of
diversion
(
as
dextrous
persons
are
wont
to
do
for
the
removing
of
difficulties
)
to
put
by
the
answering
of
the
allegations
out
of
the
Fathers
.
But
I
must
not
thus
farre
complie
with
Mr.
T.
The
main
issue
of
the
whole
dispute
must
divolve
to
this
,
the
doctrine
of
the
antient
Church
in
this
matter
,
For.
1.
baptisme
being
instituted
by
Christ
long
before
his
crucifixion
,
and
2.
The
forme
wherein
he
instituted
it
being
not
set
down
in
the
Gospels
,
and
so
3.
The
Apostles
practice
being
our
onely
guide
for
the
resolving
such
difficulties
as
these
,
whether
infants
were
admittable
or
no
to
baptisme
(
the
foundation
thereof
among
the
Jewes
visibly
belonging
to
infants
,
but
it
being
still
possible
that
this
might
be
changed
in
Christs
institution
)
it
is
not
now
imaginable
what
way
should
be
open
to
us
of
this
age
(
1600
years
after
those
times
)
to
discern
Christs
institution
in
this
matter
,
but
by
the
words
or
actions
of
(
or
some
kind
of
intimation
from
)
the
Apostles
,
how
they
understood
Christs
institution
.
Of
this
one
place
we
have
1
Cor.
7.
which
comes
in
incidentally
,
speaking
to
another
matter
,
and
notifies
the
Apostles
sense
by
their
practice
visibly
enough
,
and
defines
for
the
baptizing
of
infants
in
those
dayes
;
But
to
them
that
will
not
acknowledge
this
sense
of
those
words
,
how
fair
and
easy
soever
,
there
is
but
one
possible
method
remaining
in
this
,
as
in
all
other
questions
of
fact
(
as
evidently
this
is
,
whether
in
the
Apostles
times
and
by
their
appointment
children
were
received
to
baptisme
or
no
)
viz.
to
appeal
to
those
that
could
not
be
ignorant
of
this
matter
,
who
by
succession
and
tradition
,
the
one
from
the
other
,
had
the
Apostles
practice
,
the
interpreter
of
their
sense
of
Christs
institution
,
conveyed
and
handed
down
unto
them
,
and
are
to
us
,
their
late
posterity
,
the
only
competent
witnesses
of
this
matter
of
fact
,
and
so
are
in
all
reason
to
decide
the
controversie
,
and
give
a
final
conclusion
to
the
debate
between
us
.
This
therefore
being
the
last
part
of
my
method
in
the
positive
part
of
the
Resolution
of
that
Quaere
,
I
professe
to
have
laid
the
most
weight
upon
it
(
according
to
the
grounds
set
down
in
the
first
Quare
concerning
the
deciding
of
such
controversies
)
and
consequently
must
still
insist
upon
it
,
and
not
be
put
off
by
Mr.
T.
his
dexteritie
,
and
that
in
this
matter
I
may
not
fail
of
giving
the
Reader
some
evidence
,
I
shall
again
resume
it
,
and
give
him
a
competent
series
of
testimonies
,
some
formerly
mentioned
,
and
now
put
more
into
forme
of
evidence
,
and
others
added
to
them
,
so
as
to
inferre
an
uniforme
concordant
tradition
of
all
the
ages
of
the
Church
of
Christ
even
since
the
Apostles
times
unto
this
day
,
for
the
receiving
infants
to
baptisme
;
and
that
shall
be
the
last
part
of
this
Replie
to
Mr.
T.
and
the
Antipadobaptist
whose
pretensions
are
the
contrary
,
that
infants
must
not
be
thus
admitted
.
Sect.
2.
A
Catalogue
of
Testimonies
of
the
first
ages
for
Infant
baptisme
,
and
the
Apostolicalness
thereof
.
FIrst
then
I
begin
with
the
words
of
the
Apostle
so
long
insisted
on
,
and
vindicated
from
Mr.
T.
his
exceptions
,
and
by
so
antient
a
writer
as
Tertullian
&c.
applyed
to
this
matter
.
And
that
first
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
being
written
at
the
end
of
his
three
years
stay
in
Asia
Act.
20.31
.
i.
e.
An.
Chr.
54.
I
shall
there
place
my
first
testimonie
.
In
the
middle
of
the
first
Centurie
S.
Paul
delivered
these
words
,
Now
are
your
children
holy
,
i.
e.
your
children
new-born
(
as
appears
by
the
context
and
Tertullian
)
are
sanctified
,
as
that
signifies
baptized
,
in
the
style
of
the
New
Testament
and
the
antient
Church
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
they
are
vouchsafed
the
good
things
that
come
by
baptisme
,
saith
the
Author
of
the
Respons
:
ad
Orthod
:
whether
that
were
Justine
the
Martyr
,
who
suffered
Anno
163.
or
another
very
antient
writer
under
that
name
;
And
this
of
that
Apostle
is
an
evidence
of
the
practice
of
the
first
,
or
Apostolical
age
,
soon
after
Christ
,
and
is
not
contradicted
by
any
that
wrote
in
that
age
.
In
the
next
age
after
the
Apostles
flourished
S.
Irenaeus
,
said
to
be
martyred
at
Lyons
(
the
seate
of
his
Bishoprick
)
the
5
t
of
Severus
,
An.
Chr.
197.
he
had
been
an
auditor
of
Polycarpe
Bishop
of
Smyrna
(
styled
by
that
Church
an
*
Apostolical
and
Prophetical
Doctor
)
and
is
by
*
S.
Hierome
lookt
on
as
a
man
of
the
Apostolical
times
,
and
by
*
Tertullian
as
a
most
accurate
searcher
of
all
doctrines
,
and
so
is
a
most
competent
witnesse
of
the
Apostolical
doctrine
and
practice
;
and
thus
he
speaks
l.
2.
advers
.
har
.
c.
38.
Omnes
venit
Christus
per
semet
ipsum
salvare
,
omnes
inquam
qui
per
eum
renascuntur
in
Deum
,
Infantes
,
&
parvulos
,
&
pueros
,
&
juvenes
,
&
seniores
▪
Christ
came
to
save
all
by
himself
,
all
I
say
who
are
born
again
unto
God
by
him
,
Infants
and
little
ones
,
and
children
,
and
young
men
and
older
men
,
where
it
is
evidently
his
affirmation
,
that
infants
(
expressely
)
are
by
Christ
regenerate
unto
God
,
and
that
must
be
in
baptisme
,
that
laver
of
regeneration
,
and
so
they
are
not
,
in
his
opinion
,
excluded
from
baptisme
.
And
so
this
is
a
testimonie
of
the
second
Century
,
not
found
or
praetended
to
be
contradicted
by
any
other
of
that
age
.
Immediately
after
Irenaeus
followed
Tertullian
in
the
end
of
the
2d
,
and
beginning
of
the
3d
Century
,
a
man
of
great
learning
,
and
a
diligent
observer
and
recorder
of
the
customes
and
practices
of
the
most
antient
Church
.
And
he
lib.
de
Animâ
c.
39.
affirmes
it
from
the
Apostle
,
ex
sanctificato
alterutro
sexu
sanctos
procreari
,
that
when
either
parent
is
sanctified
or
believer
,
i.
e.
baptized
,
the
children
that
are
born
from
them
are
holy
,
and
this
tam
ex
seminis
praerogativâ
,
quàm
ex
institutionis
disciplinâ
,
both
by
praerogative
of
their
seed
,
and
by
the
discipline
of
the
institution
,
i.
e.
(
as
hath
been
shewed
)
by
baptisme
,
adding
from
the
same
Apostle
that
delivered
those
words
,
1
Cor.
7.4
.
that
his
meaning
was
that
the
children
of
believers
should
be
understood
to
be
designati
sanctitatis
ac
per
hoc
salutis
,
and
evidencing
what
he
means
thereby
,
by
the
following
words
,
of
Christ's
definition
,
Joh.
3.
Vnlesse
a
man
be
born
of
water
and
of
the
Spirit
,
he
shall
not
enter
into
the
kingdome
of
God
,
i.
e.
non
erit
sanctus
,
shall
not
be
holy
,
where
baptisme
is
manifestly
the
thing
by
which
these
children
are
said
to
attain
that
sanctity
;
and
more
he
addes
in
the
beginning
of
the
next
chapter
to
the
same
purpose
.
And
so
he
is
a
competent
witnesse
for
the
beginning
of
that
third
age
,
and
is
not
found
contradicted
by
any
other
passage
in
his
works
,
or
by
any
of
his
time
;
But
on
the
contrary
,
Origen
,
who
died
at
Tyre
,
An.
Chr.
254.
hath
three
most
irrefragable
testimonies
for
it
;
first
on
Luke
Hom.
14.
Parvuli
baptizantur
in
remissionem
peccatorum
,
little
ones
are
baptized
into
the
remission
of
sins
;
and
quomodo
potest
ulla
lavacri
in
parvulis
ratio
subsistere
,
nisi
juxta
illum
sensum
de
quo
paulò
autè
diximus
,
Nullus
mundus
à
sorde
&c.
How
can
the
account
of
baptizing
little
ones
bold
,
but
according
to
that
which
before
was
said
,
none
is
clean
from
pollution
,
no
not
if
he
be
but
a
day
old
,
and
per
baptismi
sacramentum
nativitatis
sordes
deponuntur
,
propterea
baptizantur
&
parvuli
,
by
the
sacrament
of
baptisme
the
pollutions
of
our
birth
are
put
off
,
and
therefore
little
ones
are
baptized
.
Secondly
,
on
Leviticus
Hom.
8.
Requiratur
quid
causae
est
cum
baptisma
Ecclesiae
in
remissionem
peccatorum
detur
,
secundum
Ecclesiae
observantiam
etiam
parvulis
baptismum
dari
—
Let
it
be
considered
what
the
cause
is
when
the
baptisme
of
the
Church
is
given
for
the
remission
of
sins
,
that
baptisme
should
according
to
the
observation
(
or
custome
)
of
the
Church
be
given
to
little
ones
.
Thirdly
,
on
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
,
l.
5.
Ecclesia
ab
Apostolis
traditionem
suscepit
etiam
parvulis
baptismum
dare
—
the
Church
hath
received
tradition
from
the
Apostles
to
give
baptisme
to
little
ones
also
,
such
little
ones
still
(
as
by
the
former
words
appears
)
as
those
of
a
day
old
and
the
like
.
And
so
here
is
a
full
concord
of
testimonies
both
for
the
practice
of
the
Church
,
and
tradition
received
from
the
Apostles
for
baptizing
of
infants
,
and
so
is
a
farther
evidence
of
the
doctrine
of
the
third
age
,
not
contradicted
by
any
of
that
time
.
About
the
same
time
,
or
without
question
soon
after
,
wrote
the
Author
(
under
the
name
of
Dionysius
Areopagita
)
de
Eccl.
Hierarch
.
For
,
as
by
*
Photius
it
appears
,
Theodorus
Presbyter
about
the
year
420.
debated
the
question
,
whether
that
writer
were
Dionysius
mentioned
in
the
Acts
or
no.
And
of
this
no
doubt
hath
been
made
but
that
he
was
a
very
antient
and
learned
Author
.
He
therefore
in
his
*
7.
chap
of
Eccles
.
Hierarch
.
proposeth
the
question
,
as
that
which
may
seem
to
profane
persons
(
i.
e.
heathens
)
ridiculous
,
why
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
children
which
cannot
yet
understand
divine
things
are
made
partakers
of
the
sacred
birth
from
God
,
i.
e.
evidently
of
baptisme
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
concerning
the
baptizing
of
infants
,
saith
Maximus
his
Scholiast
)
adding
to
the
same
head
also
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
others
in
their
stead
pronounce
the
abrenunoiations
and
divine
confessions
,
And
his
answer
is
,
1.
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
many
things
which
are
unknown
by
us
why
they
are
done
,
have
yet
causes
worthy
of
God
,
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
we
affirme
of
this
the
same
things
which
our
divine
officers
of
the
Church
,
being
instructed
by
divine
tradition
,
have
brought
down
unto
us
,
and
again
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
our
divine
guides
(
i.
e.
the
Apostles
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
saith
Maximus
)
considering
this
,
appointed
that
infants
should
thus
be
admitted
according
to
the
sacred
manner
,
nothing
can
be
more
clear
then
that
the
Apostolical
tradition
is
by
this
antient
and
elegant
writer
vouched
for
the
baptizing
of
infants
,
as
a
sufficient
account
of
that
matter
,
against
the
reproaches
and
scoffes
of
profane
,
or
heathen
men
,
who
deemed
it
unreasonable
.
And
so
there
is
a
most
convincing
testimonie
for
that
time
,
wherein
that
author
wrote
,
which
must
needs
be
in
the
fourth
Century
before
Theodorus
Presbyters
debating
the
question
concerning
him
,
but
most
probably
more
antient
,
and
so
to
be
placed
in
this
third
age
.
In
the
midst
of
this
third
age
,
An.
Chr.
248.
was
S.
Cyprian
made
Bishop
of
Carthage
,
and
ten
years
after
he
suffered
martyrdome
,
i.
e.
158
years
after
the
age
of
the
Apostles
.
In
the
year
257
he
sat
in
Councell
with
66
Bishops
(
see
Justellus
in
his
Preface
to
the
African
Canons
p.
21.
)
and
their
decrees
by
way
of
Synodical
Epistle
are
to
be
seen
in
his
Ep.
58.
ad
Fidum
fratrem
,
which
is
now
among
his
works
.
Pamel
.
Edit
.
p.
80.
The
Councell
was
in
answer
to
some
questions
about
baptisme
,
and
accordingly
▪
he
there
sets
down
his
own
opinion
,
together
with
the
decrees
of
that
Councell
of
66
Bishops
which
were
assembled
with
him
;
And
so
this
,
as
it
is
an
antient
,
so
it
is
more
then
a
single
testimonie
,
that
of
a
whole
Councell
added
to
it
;
and
yet
farther
,
to
increase
the
authority
of
it
,
S.
Augustine
cites
this
Epistle
*
more
then
once
,
and
sets
it
down
almost
intire
,
as
a
testimony
of
great
weight
against
heretikes
,
and
so
t
is
cited
by
S.
Hierome
also
,
l.
3.
dial
.
contr
:
Pelag.
In
this
Epistle
the
question
being
proposed
by
Fidus
,
whether
infants
might
be
baptized
the
2d
or
3d
day
,
or
whether
,
as
in
circumcision
the
8th
day
were
not
to
be
expected
,
he
answers
in
the
name
of
the
Councel
,
Vniversi
judicavimus
,
t
was
the
resolution
or
sentence
of
all
,
nulli
hominum
nato
misericordiam
Dei
&
gratiam
denegandam
,
that
the
mercy
and
grace
of
God
was
not
to
be
denyed
to
any
humane
birth
,
to
my
child
,
though
never
so
young
,
(
by
that
phrase
[
mercy
and
grace
of
God
]
evidently
meaning
baptisme
,
the
rite
of
conveighing
them
to
the
baptized
)
adding
,
that
t
is
not
to
be
thought
that
this
grace
which
is
given
to
the
baptized
,
pro
atate
accipientium
vel
minor
vel
major
tribuitur
,
is
given
to
them
in
a
greater
or
lesse
degree
in
respect
of
the
age
of
the
receivers
;
and
that
God
as
he
accepts
not
the
person
,
so
nor
the
age
of
any
,
confirming
this
by
the
words
of
S.
Peter
Act.
10.
that
none
was
to
be
called
common
or
unclean
,
and
that
if
any
were
to
be
kept
from
baptisme
,
it
should
rather
be
those
of
full
age
,
who
have
committed
the
greater
sins
,
and
that
seeing
those
when
they
come
to
the
faith
are
not
prohibited
baptisme
,
quanto
magis
prohiberi
non
debet
infans
,
qui
recens
natus
nihil
peccavit
,
nisi
quòd
secundum
Adam
carnaliter
natus
contagium
mortis
antiqua
primâ
nativitate
contraxit
?
qui
ad
remissam
peccatorum
accipiendam
hoc
ipso
faciliùs
accedit
,
quòd
illi
remittuntur
non
propria
sed
aliena
peccata
,
how
much
more
ought
not
the
infant
to
be
forbidden
,
who
being
new
born
,
hath
no
sin
upon
him
,
but
that
which
by
his
birth
from
Adam
he
hath
contracted
as
soon
as
he
was
born
,
who
therefore
should
more
easily
be
admitted
to
pardon
,
because
they
are
not
his
own
,
but
others
sins
which
are
then
remitted
to
him
.
Concluding
that
as
none
were
by
the
decree
of
that
Councel
to
be
refused
baptisme
,
tum
magis
circa
infantes
ipsot
&
recens
natus
observandum
atque
retinendum
,
so
this
was
the
rather
to
be
observed
and
retained
about
infants
and
new
born
children
.
Thus
much
and
more
was
the
sentence
of
that
antient
Father
and
that
Councel
,
and
as
the
occasion
of
that
determination
was
not
any
antipaedobaptist
doctrine
(
there
had
no
such
then
so
much
as
lookt
into
the
Church
,
that
we
can
hear
of
)
but
a
conceit
of
one
,
that
it
should
be
deferr'd
to
the
8th
day
,
which
was
as
much
infancy
as
the
first
(
and
so
both
parties
were
equally
contrary
to
the
Antipaedobaptists
interests
,
the
condemned
,
as
well
as
the
Judges
)
so
that
it
was
no
new
doctrine
that
was
then
decreed
,
or
peculiar
to
S.
Cyprian
(
who
had
one
singular
opinion
in
the
matter
of
baptisme
)
appears
also
both
by
the
concurrence
of
the
whole
Councel
that
convened
with
him
,
and
by
the
expresse
words
of
Saint
Augustine
Ep.
28.
ad
Hieronym
:
Beatus
Cyprianus
non
aliquod
decretum
condens
novum
sed
ecclesiae
fidem
firmissimam
servans
—
mox
natum
rite
baptizari
posse
cum
suis
quibusdam
coepiscopis
censuit
,
Blessed
Cyprian
,
saith
he
,
not
making
any
new
decree
,
but
keeping
the
faith
of
the
Church
most
firme
,
decreed
with
a
set
number
of
his
fellow
Bishops
,
that
a
child
new-born
might
fitly
be
baptized
.
Which
shewes
it
the
resolution
of
that
Father
also
,
that
baptizing
of
Infants
was
the
faith
of
the
Church
before
Cyprians
time
,
not
onely
the
opinion
,
but
the
Faith
,
which
gives
it
the
authority
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
In
the
next
or
fourth
Century
,
about
the
year
of
Christ
370.
flourished
Gregorie
Nazianzen
,
and
dyed
in
the
year
389.
who
though
he
be
by
Mr.
T.
affirmed
to
dissuade
from
it
but
in
case
of
necessity
by
reason
of
apparent
danger
of
death
,
will
yet
give
an
evident
testimonie
of
the
doctrin
of
the
Church
of
that
age
in
this
matter
.
In
the
*
4th
oration
written
on
this
subject
of
Baptisme
having
gone
through
all
the
ages
of
man
(
to
demonstrate
a
proposition
premised
by
him
,
*
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
it
belongs
to
every
age
and
sort
of
life
)
he
at
length
comes
to
the
consideration
of
infancy
,
in
these
words
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
If
thou
hast
an
infant
,
let
not
iniquity
get
time
,
*
let
it
be
sanctified
(
certainly
baptized
)
in
infancy
,
let
it
in
the
tender
age
be
consecrated
to
Gods
spirit
,
and
whereas
the
heathens
use
amulets
and
charmes
to
secure
their
children
,
*
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
do
you
give
it
the
Trinity
(
the
Fathers
the
Sonne
and
the
Holy
Ghost
in
baptisme
)
that
great
and
good
phylacterie
,
or
preservative
.
A
plain
testimonie
of
the
Churches
doctrine
at
that
time
.
Afterwards
in
the
*
same
oration
he
returns
to
this
matter
again
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
what
,
saith
he
,
will
you
say
concerning
those
that
are
yet
children
,
and
neither
know
the
losse
nor
are
sensible
of
the
grace
of
baptisme
,
shall
we
also
baptize
them
?
And
his
answer
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Yes
by
all
means
,
if
any
danger
presse
,
t
is
better
they
should
be
sanctified
(
baptized
)
when
they
have
no
sense
of
it
,
then
that
they
should
dy
unsealed
,
uninitiated
,
adding
for
proof
of
this
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
circumcision
on
the
eighth
day
,
which
was
,
saith
he
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
an
initial
seal
,
and
yet
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
used
to
those
that
had
no
use
of
reason
,
and
(
in
a
lower
degree
)
the
anointing
of
the
posts
,
which
were
insensible
also
,
was
yet
a
means
of
saving
the
first-born
.
After
this
,
t
is
true
that
he
proceeds
to
consider
those
children
,
that
are
not
in
any
danger
of
death
,
and
of
them
he
gives
his
opinion
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
style
which
S.
Paul
useth
,
when
he
speaks
his
own
sense
,
as
that
is
other
from
the
revealed
will
of
Christ
)
that
staying
about
three
years
,
at
which
time
they
may
be
taught
to
answer
somewhat
,
though
they
understand
it
not
perfectly
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
by
this
means
they
may
be
baptized
,
souls
and
bodies
,
by
this
great
Sacrament
of
initiation
.
But
of
this
,
1.
It
is
is
clear
that
it
no
way
prejudges
the
doctrine
and
practice
of
the
Church
formerly
set
down
,
and
approved
by
him
,
that
infant
children
,
indefinitely
considered
,
might
be
baptized
,
and
if
danger
approched
,
must
,
how
young
soever
they
were
;
which
is
as
contrary
to
the
Antipaedobaptist
,
and
so
to
Mr.
T.
as
any
thing
.
2dly
.
That
it
is
but
his
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
private
opinion
pretending
not
so
much
as
to
any
part
of
the
Church
of
that
,
or
former
ages
to
authorize
it
.
3dly
.
That
the
state
of
children
being
so
weak
and
uncertain
,
that
t
is
hard
to
affirme
of
any
that
they
are
not
(
for
the
first
three
years
)
in
any
danger
,
his
counesl
for
deferring
will
hardly
be
ever
practicable
to
any
.
4thly
.
That
the
deferring
,
of
which
Nazianzen
speaks
,
is
most
probably
to
be
understood
of
those
whose
parents
are
newly
converted
,
and
themselves
doubt
whether
they
shall
be
yet
baptized
or
no
,
for
to
such
he
speaks
in
that
place
from
p.
654.
A.
Lastly
,
That
the
deferring
till
three
years
old
,
if
it
were
allowed
,
would
no
way
satisfie
the
Antipaedobaptists
praetensions
,
and
so
still
the
former
passages
ought
be
of
force
with
all
,
and
no
heed
given
to
the
whispers
of
Mr.
T.
and
others
,
as
if
this
holy
Father
dissuaded
baptisme
in
any
age
unlesse
in
case
of
danger
,
when
he
clearly
saith
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
let
him
in
the
tenderest
age
be
baptized
and
consecrated
to
the
Spirit
.
In
the
same
Century
S.
Ambrose
must
be
placed
,
being
a
writer
about
the
year
380.
he
in
his
10th
Book
,
Ep.
84.
ad
Demetriad
.
Virg.
speaking
of
those
that
made
Adams
sin
no
otherwise
hurtfull
to
posterity
,
then
by
the
example
(
exemplo
non
transitu
no●uisse
)
he
presseth
it
with
this
principal
absurdity
,
Hinc
evacuatio
baptismatis
parvulorum
,
this
evacuates
the
baptisme
of
infants
,
which
should
then
be
capable
of
adoption
onely
,
but
not
of
pardon
.
And
in
like
manner
on
Luke
,
by
Jordans
being
driven
back
,
saith
he
,
are
signified
the
mysteries
of
baptisme
,
per
quae
in
primordia
naturae
suae
qui
baptizati
fuerint
parvuli
à
malitia
reformantur
,
by
which
the
little
ones
that
are
baptized
,
are
reformed
from
their
malignity
to
the
first
state
of
their
nature
.
In
the
beginning
of
the
next
or
fift
age
,
flourished
S.
Chrysostome
,
that
famous
Bishop
of
Constantinople
whose
death
is
placed
in
the
year
of
Christ
407.
he
in
his
homilie
to
the
Neophyti
hath
these
words
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
this
cause
(
i.
e.
because
there
be
so
many
benefits
of
baptisme
,
there
recited
,
ten
in
number
)
we
baptize
children
,
though
they
have
not
sins
.
Which
words
are
the
more
worth
remembring
,
because
they
had
the
hap
to
be
made
use
of
by
the
Pelagians
,
and
consequently
vindicated
by
S.
Augustine
,
The
Pelagians
urged
them
in
this
forme
,
Hac
de
causa
etiam
infantes
baptiz●mus
,
cum
non
sint
coinquinati
peccato
,
for
this
cause
we
baptize
infants
,
when
they
are
not
polluted
with
sin
,
understanding
it
of
original
sin
,
but
S.
Augustine
appealing
to
the
Greek
,
shewed
that
the
right
rendring
was
,
quamvis
peccata
non
habentes
,
although
they
had
not
sins
,
i.
e.
propria
,
their
own
or
actual
sins
,
of
which
these
infants
were
not
supposed
to
have
any
.
So
in
his
*
4th
Homilie
on
Genesis
,
speaking
of
baptisme
as
of
the
Christian
circumcision
,
among
other
things
he
affirmes
of
it
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
it
hath
no
determinate
time
but
't
is
lawful
both
in
the
first
age
(
the
childhood
,
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
,
with
him
,
*
else
where
applied
to
the
time
of
circumcision
on
the
8th
day
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
)
and
in
the
middle
,
and
in
old
age
it self
,
to
receive
this
circumcision
made
without
hands
.
In
the
same
Centurie
,
very
few
years
after
,
if
not
before
Chrysostome
,
S.
Hierome
must
be
placed
,
born
in
the
year
342.
and
deceased
in
the
year
420.
And
he
in
Ep.
7.
to
Laeta
telling
her
that
whilest
the
child
was
yong
and
not
come
to
Pythagoras's
Y.
the
bivium
or
two
wayes
,
the
knowledge
of
good
and
evil
,
tam
bona
ejus
quàm
mala
parentibus
imputantur
,
his
good
or
evil
deeds
are
imputed
to
the
parents
,
addes
that
this
must
needs
be
acknowledged
,
nisi
forte
existimas
Christianorum
filios
,
si
baptisma
non
receperint
,
ipsos
tantùm
reos
esse
peccati
,
&
non
etiam
scelus
referri
ad
eos
qui
dare
noluerint
,
maximè
illo
tempore
quo
contradicere
non
poterant
qui
accepturi
erant
,
sicut
è
regione
salus
infantum
majorum
lucrum
est
.
Vnlesse
,
saith
he
,
you
believe
that
Christians
children
,
if
they
receive
not
baptisme
,
are
the
onely
persons
that
are
guilty
of
the
sin
,
and
that
the
offence
is
not
charged
on
them
which
would
not
bring
them
to
baptisme
,
at
that
time
especially
,
wherein
they
that
were
to
receive
could
not
contradict
,
as
on
the
other
side
the
salvation
of
infants
is
the
gain
of
the
elder
,
adding
that
the
parent
which
was
thus
to
prepare
his
child
for
the
Kings
i.
e.
Christs
embraces
,
si
negligens
fuerit
,
punietur
;
shall
,
if
he
be
negligent
therein
,
be
punished
.
Words
of
no
very
conformable
aboad
to
the
opposers
of
Paedobaptisme
,
I
wish
Mr.
T.
who
thinks
fit
to
make
use
of
S.
Hieromes
name
(
it
now
appears
how
luckily
)
would
be
at
leisure
to
consider
them
.
So
lib.
3.
contr
:
Pelag.
the
question
being
asked
by
Crito
,
Quare
infantuli
baptizentur
,
why
infants
are
baptized
,
the
answer
is
made
by
Atticus
,
Vt
eis
peccata
in
baptismate
dimittantur
,
that
their
sins
may
be
pardoned
in
baptisme
,
and
again
,
qui
parvulus
est
,
parentis
in
baptismo
vinculo
solvitur
,
the
infant
is
freed
in
baptisme
from
the
band
of
Adams
sin
.
Paulinus
,
we
know
,
was
his
Contemporarie
,
and
from
him
we
have
this
testimonie
,
Ep.
12.
Inde
parens
sacro
ducens
de
font●
sacerdos
,
Infantes
niveos
corpore
,
corde
,
habitu
—
The
Priest
brings
the
infants
out
of
the
font
white
as
snow
in
body
,
in
heart
,
in
habit
.
Next
to
these
succeeds
S.
Augustine
,
who
died
in
the
30th
year
of
this
5
t
age
,
and
was
the
great
champion
of
the
Church
against
all
the
invaders
of
the
depositum
committed
to
it
.
His
passages
on
this
subject
are
to
many
to
be
enumerated
,
and
some
of
them
have
already
been
set
down
in
the
Resol
.
of
the
Quaere
p.
217.
making
it
the
perpetual
doctrine
of
the
whole
Church
of
all
ages
before
him
,
and
expressly
including
that
of
the
Apostles
.
So
de
Bap
:
contra
Donat.
l.
4.
c.
23.
Quod
traditum
tenet
universitas
Ecclesiae
cum
parvuli
infantes
baptizantur
,
qui
certè
nondum
possunt
corde
credere
ad
justitiam
,
&
ore
confiteri
ad
salutem
—
&
tamen
nullus
Christianorum
dixerit
eos
inaniter
baptizari
.
This
is
held
as
tradition
by
the
Vniversal
Church
,
when
little
infants
are
baptized
,
which
are
sure
yet
unable
to
believe
with
the
heart
or
to
confesse
with
the
mouth
,
and
yet
no
Christian
will
say
that
they
are
baptized
to
no
purpose
:
(
a
severe
sentence
again
for
the
Antipaedobaptist
)
adding
the
Ecclesiastical
rule
by
which
to
judge
of
Apostolical
tradition
,
and
evidencing
the
benefit
of
infant
baptisme
by
the
example
of
circumcision
,
that
as
in
Isaac
,
circumcised
the
eighth
day
,
the
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
preceded
,
and
the
righteousnesse
it self
followed
in
his
riper
age
by
his
imitating
his
Fathers
faith
,
ita
&
in
baptizatis
infantibus
praecedit
regenerationis
Sacramentum
,
&
si
Christianam
tenuerint
pietatem
,
sequitur
in
corde
conversio
,
cujus
mysterium
praecessit
in
corpore
,
so
also
in
baptized
infants
the
Sacrament
of
regeneration
praecedes
,
and
if
they
hold
fast
Christian
piety
,
conversion
in
the
heart
followes
,
the
mystery
whereof
had
been
formerly
received
in
the
body
.
So
De
verb
:
Apost
.
Serm.
14.
being
come
to
handle
this
subject
of
the
baptisme
of
infants
,
he
begins
thus
,
sollicitos
autem
nos
facit
non
ipsa
sententia
jam
olim
in
Ecclesiâ
Catholicâ
summâ
authoritate
fundata
,
sed
disputationes
quorundam
—
The
doctrine
it self
gives
us
no
trouble
,
being
long
since
founded
in
the
Catholike
Church
by
the
highest
authority
(
that
sure
must
be
by
Christs
and
the
Apostles
)
but
the
disputings
of
some
men
—
and
again
,
Non
enim
quaestio
est
inter
nos
&
ipsos
,
utrum
parvuli
baptizandi
sint
,
Baptizandos
esse
parvulos
nemo
dubitat
,
quando
nec
illi
hinc
dubitant
qui
ex
alterâ
parte
contradicunt
—
the
question
betwixt
them
and
us
is
not
,
whether
infants
are
to
be
baptized
;
Let
no
man
make
doubt
of
this
,
seeing
neither
do
they
doubt
of
this
which
contradict
us
in
the
other
question
concerning
the
benefit
of
it
.
And
again
,
in
a
farther
process
with
those
disputers
,
Dic
mihi
,
obsecro
te
,
parvulis
baptizatis
Christus
aliquid
prodest
,
an
nil
prodest
?
Necesse
est
ut
dicat
prodesse
,
Premitur
mole
matris
Ecclesiae
.
Doth
Christ
profit
infants
that
are
baptized
,
or
doth
he
not
?
He
must
needs
say
that
he
doth
profit
,
he
is
prest
with
the
weight
of
the
Church
our
mother
.
And
again
,
authoritate
reprimuntur
Ecclesiae
,
si
enim
dixerint
Christum
nihil
prodesse
baptizatis
infantibus
,
nihil
aliud
dicunt
quàm
superfluè
baptizantur
infantes
.
They
are
represt
by
the
authority
of
the
Church
,
for
if
they
say
that
Christ
profits
not
infants
baptized
,
they
plainly
affirme
that
infants
are
superfluously
baptized
,
but
this
those
very
heretikes
(
the
Pelagians
)
dicere
non
audent
,
dare
not
say
,
and
so
were
faine
to
secure
their
hypothesis
by
another
evasion
,
viz.
that
they
were
baptized
not
for
salvation
but
for
the
kingdome
of
heaven
.
And
yet
farther
,
Hoc
habet
authoritas
matris
ecclesiae
,
hoc
fundatus
veritatis
obtinet
canon
,
contra
hoc
robur
,
contra
hunc
inexpugnabilem
murum
quisquis
arietat
ipse
confringitur
.
Fundata
ista
res
est
,
ferendus
est
peccator
errans
in
aliis
quaestionibus
—
non
tantum
progredi
debet
,
ut
&
fundamentum
ipsum
ecclesiae
quatere
moliatur
.
This
the
authority
of
our
mother
the
Church
is
possest
of
,
this
the
grounded
Canon
of
truth
holds
fast
;
against
this
fort
,
this
invincible
wall
whosoever
makes
assault
,
is
broken
to
pieces
.
This
is
a
grounded
thing
:
Hee
is
to
be
born
with
who
erres
in
other
questions
,
but
he
must
not
proceed
thus
far
(
as
the
Antipaedobaptist
certainly
doth
)
as
to
indeavour
to
shake
the
very
foundation
of
the
Church
,
i.
e.
certainly
a
doctrine
laid
by
the
first
planters
of
the
faith
,
Christ
and
the
Apostles
themselves
.
So
Ep.
89.
Non
est
superfluus
baptismus
parvulorum
,
ut
qui
per
generationem
illi
condemnationi
obligati
sunt
,
per
regenerationem
ab
eâdem
liberentur
.
The
baptisme
of
infants
is
not
superfluous
,
that
they
who
by
their
birth
are
bound
to
that
condemnation
which
came
by
Adam
,
should
be
freed
from
it
by
regeneration
,
and
more
to
the
same
purpose
in
that
place
.
So
in
Enchirid.
c.
42.
à
parvulo
recens
nato
usque
ad
decrepitum
senem
,
sicut
nullus
prohibendus
est
à
baptismo
,
ita
nullus
est
qui
non
peccato
moriatur
in
baptismo
.
From
the
infant
new
born
to
the
decrepit
old
age
,
as
none
is
to
be
kept
from
baptisme
,
so
there
is
none
who
dyeth
not
to
sin
in
baptisme
.
Which
words
are
soon
after
transcribed
by
Leo
(
ad
Episc
.
Aquileg
:
)
who
was
advanced
to
the
Papacie
about
the
year
440.
About
this
time
was
the
Epistle
of
the
Councel
of
Carthage
written
to
Innocentius
(
made
Bishop
of
Rome
about
the
year
400.
)
In
which
these
words
we
find
by
way
of
Decree
,
Quicunque
negat
parvulos
per
baptismum
Christi
à
perditione
liberari
&
salutem
percipere
sempiternam
,
anathema
sit
.
Whosoever
denyes
that
Infants
are
by
the
baptisme
of
Christ
freed
from
perdition
and
receive
eternal
life
,
let
him
be
anathema
.
About
the
same
time
,
whilest
Innocentius
lived
(
and
to
the
same
purpose
)
was
the
Milevitan
Canon
,
at
which
S.
Augustine
was
present
,
a
Bishop
in
that
Councel
.
This
hath
been
set
down
in
the
Resol
:
of
the
Quaere
,
p.
219.
and
is
an
evident
testimonie
that
this
doctrine
was
such
as
Ecclesia
Catholica
ubique
diffusa
semper
intellexit
,
the
Catholike
Church
every
where
diffused
,
alwaies
understood
and
asserted
,
and
so
it
is
that
Councels
witness
of
the
Apostolicalness
of
it
.
To
these
it
were
easy
to
adde
Theodoret
also
,
and
Leo
(
already
cited
)
soon
after
him
,
both
falling
within
the
former
part
of
that
fift
Centurie
,
and
in
every
age
after
this
,
store
enough
.
But
the
question
is
not
,
and
in
any
reason
cannot
be
extended
to
those
times
,
the
clear
definitions
through
all
those
first
ages
,
being
all
that
could
be
required
to
decide
the
controversie
concerning
the
matter
of
fact
,
whether
it
were
practised
or
not
practised
by
the
Apostles
.
And
having
so
largely
deduced
them
,
it
is
not
imaginable
what
should
be
now
wanting
to
the
completing
of
the
evidence
,
when
I
have
onely
added
,
that
there
is
no
one
testimonie
of
dissent
,
either
pretended
or
producible
from
the
writings
of
all
those
first
ages
,
nor
consequently
the
least
appearance
of
obstacle
,
why
the
receiving
of
Infants
to
baptisme
should
not
be
resolved
the
doctrin
and
practice
of
the
first
and
purest
ages
of
the
Church
,
avouched
and
testified
to
be
delivered
to
them
by
the
Apostles
of
Christ
,
who
could
not
mistake
his
meaning
in
the
Institution
.
What
artifices
the
Antepaedobaptist
can
make
use
of
to
cast
a
mist
before
our
eyes
,
in
the
midst
of
so
much
light
,
I
can
no
way
divine
:
sure
I
am
that
the
prejudices
which
Mr.
T.
hath
in
few
words
indevoured
to
infuse
(
as
that
some
are
counterfeit
authors
,
some
suspected
,
some
misinterpreted
;
that
some
maintained
infant
baptisme
but
in
case
of
danger
of
death
,
that
others
which
avouched
this
,
avouched
either
Rebaptization
or
Communion
of
Infants
also
)
are
all
of
them
unjust
and
causeless
,
and
have
severally
and
punctually
been
prevented
in
one
or
both
of
these
discourses
,
and
so
there
remains
not
the
least
scruple
of
difficulty
,
that
I
can
foresee
in
this
matter
,
to
adde
to
the
bulke
of
this
vindication
.
God
assist
it
with
his
blessing
to
the
disabusing
those
that
are
seduced
,
and
regaining
them
to
the
waies
of
Peace
.
The
End.
ERRATA
.
Page
.
Line
.
Read.
13
8
then
it
17
21
Alphes
20
32
the
whiteness
28
ult
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
32
17
continuing
21
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
40
25
of
receiving
42
35
in
to
44
11
heed
to
48
21
of
pers
:
61
13
So
Cyrill
in
-
18
they
that
64
20
infants
67
15
crediderit
79
36
after
infants
adde
being
80
5
ministry
83
3
then
this
84
24
now
to
91
2
but
if
102
34
to
be
The
CONTENTS
of
the
severall
Chapters
and
Sections
contained
in
this
BOOK
.
CHAP.
I.
OF
Baptisme
among
the
Jewes
.
page
2
Sect.
1.
Probations
more
and
less
perfect
.
The
use
of
Circumcision
to
this
question
of
Paedobaptisme
.
As
also
of
Christ's
reception
of
children
.
Childrens
coming
and
believing
,
Mat.
18.
Children
sinners
.
page
2
Sect.
2.
The
necessity
of
Paedobaptisme
depending
on
the
positive
part
of
probation
.
The
several
sorts
of
Anabaptists
.
Tistimonies
the
onely
proof
of
Institutions
.
page
6
Sect.
3.
The
Jewes
Baptisme
of
natives
as
well
as
Proselytes
.
Testimonies
of
their
writers
in
proof
thereof
.
Baptisme
among
the
heathens
taken
from
the
Jewes
.
Among
both
from
Noahs
flood
.
The
derivation
of
Christian
from
Jewish
Baptisme
how
manifested
.
Christs
answer
to
Nicodemus
.
Baptisme
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
deluge
.
Gr.
Nazianzen's
and
Macarius's
testimonies
.
The
Fathers
meaning
in
affirming
the
Christians
baptisme
to
be
in
stead
of
Circumcision
.
The
Lords
Supper
founded
in
the
Jewes
Postcoenium
,
yet
in
stead
of
their
Passeover
.
page
8
Sect.
4.
The
conceipts
of
Pe
:
Alfunsus
and
Schickard
of
the
Jewish
baptisme
.
Raf
:
Alphes
:
Mr.
T.
his
conclusion
not
inferred
.
The
original
of
the
Jewish
Baptisme
(
the
onely
doubt
)
vindicated
.
Jacob's
injunction
to
his
family
.
Sanctifications
Exod.
19.10
.
differ
from
washing
garments
.
page
17
Sect.
5.
Mr.
Selden's
notion
of
the
Sea.
The
defence
of
my
notion
of
it
.
Learned
mens
affirmations
to
be
judged
of
by
their
testimonies
.
Christ's
baptizing
of
Iewes
as
well
as
Gentiles
,
no
argument
.
Christ's
vouching
Iohns
baptisme
to
be
from
heaven
,
no
argument
.
No
more
,
the
pretended
no
intimations
of
it
.
The
no
conformity
.
The
proselytes
children
baptized
,
continually
,
not
onely
at
the
first
conversion
.
The
baptisme
of
a
woman
with
child
,
serving
for
the
child
also
,
not
argumentative
.
The
Canon
of
Neocaesarea
about
it
.
page
23
Sect.
6.
Lesser
inconformities
no
prejudice
.
Yet
they
do
not
all
hold
.
Prayer
the
Christian
sacrifice
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
rule
of
judging
in
this
matter
.
Baptizing
in
the
name
of
the
Father
&c.
prescribed
by
Christ
.
So
dipping
or
sprinkling
.
The
Pract.
Cat.
misreported
.
Mr.
Marshals
covenanting
.
page
30
CHAP.
II.
Of
Christ's
words
.
Mat.
28.19
.
pag.
34
Sect.
1.
The
Doctors
pretended
concessions
examined
.
Christs
institution
of
baptisme
not
set
down
Mat.
28.
but
necessarily
before
that
time
.
page
34
Sect.
2.
Making
disciples
all
one
with
receiving
into
discipleship
.
Baptizing
the
act
of
the
Baptist
.
Instruction
subsequent
to
discipling
.
The
pretended
parallel
between
Mat.
28.
and
Mar.
16.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Johns
discipling
by
preaching
excludes
not
infants
.
No
more
the
Apostles
,
Mat.
10.5
.
The
notation
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Mat.
13.52
.
Act.
14.21
.
Infants
both
said
to
come
and
to
believe
.
Instruction
subsequent
to
baptisme
.
page
40
Sect.
3.
Discipleship
before
instruction
.
What
knowledge
of
the
Master
is
required
to
discipleship
.
Two
sorts
of
disciples
,
Some
come
,
others
are
brought
.
page
50
Sect.
4.
The
difference
of
a
Disciple
and
Proselyte
examined
.
Christian
as
well
as
Jewish
proselytes
.
Priviledges
of
proselytisme
.
Disciples
of
the
Pharisees
.
The
Holy
Ghost's
not
using
the
word
Proselyte
of
Christians
,
concludes
nothing
.
Jehovah
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Infants
qualified
for
baptisme
.
As
for
entring
into
Covenant
Deut.
29.
Gods
oath
.
Infants
adjured
.
Criples
capable
of
Christ's
cures
.
page
53
CHAP.
III.
Of
the
Apostolical
practice
in
this
matter
.
pag.
58
Sect.
1.
The
interpretation
of
1
Cor.
7.12
.
vindicated
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Sanctification
used
to
denote
baptisme
,
the
use
of
it
in
the
Fathers
and
Scripture
.
Tertullians
testimonie
:
designati
Sanctitatis
.
Origen
.
Author
Quaest
:
ad
Antiochum
.
Cyprian
.
Chrysostome
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
there
,
infant
children
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Epistles
.
S.
Augustines
words
examined
.
page
58
Sect.
2.
The
rendring
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
[
hath
been
sanctified
]
defended
.
S.
Hieromes
testimonie
.
Enallages
must
not
be
made
use
of
without
necessity
.
No
advantage
from
it
here
.
Feigned
instances
of
Enallage
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
page
66
Sect.
3.
The
rendring
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
woman
]
defended
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Col.
1.23
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Act.
4.
Ireneus
no
Latine
author
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Act.
7.
Gal.
1.16
.
1
Pet.
1.5
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Deut.
28.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Psal
.
68.
My
proof
of
the
interpretation
from
the
context
.
page
69
Sect.
4.
Mr.
T.
his
mistake
of
my
sense
.
The
argument
à
genere
ad
speciem
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
How
the
husband
is
said
to
be
baptized
by
the
wife
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
partial
washings
.
The
proportion
betwixt
legal
holyness
,
and
baptisme
.
Difference
between
relative
and
real
sanctification
.
The
testimonies
of
the
antient
,
for
and
against
my
interpretation
.
page
77
CHAP.
IV.
An
answer
to
Mr.
Tombes's
view
of
my
Conclusion
and
therein
the
sense
of
Antiquity
in
this
Question
.
pag.
84
Sect.
1.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
1
Cor.
7.
infant
children
.
The
Jewes
practice
.
Their
notion
of
[
holy
]
Baptisme
a
priviledge
of
believers
children
,
yet
is
communicated
to
others
whose
guardians
are
believers
The
several
sorts
of
holyness
all
vainly
mentioned
by
Mr.
T.
His
denyals
of
the
Conclusion
.
The
place
in
Tertullian
vindicated
.
S.
Hieromes
answer
to
Paulinus
.
Institutionis
disciplina
in
Tertullian
.
Candidati
Damoniorum
.
A
3d
denyal
of
the
Conclusion
.
The
use
of
baptisme
to
regenerate
&c.
No
prejudice
to
the
founding
it
in
the
Jewish
practice
.
His
art
of
diversion
to
put
off
answering
of
testimonies
.
The
way
of
Testimonies
insisted
on
.
page
84
Sect.
2.
A
Catalogue
of
Testimonies
of
the
first
ages
for
Infant
baptisme
,
and
the
Apostolicalness
thereof
.
page
96
Books
written
by
H.
Hammond
D.
D.
A
Paraphrase
and
Annotations
upon
all
the
Books
of
the
New
Testament
by
Henry
Hammond
D.
D.
in
fol.
2.
The
Practical
Catechisme
,
with
all
other
English
Treatises
of
Henry
Hammond
D.
D.
in
two
volumes
in
4º
3.
Of
Fundamentals
in
a
notion
referring
to
Practise
,
by
H.
Hammond
D.
D.
in
12o.
Several
Books
of
Controversies
relating
to
the
present
times
,
by
the
same
Author
in
two
large
volumes
in
4
to
viz.
1.
Dissertationes
quatuor
,
quibus
Episcopatus
Iura
ex
S.
Scripturis
&
Primaeva
Antiquitate
adstruuntur
,
contra
sententiam
D.
Blondelli
&
aliorum
▪
Authore
Henrico
Hammond
,
in
4o.
2.
A
Vindication
of
the
Dissertations
concerning
Episcopacy
from
the
Exceptions
offered
against
them
by
the
London
Ministers
in
their
Ius
Divinum
Ministerii
Evangelici
in
4o.
3.
An
Answer
to
the
Animadversions
on
the
Dissertations
touching
Ignatius
Epistles
and
the
Episcopacy
in
them
asserted
,
subscribed
by
Iohn
Owen
servant
of
Jesus
Christ
,
in
4o
.
4.
Of
Schisme
.
A
Defence
of
the
Church
of
England
,
against
the
Exceptions
of
the
Romanists
,
in
12º
5.
A
Reply
to
the
Cathol
.
Gent
:
Answer
to
the
most
materiall
part
of
the
Book
of
Schisme
,
together
with
an
Account
of
H.
T.
His
Appendix
to
his
Manuall
of
Controversies
&c.
4o.
6.
A
Letter
of
Resolution
of
six
Quaeries
,
in
12o.
7.
An
account
of
Mr.
Cawdreys
Triplex
Diatrio
.
concerning
Superstition
,
Will-worship
,
and
Christmass
Festivall
.
New.
THE
END
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A45397-e130
*
De
Bapt.
contr
:
Donat
:
l.
4.
c.
23.
*
See
G.
Cassan
.
in
Praes
.
ad
Duc.
Jul.
Cliv
.
ex
Nichol.
Blusdick
de
Orig
Sect.
Anabapt
.
*
Tom.
2.
p.
426.
p.
41.
See
§.
12.
E●
:
ad
Smyrn
:
Edit
:
Voss
:
p.
6.
l.
6.
§.
2.
In
Rom.
l.
5.
*
Tom.
2.
p.
377.
D.
*
Ep.
59.
Edit
.
Pam.
p.
80.
*
Ep.
28.
ad
Hieron
.
*
Edit
.
Savil.
Tom.
6.
p.
854.
l.
16.
*
Ibid.
l.
19.
*
Tom
1.
p.
27.31
*
Tom.
2.18
.
C.
*
In
Iliad
.
Basil
.
Ed.
p.
944.
p.
333.
*
Ep.
Eccl.
Smyr
.
ap
.
Euseb
.
l.
4.
c.
15.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
*
Hieron
.
Ep.
29.
Apostolicorum
temporum
vir
.
*
Doctrinarum
omnium
accuratissimus
explorator
.
Tertul.
advers
.
Valent.
*
Biblioth
lod
.
1
*
Edit
.
Morel
.
p.
233.
p.
●19
.
p.
234.
*
Ep.
28.
ad
Hieron
.
l.
3
de
Pec●
.
mer.
&
Remis
.
c.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
l.
4.
contr
.
duas
Ep.
Pelag.
c.
3.
l.
2.
contr
.
Julian
.
c.
3.
p.
339.
*
Paris
Edit
.
Tom.
1.
p.
648.
*
p.
647
,
D.
*
(
Just
as
Tertullian
de
Ani.
had
observed
.
)
*
p.
643.
C.
*
p.
658.
A.
*
Edit
.
Eton.
Tom.
1.
p.
328.
l.
5.
*
T.
1.
p.
322.
l.
11.
So
again
.
p.
327.
l.
42.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉