Bishop Taylor, Mr. Walker", &c. have followed him in that mistake.

The natural Jews reckoned that neither they themselves nor their children did stand in any need of this baptism never since the time (which I mentioned before) when their whole nation, men, women, and infants were baptized before the giving of the law on mount Sinai. It was our Saviour who first ordered by himself and by his forerunner, that every particular person, Jew or Gentile, or of what parents soever born, must be born again of water. As for the proselytes' baptism, it was a rule among them, as Mr. Selden shews, that it was never re'iterated on him or his posterity.' And as other learned men do shew, that Filius baptizati habetur pro baptizato. He that is born of a baptized parent

is accounted as baptized.' And Dr. Lightfoote gives this as their rule, The sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized as being already Israelites.'

And though the child were begotten and conceived in the womb before the parents were baptized; yet if they (and particularly if the mother) were baptized before it was born into the world, the Jews had a saying (which is quoted by Dr. Hammond f himself) recorded by Maimonides, Iss. Bia. cap. 13, and also in the Talmud.

b [See A Modest Plea for Infants' Baptism, wherein the Lawfulness of the baptizing of Infants is defended against the Antipædobaptists, &c., by W. W[alker], B. D. 120, Cambridge, 1677.]

c John iii. 3. 5.

d De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. ii. cap. 2.

* [Hora Hebraicæ on St. Matthew, iii. 6(in his Works, vol. ii. f Six Queries, Inf. Bapt. §. 106.

p. 120.]

C2

A heathen woman, if she is made a proselytes ' when big with child, that child needs not baptism; 'for the baptism of the mother serves him for bap'tism.'

IV. Thirdly, this is also plainly proved and agreed by all the learned men aforesaid, and by all others, to have been the custom of the Jews that if they found any child that had been exposed in the fields, woods, or highways by the heathen, or if they took in war any infant children, whom they brought home as booty, and intended to bring them up in their religion, they baptized them in infancy, and accounted them as proselytes. So says

Maimonides, Halach Aibdim, c. 8.

'An Israelite that takes a little heathen child, or that finds an heathen infant, and baptizes him for a proselyte: behold he is a proselyte.'

At this baptism of such a child the owner of him was wont to determine whether he should be a slave or a freeman: and he was baptized in the name of the one or of the other accordingly. To which purpose is that rule of rabbi Hezekiah, set down in the Hierosol. Jevamoth, fol. 8. 4.

Behold, one finds an infant cast out, and bap'tizes him in the name of a servant. Do thou also 'circumcise him in the name of a servant. But if 'he baptize him in the name of a freeman: do 'thou also circumcise him in the name of a free' man.'

These cases were very frequent. For besides that many proselytes of the Gentiles came over with their children; the Jews' custom in war was to bring away the children of the people whom they conquered, that they might either make servants of

the

As thee occasionally subdivisions, laige Roman numerals had perhaps ether be used for the sections.

them, or if they took a liking to them, adopt them for their own. And it was a common thing with the heathens to expose their infants, whom they would not be at the charge to bring up, in the highways, &c. So that Dr. Lightfoot says, "The baptizing of infants was a thing as well known in the church of the Jews, as ever it has been in the 'Christian church.'

6

V. Now this gives great light for the better understanding the meaning of our Saviour, when he bids his apostles Go and disciple all the nations, and baptize them.' For when a commission is given in such short words, and there is no express direction what they shall do with the infants of those who become proselytes; the natural and obvious interpretation is, that they must do in that matter as they and the church in which they lived always used to do.

As now at this time, if an island or country of heathens be discovered, and a minister be sent out to them by the bishops of the church of England, who should say, 'Go and convert such a nation, and baptize them;' he would know without asking any question, that he must baptize the infants of those who, being converted, offered them to baptism; because he knows that to be the meaning and the custom of that church or bishop, by which he is sent. And on the contrary, if any one were sent from a church or congregation of antipædobaptists with a commission of the same words, 'Go and con

vert such a nation, and baptize them;' he would take it for granted that he must baptize none of

8 Hor. Hebr. on Matt. iii. 6.

h Matt. xxviii. 19.

이

of their infants, because he knows that to be con-
trary to the meaning and custom of the church that
sends him.

So when the apostles were sent out to the hea-
then nations with a commission of no other words
than these, Go and disciple (or proselyte) all the
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: when the
case came in hand, of the infant children of those
that were discipled, what could they think other
but that they must do with them as had been usu-
ally done in that church in which they and their
Master had always lived? Since the nations were
to be proselyted, how could they, without particular
order, alter any thing in the customary way of re-
ceiving proselytes of the nations? For to disciple
the nations to Christ, is the same thing as to prose
lyte them to him: and probably in the Hebrew text
of St. Matthew, was the same word: and we see
that the customary phrase and language of the Jews
was to call the infants young proselytes, or disci-
ples as I shall shew that Justin Martyri, one of
the eldest Christian writers, calls the Christian in-
fant likewise.

our Saviour meant that the apostles should make any alteration in that matter, and not baptize the infants, as had been usually done; it is a wonder He did not say so.

The antipædobaptists depend upon this as an unerring rule; that since our Saviour did not say (or at least St. Matthew does not recite that he said) baptize the infants also; his meaning must have been that they should not baptize them.

i Part i. ch. 2. s. 6.

1

But if they would put this case; suppose our Saviour had bid the apostles, Go and disciple all the nations, and (instead of baptizing had said) circumcise them: an antipædobaptist will grant that in that case, without any more words, the apostles must have circumcised the infants of the nations as well as the grown men, though there had been no express mention of infants in the commission: so that that is not always an unerring rule.

"

And what is the reason that in case circumcision had been appointed for the nations, it must have been of course given to infants, though they had not been expressly named? the reason is this: because the apostles knew of themselves, that circumcision was usually given to infants. If it do appear

ven to infants,

then, that baptism was also usually and the apostles must know it, the same reason would direct them to the same interpretation.

If it had been circumcision that had been ordered, the apostles going out into the nations must have circumcised the grown men at the age that they found them of: but they would have circumcised the infants also; because one that is to be circumcised at all should be circumcised in infancy, if one has then the power or direction of him. So they must baptize the grown men among the nations at the age that they fold them of: and we have reason to conclude that they must think themselves obliged to give baptism (or order it to be given) to the infants also; because by the rules of baptism received in their nation, all that were to be baptized at all, were baptized in infancy, if they had then the power and direction of them.

And though the proof that circumcision was usu