Of Regeneration and Baptism, Preface
Occaſion taken by what Mr. Selden hath in his Book De Jure naturali & Gentium, Lib. 2. Cap 3. to diſcourſe of Chriſtian-REGENERATION, upon that known Text of Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born again, &c.
WHere (after due parts of Preface) the things there delivered, Of the making of Proſelytes, Initiation thereby, Regeneration, &c. are borrowed & brought home for illuſtration of that Text, with ſupervenient Amplicafitions, not unneceſſary.
And improved for farther uſe in five Derivation of Conſequents.
1. Whereas much of Chriſtianity had root in Jewry, the Sacrament of our holy Communion is thought to have come from a Grace Cup, and any original of Chriſtian Baptiſm, is ſeldom looked into. Probably it may fetch its root from baptizing of Proſelytes in Jewry (which Rite was uſed in admitting them) and be nothing elſe but old Hebrew Baptiſm, new Chriſtened by our Saviour (againſt or beyond what is received, that it bottoms loweſt in the new Teſtament, in him or Jo. Baptiſt.
Which is the liker from the ſame name Common to both, the ſame general nature, the ſame Rite, End, Manner of Adminiſtration (by Waſhing) and Perſons partakers, which among the Hebrews were even Infants, and theſe never excluded by the Chriſtian-Catholick Church.
2. The uſe of God-Fathers taken up at firſt, continued all along, held on to our times, and no one knows whence, may (not improbably) derive it ſelf from the Triumvirate (a Court) for admiſſion of Hebrew Proſelytes; the rather for that they were then ſtiled FATHERS ever after to the baptized, and ours have carryed the face of a Court with us, and been ſo stiled.
Which improved yet farther, That the whole eldeſt, and to us continued way of baptiſm, by Interrogation, ſtipulation, ſolemn promiſe and profeſſion, &c. may (not unlikely) be of the ſame derivation and pedigree; with hint for farther ſearch.
And yet more, that moſt of old Chriſtianity is from Jewry, inſtanced in, Title of publick Service, Liturgy, names of diſtinct offices, as Patriarch, Apoſtle, Biſhop, Elder, Deacon, vvith Goſpel, Church, Degrees of excōmunication, &c.
3. Endeavours in a new way toward ſtating and reſolving that great controverſie of the Schools, What was the true difference between Johns Baptiſm and Chriſts? ſcil. By conjecturall aſſertion, that
Johns was only of proſelytes, Chriſts of Chriſtians: His into the old Law, this into the new. One of water, the other of that and the holy Ghoſt. And if it be objected that Chriſt was baptized, and other Hebrews not capable of Proſelytiſm: This ſhewed capable of manifold anſwer.
Or, by the way; that Johns might by the Text be nothing elſe but a ſolemn and penitentiall waſhing, ſuch as the Hebrews often uſed, (in which uſe it might prepare our Saviour for his great Office immediatly entred into thereupon, Matth. 4.) with ſundry reaſons for the probability hereof, as from Joſephus, &c. eſpecially this inſiſted on, That in Jewry and all abroad it was received, that waſhing did ſanctifie and pu ifie even the inſide, even the ſoul from ſin.
4. The true Reaſon endeavoured to be aſſigned of the early ſtirres, Acts 15. Gal. 2. &c. of bringing in Chriſtian Circumciſion as well as Chriſtian Baptiſm, ſcil. that it might be to keep them together, which had wont not to be parted in matriculating Hebrew Proſelytes; for Baptiſm, one Rite, was admitted by Chriſts order. And ſo Mr. Medes endeavours ſet aſide, who makes the doubt, Whether Ceremony or no Ceremony? And if Ceremony, then Circumciſion? This not, for Ceremomy was already taken in in Baptiſm by Chriſt.
Conjecture alſo of the reaſon, why divers Chriſtian Churches do yet retain Circūmciſion who they are that they do ſo: and many have done ſo all along: the Reaſon of all, FOR that they found it with Baptiſm in and into that Law they and we do yet retain.
5. Some rayes of light ſtruck forth toward illuſtration of ſundry dark places and things, chiefly in St. Pauls myſterious Epiſtles, as of Renovation, the old and new man, born of God, Dead to the world, &c. Beſides, from St. Peter and St. John: But eſpecially the context in this, John 3. cleared and made coherent, &c.
With Recapitulation and Concluſion.
This agitation of thoughts breeds further inquiry (chiefly from that dark Text of baptizing INTO Moſes, 1 Corinth. 10.2.) of the form of our Chriſtian Baptiſm, Whether it be right, In the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt? and reſolved that it is not from the letter of the commiſsion in Matth. 28.19. which preſcribes INTO.
For illuſtration whereof,
1. Noted the conſent of Copies for the word foreign, and for the interpretation, as ſaid.
2. Declared the various acceptions of the received In Nomine; or, In the Name: For 1. Invocation, 2. Auctorization. 3. Initiation; The difference of which is ſhewed.
3. Pitched upon, that the laſt is the beſt: For,
1. It is plain in this Text.
2. No leſs evident in other Texts. The differing reconciled.
3. Holds out fulleſt the nature and intent of this Sacrament, which being for admiſsion, this declares it to be ſo, by baptizing INTO. An obſervation and enumeration of ſundry other ſects that have baptized as well as we; and that this beſt parts us from them at the Door of our entrance, by expreſsing admittance TO us.
4. This hath, and hath had much countenance all abroad, from Greece as much as may be expected. From Latium ſome, in Tertullian and St. Jerom, though the moſt follow the old Latine, In nomine. The Greek Fathers cited particularly; and ſome (taken for) Councels, with the ſparks of light (very many) that ſince the Reformation have broken forth to direct this way.
All ſubmitted to cenſure, &c.