Letter of Resolution to Six Queries, Query 4 (1 of 2)

Letter of Resolution to Six Queries · Query 4 (1 of 2)

p. 175The fourth Quaere. Of the Baptizing of Infants.

IN the next place I shall proceed §. 1 to the Baptizing of Infants (meaning thereby the obligation that lyes on Christian parents, and Pastors, the one to bring their children to Baptism, the other not to reject them when they are duly brought) and shew you the basis whereon I conceive it is founded, and standeth in the Church of Christ.

Where first it being remembred (what §. 2 hath in the first Discourse been, I conceive, sufficiently evidenced) that whatsoever Command or Institution hath come from God the Father (by his Angels, or by his Prophets) from Christ (either personally, or through his successors the Apostles) is of infallible obligation to all, to whom it was given, (and so every Institution of Christs to all Christians) and that the particular manner of conveying it to our knowledge, whether by the writings of the Old and New Testaments, or by p. 176any other means, is but extrinsecal to any such Precept or Institution of Christs, or his Apostles. It will be abundantly sufficient to the satisfying of this Quaere, if we shall by competent arguments evince, that in the Institution of Baptism, Christs institution of Baptism.as a Sacrament to be continued in the Christian Church, Christ and the Apostles did not reject Infants, but entertain and receive them to it.

§. 3 And the foundation of this eviction may very fitly be laid in the Customes and Usages then among the Jews.

§. 4 For that the Institutions of Christ (who came first a Messias to the Jews, Founded in Jewish Customes.was born of that Nation, lived regularly under their law, observed their pious Customes (some, as the Feast of Encaenia, or Dedication of the Altar, 1 Mac. 4.59. which had not been instituted by God, but by the Jews themselves in time of the Maccabees) and onelyonly meant to reform what was amiss, and height…n that which was imperfect) were by him drawn from the former practises and usages of the Jews, some mentioned, others not mentioned, in the Old Testament, and so were lightly changed, and accommodated to his own purposes, might easily be shewed through many, I suppose, through all particulars.

§. 5 I shall not insist on any other, but this of Baptism, yet shall I mention a few p. 177of them. Thus, 1.Examples of Jewish Customes accommodated by Christ. the calling and receiving of disciples, or constant attendants, is answerable to the disciples of the Prophets among the Jews, who were to attend on, and minister unto them. So Joshua to Moses, Exod. 24.13.Disciples. Elisha to Elias, 1 King. 19.2. and generally the sons of the Prophets, so called, not onelyonly as those that were taught by them, but also as attendants on them, by that Hebraism whereby foreign and foreign, sons and servants, are of the same signification. And of these it is known, that they were wont to be sent on their errands, that they went to take up room, and prepare for them: and accordingly when John Baptist, which was Christs forerunner, saith of himself, that he was unworthy to carry his shoes, Mat. 3.11. it is clear, that he refers to the custome of disciples, who were used to such personal attendances, and ministeries, and went before the Prophets. And so Christ is said to send the Seventy, foreign, before his face to every city whither he meant to come, Luk. 10.1. And so Peter and John go before him to prepare the Passover, Mat. 16.17. Thus, secondly,Power of the Keyes. was the donation of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, lightly drawn from the constituting the Oeconomus over the Kings house, Isa. 22.21. and making him father of the house of Judah, by putting the Key of p. 178David on his shoulder. Thirdly, that of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, The Lords Supper.instituted in, and taken from their postcoenium and Cup of blessing, solemnly used by them at the close of a Festival. Fourthly, the Imposition of hands Imposition of hands.in confirmation, and absolution, and ordination, from the manner both of paternal blessing by the use of that ceremony, as in Jacob to his children, and of assuming to the dignity of an Elder in the Sanhedrin, by the use of the same ceremony. Fifthly, the title of Apostles Apostles.for deputies and proxies, sent with Commission or Letters of Credence, Mat. 10.40. to supply Christs place, and act here on earth in his stead. Sixthly, that of**See Quaere fifth. Bishops B…shops.(answerable to the foreign and foreign▪ the Prince and Head of the Sanhedrin or Consistory, and called foreign, and the foreign among them, the Overseer of any publick business) and the same again styled foreign, Elders, answerable to the foreign Elders among them, either as stewards in the house, as Eliezer, Gen. 24.2. is called foreign, and foreign, the elder of his house, and ruler of all that he had, foreign saith the Jerusalem Targum, ruler, or administrator, Gen. 15.2. or as the rulers of the Tribes, chief of the families, are called Patriarchs, and Elders of Israel, Exod. 3.16, 18. and Captains of thousands, p. 179i. e. rulers of cities. Seventhly, the Deacons Deacons.instituted by the Apostles, parallel to the foreign under the Synagogue, those that provided for the Poor, foreign, ordained Curators, in Josephus Azanitae from the Hebrew name, and from their Office, foreign, treasurers, in Epiphanius, and foreign, they that performed the ministerial duties, in Philo, and withall waited, and attended on the Elders in the Sanhedrin, as foreign or ministers there. Lastly, the title of foreign the Church, foreignin both notions of it, both for the People and Rulers of the Church, and those rulers either to officiate in the service of God, or to govern, from their assembling both in their Synagogues to hear and pray, and in their Town-halls to execute judgements. To pass by these, I say,Baptism among the Jews. and many more, I shall onelyonly insist on this one of Bap…ism, or Washing, a known Rite solemnly used among the Jews (as 'tis now among the Christians) for the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord, and so into the Congregation of the Jews, as among us it is into the new Covenant, and into the Church of Christ.

Many branches of that Custome there §. 6 were, which have been**Pract. Ca…. l 6. §. 4. elswhere mentioned. I shall here briefly gather them together, and farther testifie the truth of p. 180those affirmations; which may any way seem questionable to any. First then, Baptism, Baptism of native Jews.or washing of the whole body, was a Jewish solemnity, by which the native Jews 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, foreign by Circumcision, and Baptism, & Peace-offering. So in Gemara ad tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. foreign &c. Your fathers, i. e. the Jews of old time, did not enter into Covenant but by Circumcision and Baptism, &c. and tit. Jabimoth, c. 4. Rabbi Joshua said, foreign We finde of our mothers, that they were baptized and not circumcised. So Maimonides, tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. foreign &c. By three things the Israelites entred into the Covenant, by Circumcision, Baptism, and Sacrifice. And soon after, What was done to you? i. e. the Jews in universum, foreign, Ye were initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision, Baptism and Sacrifice. Nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them.

§. 7 A…d that is the reason, I suppose, why the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.1. speaking of the p. 181fathers (the Israelites that came out of Aegypt) which by Gods mighty hand were redeemed to be a peculiar people to himself, and thereby entred into Covenant with him (God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings, by covering them with a cloud, and environing them with the Sea) saith,Baptiz…ng into Moses, 1 Cor. 10.1.1 Cor 10:1 that they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, v. 2. i. e. were, (by those two great Solemnities, the cloud that gave them light by night, and a guard by day, and the sea that was a wall to defend them, and a devouring deep to their enemies) received and initiated into Gods Covenant under the conduct of Moses, as since they are wont to be initiated by Baptism.

For the confirming of which interpretation, §. 8 it may be remembred, First, that they that entred into Covenant with God (of which Baptism was the ceremony) are by theaaSee Maimonides tit. Isuri bia, … c. 13. Jews ordinarily said to be received foreign under the wings of the glory, or majestatick presence, i. e. in plain words, under the protection of God, which is metaphorically expressed by the shadow of his wings. Secondly, that the ground of this metaphor was, Gods exhibiting himself to his servants by the apparition of Angels, and those Angels both there and elswhere coming in bright shining clouds (whence it is p. 182that Exod. 14. in this story are joyned the removing of the cloud, and the removing of the Angel of God, v. 19.) and those clouds hovering over their heads, and foreign, overshadowing, Mat. 17.5.Mat. 17.5.Matt 17:5 (for which S. Peter useth foreign, the excellent glory, 2 Pet. 1.17.2. Pet. 1.17.2 Pet 1:17 or majestatick presence, as the Jews call it) and foreign, descending, or coming upon, or covering them, as an Eagle doth with her wings; or (foreign) as a dove, Mat. 3.16. And therefore, thirdly, that Baptism being among the Jews, the known Ceremony of such initiation into Gods Covenant, under the conduct of Moses, the overshadowing of the cloud, and the invironing of the Sea, which were really the receiving them into Gods protection, covenanted, and promised from him by Moses, Exod. 14.13, &c. are fitly said to be the baptizing them into Moses (foreign) in or by this cloud and sea. And so this is a clear interpretation of that obscure place concerning the Israelites in Aegypt, supposing onelyonly this custome of entring the Jews into the Covenant by Baptism (which afterward came in, and was, I suppose, vulgarly known, when, and long before, the Apostle wrote) without which it will not be easie to give any probable account of it. For as on one side to apply it immediately to Christian Baptism, will be inconvenient, because it p. 183is said distinctly to be foreign, into Moses, so to interpret it, with others, of the fathers that were personally at Mount Sinai at the time of receiving of the law; and, to that end, to affirm that the sea is no more then any receptacle of waters, through which they that were to be baptized, were said to pass, and the cloud either nothing at all, or that wherein God spake to Moses, which is nothing to this purpose, will be lyable to many more inconveniences, which I shall not here make stay to shew, because it is but incidental to this business.

Secondly, as the native Jews were thus §. 71 entred into the Covenant by Baptism: Baptism of Proselytes.so the Proselytes of the Jews, those that were taken in, as Proselytes of justice or righteousness, as professing or undertaking all their Law (and not onelyonly as Proselytes of the Gates, to live among them) were received into their Church by Baptism also. So saith the Talmud tr. Repud. of Jethro, Moses's father in law, he was made a Proselyte by Circum…ision, foreign, and by immersion, or baptism in waters, and the manner of this immersion, is said to be, that they should sit up to the neck in water, and learn in the while some Precepts of the Law both hard and easie. So the Gemara ad tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. The Proselytes entred not into Covenant foreign p. 182duplicate page p. 183duplicate page p. 184foreign but by Circumcision, Baptism, and sprinkling of blood, and tit. Jabimoth, He is no Proselyte, unless he be circumcised and baptized, and unless he be foreign baptized, he is a Gentile. So Maimonides, tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. In all ages whensoever any Gentile was willing to enter into the Covenant, and to be gathered under the wings of the Schechina, or divine majesty, and to undertake the yoke of the law, foreign he was bound to have Circumcis…on, and Baptism, and a Peace-offering, and if it were a woman, Baptism, and Sacrifice. And again, the stranger that is circumcised, and not baptized, or baptized, and not circumcised, is not truly a Proselyte, till he be both. And the Gemara almost in the same words, tit. Jabimoth, c. 4.

§. 10 A clear testimony of this we have in Arrian the Stoick Philosopher, in his Epictetus, l. 2. c. 9. where the Jewish Proselyte is by him called foreign dipp'd, and he that is so onelyonly in shew, not in deed, foreign, a counterfeit baptized person.

§. 11 The third thing observable in this baptism among the Jews, That of the Natives the pattern of the other.is, that the baptism of the native Jews, was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated, and wherein it was founded. This appears by the arguing p. 185and determining of 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 finde of our fathers (Abraham, Isaac, &c.) 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 finde of our mothers, that they were baptized, and not circumcised. But the wise men pronounced, that till he were both baptized and circumcised, he was not a Proselyte: where the example of the Jews was 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, Num. 15.15. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger (i. e. foreign the Proselyte) that sojourneth with you, an ordinan…e for ever in your generations, as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord, one law, and one manner (i. e. one foreign, and one foreign, Luk. 1.6. one law for moral duties, and one law 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 p. 186and 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 baptism should be used on him, beside sprinkling of the Sacrifice, and if it were a woman, Baptism and Sacrifice; According as it is said (Num. 15.15.) As to you, so also to the Proselytes, &c.

§. 12 Here the original of that Custome, as far as concerns the Proselytes, doth clearly appear, viz. that command of God, Num. 15.15. founded in a former Custome of baptizing the native Jews: As for the original of it among the Jews The original of it among the Jews.themselves, their writers deduce it as anciently, as from before the giving the law in Mount Sinai, Exod. 19.10. when God, to prepare them for the receiving of it, commands Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctifie them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes. So saith Maimonides, Isuri bia, c. 13. But Baptism was in the desert, before the giving of the law, according as it is said, Thou shalt sanctifie them, &c. And that agreeable to what we reade of Jacob to his houshold, Exod. 35.2. Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments. So that as the Covenant p. 187made with Abraham, was sealed by Circumcision, so the giving of the law, which was the Covenant made by God, by the mediation of Moses, with all the people, was thought to be sealed by Baptism: And that, the washing, if not of the whole, yet of some parts of the body (ordinarily called foreign sanctifications) and the washing of their garments also. According to which we know it was anciently observed among Christians, that Baptism should be solemnized with the ceremony of clean and white garments: As the Dominica in Albis is a testimony.

Beside this original of the Iewish Baptism, §. 13 referring to the time and occasion of it, Another may be observed of the significancy of this ceremony, viz. that it was taken from the Custome of washing babes new born. The washing of new born babes.Of that Custome among other nations, we have many Records, That of Aelian of the foreign will serve for all, foreign (saith he, Var. Hist. l. 4. c. 1.) foreign, They are washed but thrice onelyonly, from the pangs, when they marry, and when they are dead. The first of which, being precedent to marriage, as that is to death, is not to be conceived to belong to the woman, that is newly past her travail, but to the childe that is newly born. And so of the Custome among the Iews, Ezekiel is express, c. 16.4. p. 188In the day wherein thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed with water. And that this custome of washing new born children, and not any other sort of purification, was it, that this Baptism of native Iews and Proselytes referred to, may appear by that which in the Gemara is said of the baptized Proselyte, that he was made foreign as an infant new born.

§. 14 Having thus far insisted on this Custome of Baptism among the Iews, these things are farther observable of it.

§. 15 First, that of the Proselytes 'tis confessed,The infants of Proselytes were baptized. that not onelyonly they that were of age, but also their infant children were baptized. So the Gemara Babyl. tit. Chet…b. c. 1. foreign they baptize the little or yong stranger or proselyte. And the Glosse addes, that the Rulers of the Consistory take care of it, and so are made to him a father. And Maimonides in the forecited place, tit. Isuri bia, c. 13. They baptize the infant or little stranger upon the knowledge or understanding of the house of judgement, or the Congregation, i. e. on their desire in behalf of the children, and their promise to let them know what they have undertaken. Agreeably to that of S. Augustine, of the Church among us Christians, Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia p. 189aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur. Our mother the Church sends them other mens feet, heart, and tongue; that they may come, and beleive, and confess, and so be capable of baptism.

Secondly, that this ceremony of Baptism §. 16 among the Iews, Baptism among the Jews not iterated.as that other of Circumcision, was never repealed, but received once for all the insuing life. And this among them is acknowledged by all as unquestionable. To which our Saviour seems to refer, Ioh. 13.10. when he tells Peter, that foreign he that hath been washed, i. e. once washed all over, needs not, save to wash his feet; needs not to be washed all over any more, but is foreign, whole clean, the foreign will for the rest serve the turn, the daily washings of hands and feet, which they call foreign sanctifications, the purifying more and more daily the frailties and imperfections, and lapses of weak nature, those feet of the man (foreign, saith Eulogius) which are still behinde after conversion.

Thirdly, that they that were thus received §. 17 as Proselytes by Baptism, The Proselytes regeneration by Baptism.put off their former relations of kindred &c. To which surely our Saviour refers, when he talks of leaving father and mother, Mar. 10.29. And Tacitus the Historian, Nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quàm exuere p. 190patriam, parentes, liberos, fratres vilia habere, their proselytes are first taught, after renouncing the gods, to put off their countrey, parents, children, brethren, to despise them all. And the latter Iews have a saying, that he that hath married his own Sister, or entred any the most incestuous bands, by becoming a proselyte ceaseth to have that near relation of blood to her, and may now live with her, as with a wife: which false superstructure in them, is yet a testimony of the truth, whereon it is falsly founded by them.

§. 18 Fourthly, that they that were thus baptized, were said to be born again; and that, as if born of a new mother, as it is oft said in the Talmud, to which our Saviour refers, when he talks of regeneration (of which, saith S. Paul, baptism is the laver) of being born again from above of water &c. Ioh. 3.35. And this was so vulgar a notion among the Iews, that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus, that he understood it not: Art thou a ruler in Israel, and knowest not these things?

§. 19 That these so many things observed of the Iewish baptism, were really accommodated by Christ to this rite of our initiation to Christian Religion, there is as little reason for us (that see the foot-steps of them in the New Testament, and the continual practise of the Church) to doubt, as, that a picture was taken from that p. 191face, which it resembleth to the life. And then by this one means we shall have a clear foundation of all that is at this day practised in the Church of God in this matter of Baptism: First,The application of all this to the Christian Baptism. for the receiving all that come into that profession from heathenism, by this rite or ceremony. Secondly, all those that are born within the pale of the Church. Thirdly, their infant children, being undertaken for by Godfathers, who represent the Congregation. Fourthly, the never-iterating this ceremony, but (in case of falling into sin after Baptism) substituting Repentance and Absolution for it. Fifthly, the propriety of that phrase so solemnly received into the Church, of baptismal regeneration, new birth, &c. noting thereby the goodness of God, to make this new covenant of Mercy with us, and the strict obligation that lies on all that are baptized, by that grace of God there made over to them, to walk in newness of life.

By all this appears, First,The example o… Circ…mcision. how little §. 20 needful it will be to defend the baptism of Christian Infants▪ from the law of circumci…ng the Infants among the Iews the foundation being far more fitly laid in that other of Iewish baptism, a ceremony of initiation for all (especially for proselytes) as well as that, and whereas that of circumcision belonged onelyonly to one, p. 192this other being common to both sexes. And yet from that example of circumcision among them, thus much must needs be gained to our present design, that the childes not being able to understand the vow of baptism, doth no way prejudice the baptizing of such, for if it did, it must necessarily be an objection against the circumcising the Jewish childe at eight dayes old, who could then no more understand the Covenant, of which that was made the Sign, nor the wickedness that the entring into the Covenant obliged to abstain from, then the Christian Infant now can, and yet (under pain of excision) was commanded to be c…rcumcised. which being so far vindicated from being unreasonable and incongruous, by that example of circumcision, which is allowed of by all dissenters, there will be little reason to fear the objections from Reason, or, upon that score, to doubt of the practise of that, which is so reasonable, when it hath, beside this, the example of baptism among the Jews (from which it is immediately deduced) so adaequately proportionable, and directly parallel to it.

§. 21 So again, secondly, the mention in Scripture of the Apostles baptizing a whole houshold at once,Of baptizing a whole houshold. Acts 16.13.Acts 16:13 Act. 16.33. is not of it self demonstrative, or convincing: because, that wider phrase may possibly p. 193be restrained to those that heard and believed in that family,. And although, when the custome of the Jews (whence this Christian rite so lately came) is remembred, that the Proselytes children, as well as those of age, were baptized, and that that was so ordinarily known, that it needed not be more distinctly and particularly affirmed, there will be little temptation to doubt, but that the Gaolers infants, if he had any, were comprised under the foreign, all his, and were baptized also; (and so Stephanas's infants under the foreign, houshold of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.16.1 Cor. 1, 16.1 Cor 1:16) yet because it is not certain of either of these, that they had any so young in their family, therefore 'tis confessed, that no concluding argument can be deduced from thence, and unconcludent arguments were in many respects much better waved, then made use of against gainsayers.

But then thirdly, that speech of our §. 22 Saviour, Christs reception of little children.Mat. 19.14.Mat. 19.14.Matt 19:14 and Mar. 10.6.Mar. 10.6.Mark 10:6 which concludes that the foreign or little children may, and must be permitted to be brought by others to Christ, and being so brought, yet are said to come to him (foreign, the very words of which proselyte is made) and 2. his blessing them by imposition of hands; and 3. his affirming that the Kingdome of God, the Church here, and Heaven hereafter, consists of such as they, p. 194are a conjunction of particulars, which although they come not home distinctly to baptizing of Infants (because it is not affirmed he did baptize them) are yet a farther proof of the uncharitableness and unreasonableness of the main objections (taken from the Infants not hearing, not beleiving, &c.) which are pretended to have force against this practise. For if those that cannot come, may, and must be permitted to be brought by others to Christ; if, at the yongest, they are capable of receiving blessing from him; if they are such, as of whom peculiarly the kingdome of God consists, then what hinders, but they may be capable of the early charity of the Church, in bringing and admitting them to baptism (though they do not understand the vow) and receive benefit and advantage by partaking of it? And the rather, when it is remembred, that Christ, that baptized not at all, Joh. 4.2.Joh 4.2.John 4:2 and so thought not fit to baptize these, did yet afford that ceremony to them, which in the ancient Church was preparatory and antecedent to Baptism; viz. imposition of hands and blessing them.Imposition of hands preparatory to Baptism. This, Clemens, or the Author of the Constitutions, mentions, l. 7. c. 39. where having set down the severals wherein the Catechumenus was to be instructed, he addes, but let him that layes on hands adore God, &c. And this, I suppose, it is p. 195that Clemens Alex: refers to, Paedag. l. 3. c. 11. in these words, foreign; On whom doth the Presbyter lay hands? whom shall he bless? meaning, most probably, in that place, not the nuptial benediction, but the solemnity with which the Catechist blessed those, that were catechized, preparatory to their Baptism. And so saith Eusebius of Constantine, l. 4. that to prepare for his Baptism, foreign, He made profession, and then was vouchsafed those prayers, which were given by imposition of hands. And thus the Holy Ghosts fa…ling upon Cornelius's family, Act. 10.44. (which was wont to be an effect of the Apostles imposition of hands, but of which we have no mention there) is by S. Peter lookt on as an evidence, that God had accepted these Gentiles, and so that they were fit to be baptized, v. 47. can any forbid water? &c.

But there is no need of laying much §. 23 weight on this, or any the like more imperfect wayes of probation. The whole fabrick being sufficiently supported, The true Basis of Infant-Baptism: 1. Negatively, thatand built on this Basis (the customary Baptism among the Jews) and that discernible to be so, if we consider it first negatively, then positively.

First, negatively, that Christian baptism, §. 24 p. 196which is an institution of Christs, Christs institution of Baptism excludes not Infants.lightly changed from the Jewish custome of receiving of Proselytes, by him appointed in his life time, and setled a little before his Ascension, hath nothing in the pattern, whence it is copied out, nothing in the copy it self, as it is set down in the New Testament, i. e. in the words of the Institution, or in his or the Apostles practise, which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number, that ought to be baptized, or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ.

§. 25 That there is nothing exclusive of them in the pattern (the Jewish custome of baptism) hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that, already insisted on. And in the New Testament, I cannot foresee any words that may come under suspicion of doing so, but those of Mat. 28.19.Objection from Mat. 28.19.Matt 28:19 Go teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. And those words being duly weighed, are far from doing so. For the phrase which is there used in the Original, Answered. is a singular one, not duly exprest by our English [Teach.] It is foreign, make disciples, or receive into discipleship all nations, baptizing them in the name &c. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them. You may see the word expl…ined in a parallel phrase,foreign. Ioh. 4.1. The Pharisees heard that p. 197Iesus makes more disciples, and baptizeth, then Iohn, foreign, where to make disciples, and baptize, is all one with foreign, where the baptizing being immediately annexed to the making or receiving disciples, and the receiving disciples not supposing any precedent instruction, but looking wholly on it as subsequent (in like manner, as in this place v. 20. foreign [teaching] follows after foreign baptizing) all that are thus brought and receiv'd ad discipulatum, to be for the future instructed, and instituted in the Christian faith, may surely be received in baptism, the ceremony which is there prescribed by Christ, with which to receive disciples.

To which purpose I shall (in passing) §. 26 adde this one observation, 1 Pet. 3.21.foreign, 1 Pet. 3.21.1 Pet 3:21 Baptism is defined to be foreign, we render it, the answer, but it is rather, the question of a good conscience to, or toward God. That foreign signifies to ask, or demand, and not to answer, is as certainly known, as that quaerere and inquirere, to inquire, doth so signifie, and so it is used, Mat. 12.10. and 16.1. Mar. 11.29. Luk. 17.20. Ioh. 18.20. Rom. 10.20. And there is no one place where it can possibly be otherwise taken. One thing onelyonly there is peculiar sometimes in the use of p. 198the word, which differenceth it from ordinary questions, that it is oft used for such a questioning, as we mean by consulting, as consulting God, consulting the Oracle, i. e. making address, asking counsel of him. So Hos. 4.12. where we reade, My people ask counsel of their stocks; the Greek hath, foreign. So Hesychius, foreign, rendring it by that word which is ordinarily used for consulting the Oracle, and from whence Apollo had his title of Pytho, and the Divines of Pythonesses. So Isa. 65.1. (and out of it Rom. 10.20.Rom. 10.20.Rom 10:20) their not hoping for deliverance out of Antiochus's hand, and consequently not seeking to, consulting, applying, add…essing themselves to God about it, is meant by their not asking, or enquiring of God. And accordingly in that place of S. Peter, the meaning of this definition or description of baptism will be, that baptism is the coming and seeking to God as to the Oracle, to inquire for the whole future life, applying ones self to God for his directions for all the future actions, with a, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? or, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? This is foreign (but that including a good, and an upright conscience, orCyrill. Hie…esol…. foreign. foreign a genuine sincere purpose to do what is there required of him.) And accordingly p. 199S. Cyprian hath interrogatio baptismi, Ep. 76. and 80. the asking or inquiring of baptism. From whence all that I have to conclude to the present purpose, is onelyonly this (not that baptizing of Infants is there spoken of, or so much as intimated by S. Peter, but) that the proper signification of baptism, is the entring a disciple, initiating a proselyte, and doth no way praerequire actual instruction, but consists in coming to Christ, and his Church, to receive it, and obey it for the future: which though no grown man can be said to do with a good resolution, or good conscience, unless he have an explicit or implicit faith of some part of the Gospel, or at least some grounds of piety toward God, which must make him content to be a disciple of Christ, yet of children it is certain,Learning is not praerequired to discipleship. that they may be thus brought by the care of their parents to this, as to other schools or discipleships, and delivered up to be scholars, before they know one letter, or have any actual willingness to acquire any knowledge. And thus we know Christs calling and receiving Philip to discipleship, Ioh. 1.44.Ioh 1.44.John 1:44 did not suppose him to be praeinstructed by Christ; for there, after Christs finding him, the next thing is his saying to him, Follow me. And when the Iews, Exod. 19.8. assumed to obey all the commandments of God, which he should give p. 200them, we do not suppose that the commandments had been formerly given them, but were to follow, c. 20. In brief, the one thing praerequired to a disciple (as to beingaaJo…ius in Ph…t. foreign: capable of Christs miracles) is foreign, the readiness to obey, and receive what is delivered, and a non-resistance is some degree of that: and though the childe which cannot obey, cannot be said to have at present any of this, yet the earlyer he is received into Christs school, the Church (and we know from that place of Mat. 28. that baptism is the solemn ceremony of that) the surer he is to be praepossest with Christian knowledge, and to receive those infusions, while he hath the least prejudices and obstructions against them. And that is the ground of hastening infants to discipleship.

§. 27 To this may be added in the second place, that his receiving of disciples was the receiving of proselytes to the Covenant, and Faith of Christ, a disciple and a proselyte being perfectly all one, save onelyonly that the latter denotes a coming from some other nation or countrey, which difference hath no place in this matter, where the disciples are specified §. 28 to be received from all nations.

Infants capable of Proselytism or reception into Covenant.Thirdly, that Infant children are not by their years rendred uncapable of reception to Proselytism, i. e. of entring ininto this or any other Covenant, when p. 201by their parents, or the congregation, they are brought to it. That they are not uncapable, may appear by that example forementioned of the Iews, who received the infant children of the Proselytes, upon the desire of the Parents, and the profession of the congregation, and accordly baptized them also. Secondly, by parity of reason taken from the Iewish Natives, who en…red and were admitted into Covenant with God, the Infants as well as men. So Deuteron. 29.10. Ye stand this day before the Lord your God, your captains of Tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger— That thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God. Where the little ones are part of the number of those that enter into covenant with God, and so may enter into this covenant made in Christ, by the parity of Reason. And, thirdly, by the origination of the word Proselytes (from foreign) they than come unto Christ, which is the onelyonly thing which Christ mentions concerning little children, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: which infers their capacity of Proselytism, and the next words suppose them particularly qualified for it: for of such is the kingdome of God. They, and such whose humility and other qualifications p. 202resemble them most perfectly to children, are the persons of whom the Christian Church is to be constituted.

§. 29 All which being supposed, viz. that there is nothing discernible from the nature of Jewish baptism (wherein the Christian is founded) nothing in Christs institution of it, which can exclude the Christians infant children from baptism, but all the circumstances concurring most favourably to the reception of them, there is now but one thing wanting to remove all doubt in this matter, viz. Christs intention in this. And the way to evidence that, will be the opinion and sense that the Apostles (who were acquainted with Christs purpose, and cannot be imagined to have misunderstood his words) had of the intention of Christ to include Infants in that institution of baptism for all nations, and not to exclude them from it.

§. 30 And this is the second and positive part of the Basis, The positive part of the Basis of Infant Baptism.whereon, I conceive, the Baptism of Infants to be founded in the Church. And that this was the Apostles sense of Christs words, and opinion of his Ins…itution, will appear by their own usage and practise, The Apostles practise evidenced two wayes.two wayes testified unto us, First, by one considerable remain or footstep of it, in S. Pauls. Epistle to the Corinthians. Secondly, by the practise of the first and purest ages of the p. 203Church, which received Infants to baptism, and either, by so doing, testifie the Apostolical usage, transcribed by them, or else farther affirm, that they received it by tradition from the Apostles. And the brief clearing of these two evidences, is all that I shall think necessary to adde for the asserting the positive part of this doctrine. What else may be fit to be taken in, will be added more properly by way of answer to the Ob…ections which are producible against it.

And first, the remain or footstep of the §. 31 Apostolical practise, is, A reasoning of S. Pauls, 1 Cor. 7. which supposeth it then received, and known in the Church (at the writing of that Epistle) that Christians children were received to Baptism. The sum of which will be best discerned by the setting down a few verses, 1 Cor 7.12. explained.1 Cor 7:12and a brief Paraphrase on them.

12. If any brother hath a wife that beleiveth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.If any Christian husband hath an heathen wife, and she be desirous to continue with him, he ought not to put her away, unbeleife being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ.

p. 20413. And the woman which hath an husband that beleiveth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.And so in like manner for the Christian wife, that is married to an Infidel, if he be desirous to live with her, let her by no meanes separate from him.

14. For the unbeleiving husband foreign. hath been sanctified by the wife, and the unbeleiving wife hath been sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.For (beside the command of Christ, Mat. 5.32. which obligeth to this) other advantages there are of the beleivers living with the unbeleiver, worth considering. For by this means it hath oft come to pass, that the unbeleiving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the beleiver; and, considering the efficacy of good example, 1 Pet. 3.1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction, on presumption of the great zeal (and consequent endevours and diligence) that by the Laws of Christianity the husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him, as a wife is, there is great reason of hope, that still it may p. 205be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeleiver, and the intuition of that (more then possible) effect, may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily. And this one consideration, viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer, 1 Pet. 3.1. should gain, i. e. bring the unbeleiver to the faith, and the reasonable presumption that it will be so, is the reason why the young children of Christians, which cannot as yet be deemed beleivers, are yet admitted to Baptism, because by their living in the family with Christian parents, they probably, and by the obligation lying on the parents, ought to be brought up in the faith, and kept from heathen pollutions (and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the Parents) doth reasonably presume they will. And upon this ground it is, that, though the children of Christians are, yet the children of heathens are not admitted to Baptism.

That this is the true importance of the §. 32 Apostles words, and force of his arguing, The confirmation of this interpretation, In the former,doth for the former part of it appear evident; First, by the word foreign hath been sanctified, which must needs refer to some past, known examples, and experiences of this kinde, or else there could be p. 206no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the praeter tense. Secondly, by the phrase foreign, by, or through the wife. This the praeposition [foreign] so ordinarily signifies, that it cannot need to be farther testified, (and in this notion it is, that we here take it) whereas the notion, which by opposers is here affixt to it, that it should signifie to (that to, which is a sign of the dative case) [sanctified to the wife, (as meat to the beleiver) made lawful to her to live with,] is never once found to belong to it, in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity, or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it. All the places that are produced for this sense, are commonly mistaken. So Mat. 17.12. [foreign] is not fecerunt ei, they have done to him, but on him, or against him: so as foreign is used for foreign, which is an ordinary acception of it. So Act. 4.12. There is no name foreign, it is not [given to men] but among men. And that is an ordinary notion of foreign, for among, foreign, is God among us? and foreign, Christ among us; and many the like. So 1 Cor. 7.15. God hath called us, foreign: It is not to, as the note of a dative case, but unto peace, as foreign is again taken for foreign. So Gal. 1.16. to reveal his own Son foreign: It is not [to me] but [by, or through me to others,] as it follows, that I might preach p. 207him and when it there follows foreign, it is not [to, but again, among the Gentiles.] And 2 Pet. 1.5. foreign, is, adde unto your faith virtue, &c. in the notion of foreign for foreign, Unto your faith, or over and above that, foreign superadde virtue, or fortitude, or constancy, that which in this time of persecution and scandal of the cross, they stood so much in need of. And so still the rendring it [to the wife] will be without any one example, and the turning it into quite another phrase, as if it were foreign without foreign; which to do without any necessity or reason, (save onelyonly foreign, to serve the opposers turn upon the place, and support his false opinion) must needs be very unreasonable. Thirdly, this appears most irrefragably, by the express words added on this argument, v. 16. where [the unbeleiver's having been sanctified by the beleiver] (used as an argument why they should live together) is farther explained by these words of an undoubted perspicuous sense, For what knowest thou, ô wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, ô husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife? where the word foreign [save] which ordinarily signifies to reduce (or as it is 1 Pet. 3.1. foreign to gain) to repentance from heathenism, or wicked life, is set parallel to foreign sanctifying, p. 208and makes it clear, what was meant by it.

§. 33 Which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part, there will then be little reason to doubt, but that this, of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score, is the importance of the latter part: That, and no other, being it, which exactly accords with the former reasoning, and it being not imaginable, that this should be here added in that argumentative style [foreign, whereas, (or, for) else were &c.] if it were not an inforcing of the foregoing position thus proved by him.

§. 34 What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding,And in the latter part of it. and avoiding this interpretation, will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists Plea. Meanwhile, for the confirming of it, it may be remembred, what foreign holy, is known to signifie in the sacred dialect, not onelyonly an inhaerent, but a relative holiness, being separate, or set apart to God, discriminated from common, ordinary things, or persons, and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation, the office of a Prophet, or the like, so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church, into which all are initiated by baptism. And accordingly, all visible professors, and not onelyonly those that are sincerely such, are in Ezek. 9.2. the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the p. 209Apostles called foreign, holy.

And secondly, how the word foreign §. 35 unclean, is used by S. Peter, Act. 10.14. for those that must not (as he conceived) be received into the Church, as [God's having cleansed] is God's reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege. Whereby it appears, how fitly, receiving, and not-receiving to baptism, may be expressed by those phrases. Thirdly, how the word foreign, which is ordinarily to sanctifie, doth among the Jews (whence this word foreign is taken) signifie to wash (as when the High-Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation, is called foreign ten sanctifications, Joma, c. 3. §. 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body, and distinguished in use from the foreign, which is immersion of the whole body, may perhaps be an intimation, that the Primitive Baptisms were not alwayes immersions of the whole body, but that sprinkling of some part, the literal importance of the foreign sanctifications, might be sufficient.

Fourthly, it is known of the legal uncleannesses, §. 36 contrary to those their sanctifications, that they were the cause of removing men from the Congregation, they that were so, foreign, unclean, might not partake of the privileges of the Temple, till they were washed and sanctified, p. 210and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it, that the Christians children are holy, i. e. not inherently (they are not capable of that) but, in the account of God and men, capable of separation for the service of God, of being entred into the Church, into Covenant, which denominates men holy, (as the Gentiles, as long as they were out of it, were unclean and unholy, Act. 10.) Now are they holy, i. e. it is the present practise of the Church, that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time, to admit to Baptism such Infant children of parents, of whom one is Christian, though not of others. And to put all out of question, the Ancient Fathers, which certainly knew the sacred dialect, call Baptism, Sanctification. So Cyprian, Ep. 59. Eum qui natus est, baptizandum, & sanctificandum, He that is born, must be baptized and sanctified; where baptizing, is sanctifying of Infants. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. Edit. Bill. p. 658. foreign, 'Tis better to be sanctified without sense of it, i. e. baptized in infancy, when they are not sensible of it, then to depart, or dye without the seal of baptism. And again p. 648. foreign, let him be sanctified from the Infancy, i. e. baptized then. And many the like.

§. 37 This passage then being thus interpreted, p. 211is a clear proof or the point in hand. And, were not this the importance of it, there were no privilege imaginable, no sanctity which could be attributed to the Infants of Christians, which could not belong to the Infants of heathens also, which yet is here directly affirmed of the one, and denyed of the other by the Apostle. And as this evidently concludes such a custome, known and acknowledged among Christians at that time: so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise, in which Christ founded his institution, hath laid the foundation of, in baptizing Proselytes and their children, and to which the Primitive Church conformed. And so though that Iudaical practise, taken alone, were not deemed any demonstrative evidence, that Christ thus instituted his baptism for the Gentiles, yet being taken in conjunction with this testimony of the Apostolical practise, and the Primitive usage, it brings all the weight with it, that a divine testimony interpreted by practise can afford: which is as great as any such matter can be capable of.

It remains then that I proceed to the §. 39 Testimonies of the Ancient Christian writers, who have mentioned this,Testimonies of Apostolick practise. either as a practise of the Church, known in the first times, or moreover as delivered them from the Apostles.

p. 212§. 39 And first we have the words of Iustin Martyr, Justin Martyr.Resp. ad Orthod. or whoever wrote that ancient piece, foreign, Children are allowed to enjoy the good things that come by baptism, by the faith of them that bring them to baptism: directly agreeable to the force (and so very proper farther to confirm our notion and interpretation) of that place to the Corinthians, where, by reason of the beleiving husband, living with the unbeleiving wife, and the presumption that one may do good on the other, and bring her to the faith (and however bring up the children so;) the children are holy, i. e. vouchsafed the privilege of baptism, and the advantages consequent to it.

§. 40 Secondly, we have that of Irenaeus, Irenaeus.that lived in the age of those that saw the Apostles, within the first Century after them, l. 2, adv. haeres. c. 39. who speaking of Christ that came, saith he, to save men of all ages, and specifying Infantes & parvulos, Infants and little ones, as well as pueros, juvenes, & seniores, boyes, young men, and old men, addes, omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, all, I say, who by him are born again to God, where the Infants being regenerate, and born again into God, must needs be interpreted after the Scripture notion p. 213of foreign, being born again, or regenerate by that laver of regeneration. And so 'tis known, that all the ancient Church writers understand Baptism by it, (Dominica & Apostolicâ phra…, saith Fevardentius there, after the style of Christ and his Apostles) and accordingly he addes, sanc…ificat infantes, he makes Infants holy, again in that sense that we had it to the Corinthians.

Thirdly, for Tertullian, Tertullian.who lived also §. 41 within that first Century after the decease of the Apostles, we have these words, l. de Animâ, where, of the fidelium filii, children of the faithful, he affirms, that they are sanctitatis candidati, & sancti ex seminis praerogativâ, candidates of sanctity, and holy as in other respects, so from the prerogative of their birth, which as it is again an exact parallel to that place of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.13. in our rendring and interpreting of it, and an evidence, that it was then understood thus in the Church of God, so is it a proof of the practise of the Church in his time, in receiving the Christian children to baptism. And although l. de Bapt. c. 8. he argue for the delay of baptism in some cases, when it is not necessary (praecipuè circa parvulos, especially toward children) meaning, most probably, the children of unbeleivers, by others (as sponsores to promise for them) brought to baptism, as p. 214considering that those Sponsors might dye, or not be able to perform their promise, yet by that very passage produced out of him against Paedobaptism, it is most evident that it was then practised in the Church on the children of Christians; The antiquity of Sponsores or Godfathers.and as evident, that the Sponsores, Undertakers, or Sureties, which have place onelyonly in baptizing of children, were in his time known and customary in the Church. And of them it is accordingly affirmed byaaIn vitâ Hygini. Platina, out of the ancient Records, that Hyginus the Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, An. Dom. 144. voluit unum saltem Patrimum, unam{que} Matrimam baptismo interesse, appointed that there should be at least one Godfather and one Godmother present at baptism: Sic enim, saith he, eos appellant, qui infantes tenent dum baptizantur, for so they call those that bold Infants when they are baptized.

§. 42 Fourthly, Origen, Origen.immediately after Irenaeus and Tertullian, is express not onelyonly for the practise (secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari, according to the custome of the Church, baptism is given to Infants, on Lev. c. 12.13. Hom. 8. and again, Quia per baptismum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur & parvuli, because by baptism the filth of our birth is taken away, therefore are children p. 215baptized, Hom. 14. in loc.) but also for the Tradition from the Apostles, in Rom. 16. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare, The Church received tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism also to little ones. Nothing can be more express to the whole matter. And though we have not that piece of Origen in Greek, yet being translated by S. Jerome, and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius, prefixt before the Commentary, we have his authority to secure us, that these are Origens words.

In this place I shall adde a testimony out §. 43 of that Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy, arguing for Paedobaptism, c. 7. foreign. Of this we say the same things which our divine Ministers of holy things, instructed by divine Tradition, brought down to us. The Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy.That this wri…er was Dionysius the Areopagite, mentioned in the Acts, I do not pretend to beleive; yet as Mr. Casaubon saith of him, that he was scriptor antiquissimus, & elegantissimus, a most ancient and most elegant writer: so it appears out of Pho…ii bibliotheca, that the question whether these were the genuine works of that Dionysius, lay under debate, about the year 420. For at that p. 216time Theodorus Presbyter alleaged the arguments on both sides, for and against that assertion: By which it appears sufficiently, that the Author was very ancient, when so long since, his was matter of question concerning him. And after the same proportion, I might here reasonably adde the words of the Author of the Constitutions, Of the Constitutions.l. 6. c. 15. Baptize your little ones, and educate them in the discipline and precepts of the Lord: For though I am not perswaded that they were written in the Apostles time by Clemens Romanus, yet there is sufficient reason to assure us, that they were very ancient.

§. 44 In the next place S. Cyprians S. Cyprian.authority comes, backt with the force of an African Councel, which, saith he, determined what is affirmed by him, Ep. 59. Quantum ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum & tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos baptizari non oportere — longè aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est; universi judicavimus nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei, & gratiam denegandam, &c. As to the case of Infants, which thou saidst were not to be baptized within two or three dayes after birth — It was far otherwise determined by all in our Councel, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God was to be denyed to none that was born of men. And again, A baptism… at{que} à gratiâ Dei neminem p. 217per nos debere prohiberi. Quod cum circa universos observandum sit, at{que} retinendum, tum magis circa infantes ipsos & recens natos observandum putamus, &c. None ought to be hindred by us from baptism, and the grace of God, which as it is among all to be observed and maintained, so it ought the rather to be observed among Infants, and those that are newly born, who by their tears, with which they begin the world, might in reason obtain more from our help, and the Divine Mercy.

So after him S. Augustine S. Augustineof the Tradition §. 45 from the Apostles, Ser. 10. de verb. Apost. and more expresly de Bapt. cont. Donatist. l. 4. c. 24. Nemo nobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper retinuit, hoc à Ma…orum fide accepit, hoc us{que} in finem perseveranter custodit. Let no man whisper to us other doctrines. This the Church hath alwayes had, alwayes retained, this it hath received from the faith of the predecessors, this it keeps perseveringly to the end. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. That which the Universall Church maintains, and was not instituted by Councels, but alwayes continued, is most rightly beleived to be delivered by the Apostles authority. And lib. 10. de Gen. ad p. 218literam, c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, nec ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset t…aditio. The custome of our Mother the Church is by no means to be scorned, in baptizing of children, nor yet to be accounted superfluous, nor at all to be beleived, if there were not Apostolick Tradition for it. So l. 1. de pecc. mer. & remiss. speaking of the Pelagians, Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt; qui contra authoritatem Universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt. They grant that children are to be baptized, because they cannot contradict the a…thority of the Universal Church delivered by the Lord and by the Apostles. These two last authorities receive some farther weight, by considering that they are by him urged to his adversaries, on whom he would not have pressed this Tradition as Apostolical, if in that age there had been ony suspicion to the contrary.

§. 46 From him, and all the Ecclesiastick Writers and Councels after him, I need not heap testimonies in this matter; it being known and acknowledged by all, how frequently they are to be met with; and that this was one great aggravation charged on Pelagius's haeresie, that by consequence from his doctrine, he denyed p. 219the baptism of Infants for the remission of s ns (which they that did, have been censured by the Church for Haereticks in all ages) as may appear both by S. Ambrose Epist. l. 4. Demetriadi virg. Hinc evacuatío baptismatis parvulorum, qui solâ adoptione donari, nullo autem reatu dicerentur absolvi. From Pelagius's doctrine follows the evacuating of the baptism of Infants, who should, by his opinion, be said to be adopted, but not absolved from any guilt. And in like manner by the definition of the Milevitan Councel, Can. 2. where speaking of the Catholick Churches understanding of Original Sin, we have these words, Propter hanc regulam fidei, The Milev… tan Councel.& parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semet ipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, &c. Upon this rule of faith (the sense of the Catholick Church, ubi{que} semper, every where, and alwayes) it is, that Infants are baptized into remission of s…ns▪ that what they have contracted by generation, may be purged by regeneration. And yet of Pelagius himself it is the affirmation of Eusebius Emissenus, Hom. 5. de Pasch. that he asserted the baptizing of Infants, though not propter vitam, for life, yet propter regnum coelorum, for the kingdome of God. Nay, S. Augustine cites it out of Coelestius the Pelagian, Infantes baptizari in remissionem peccatorum, secundum p. 220regulam universalis Ecclesiae, & Evangelii sententiam, that Infants are baptized for remission of sins, according to the rule of the universal Church, and the appointment of the Gospel, l. 2. cont. Pel. & Coel. c. 5.

§. 57 This positive doctrine, I suppose, will not need farther confirming, it being their part, that attempt to invalidate a custome or usage, so authoritatively introduced, and so long continued, to maintain their improbable plea with demonstrative arguments. And till that be done, as in our nation it is acknowledged, that common usage is common law, and possession time out of minde, is not onelyonly eleven, but the whole twelve points in Law; So in the Church of Christ (whose universal Rule hath alwayes been that, which the first Nicene Councel hath made familiar with every man, foreign, Let the ancient usages continue in force) the proof of the usage, or practise, is all that can be expected for the vindicating of an Institution.

§. 58 The one thing then remaining, is to examine the arguments, that are produced against Infants Baptism, whether they have any thing in them thus demonstrative, or no; and, till somewhat appear of that nature, to resolve they are but suggestions of Schismaticks, which prefer their own singular, or private spirits, p. 221before the common spirit of the Apostolical Church of God.

And of these arguments, the most diligent §. 49 Collection that I ever met with,Dr. Taylors Collection of the Anabaptists arguments. is that of my very worthy friend, Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Book of Liberty of Prophesying, where he hath so impartially inforced the arguments of his adversaries, that I know not where to furnish my self with so exact a Scheme, and shall therefore, upon that one account, choose to follow that path which he hath traced before me. And theseaaforeign. p. 228. Num. 13.Num 13 arguments begin first Negatively, or destructively, by taking away the force of other arguments produced before in behalf of Paedobaptism. To which, first, I answer in general, that my present engagements give me no necessity of replying to this sort of the Anabaptists arguments, because they impugn not the grounds which have been laid in this discourse, but onelyonly are brought to oppose those arguments, which either I use not at all, or onelyonly by way of analogie and accommodation. And yet because I am not willing, that such fallacious reasonings should impose on any, I shall endevour, in some instances, to shew the frivolousness of them, so far as the Reader, or this former discourse, can be any way concerned in them.

First then, when he invalidates the argument▪ §. 50 taken from Circumcision, my answer p. 222is, That I have not used that argument any farther then thus, that by analogie with what was done in Circumcision, 'tis concluded reasonable, from Gods own judgement (in a case directly the same) that those may be entred sacramentally into a Covenant, which do not at that time actually know or understand the condition of the Covenant, as is clear, in the childes being circumcised. Now against this pretension of ours from Circumcision to Baptism, none of his exceptions do at all conclude.

§. 51 As first, That Types prove nothing, except a commandment go along with them, or some express to signifie s…ch to be their purpose. To which I answer, That I do not make Circumcision a type of Baptism, much less prove any thing by its being such, I take circumcision to be one Institution of Gods, a ceremony of admitting Jews, and their children, into the old Covenant, and I pretend baptism to be another; in this agreeing with it, That it is a ceremony of admitting Christian Proselytes, and their children, into a new Covenant, not after the manner of the circumcision, but of the baptism of the Jews. For the truth of which pretension, if I had not other evidence, beyond that of the Jewish childrens being circumcised, viz. the practise of the Apostles, testified by themselves, and their p. 223successors of the first ages of the Church, that received it from them, I should never conclude it from circumcision: Because, though by the example of circumcision, it were vindicated from many of the exceptions that are thought to lye against it, yet I know it doth not follow, That whatever is not absurd, must presently be; that every thing is true, which is possible, or that what is lawful, was certainly instituted. And so against this stating of the matter, neither is [the unagreeableness of the flood with baptism, in that one was a prodigy, the other not; nor of the Passover and the Eucharist, in that one had no prescription of sacramental drink, as the other had] of any force at all, partly because a parallel Institution is more capable of being argumentative to all particulars, then a type, so remote, as the flood is from baptism, and partly because, as the Eucharist is a ceremony founded in the Jews postcoenium, and not in their Paschal Lamb (which by the way, I suppose, Christ eat not at that time, the day before his crucifixion, because the time of eating the Lamb was not come, till the evening after his death, but onelyonly had a commemorative Passover, at the beginning of the Paschal foreign, and therein instituted the Sacrament, being himself the true Paschal-Lamb that the day after was slain for us) and in that p. 224postcoenium there was a cup of blessing, as well as bread to be broken: so the Christians baptism is founded in (and is the accommodating of) the baptism that was among the Jews, and not in circumcision at all, as having no likeness with it, save onelyonly in some extrinsecal circumstances, as being both ceremonies of initiation into a Church, &c. In which consequently it may well agree with it, and (when the reason is absolutely the same) must; though in other things, where the reason is varyed, it be allowed to disagree.

§. 52 So again, when 'tis said, that though there be a correspondence of analogy betwixt circumcision and baptism yet there is no correspondence of identity, though I confess I understand not what is meant by the latter of those phrases, yet I acknowledge not to beleive the correspondence to hold in all things, among other reasons, for this, because I know females were not circumcised, which lying not against the baptism of the Jews, any more then it doth against the Christian, I there choose to fasten the correspondence, where I finde so much more reason to do it.

§. 53 In this matter there is a reason of difference pretended, why circumcision should be proper for children, and baptism not, Num. 13.Num 13because circumcision left a p. 225character in the flesh, which being imprinted on Infants, did its work, when they came to age, and baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body. But this, though it be already wholly avoided, by founding the Christian in the Jewish baptism, which had no external character on the flesh, and not in circumcision, which had, yet I will not cast it off so, but if it shall appear to have any force in it, acknowledge that it will hold in some degree against our pretensions. But, I suppose, it really hath none.

For although there be that accidental §. 54 difference between circumcision and baptism, that one mutilates, the other onelyonly washes the body; the one woundeth, the other lightly toucheth, and cleanseth: yet sure that difference is of no force in this matter, for in respect of all others, but onelyonly the childe, i. e. in respect of God, and the Congregation, there arises no difference from hence: for, in respect of both, both are equally signs of the Covenant, and, in respect of men, the Registers being kept among Christians, as they were among Jews, the baptism of each will there be recorded, though it be not read in the forehead. And for the difference in respect of the childe, 'tis certain that at that time, when it is given, to him it signifies nothing, because at that time he hath not the gift of interpreting the p. 226character. And that afterward he is able to do it, is certainly from advertisement, and instruction of others: For the character of circumcision signifies not naturally, but only voluntarily, or by Institution; else were the Ishmaelites &c. within the Covenant: and accordingly the childe understands it not by strength of common notions, or as a conclusion from any principle in Nature, but as he is told by others, both what was done to him, and what was the meaning of it, and therefore the same Law that commanded the Jews to circumcise, commanded them also to teach their children; and of that information, and instruction, the Christian, that was baptized in his infancy, is as capable, as the Jew that was circumcised, and the care of the Church may be as punctual now, as it was of the Synagogue: and if that were really conceived to be an objection, it would both give the advantage on the Churches side, (which appoints Undertakers and Sureties, which in circumcision was not appointed, and addes the promise of the Godfathers, to the duty of the parents, to secure instruction to them) and would rather perswade the providing of more Godfathers, or laying a stricter charge on them, then the removing of that Christian, ancient, innocent ceremony out of the Church, or those Godfathers that we have already.

p. 227And if [aaNum. 13.Num 13 the word] which in baptism §. 55 is joyned with the water, be also made known to the childe, when he comes to age, as well as the nature of the Covenant, into which he was entred, there will then be as little force in the second part, or suppletory to the argument, as there was in the first, supposing [the word] to be a part of the Sacrament, and to signifie the words, that are used in Baptism, the form of baptizing in the name of the Father, and Son, and holy Ghost. But, I conceive, [the word] which when it is joyned with the Element, is by the Fathers frequently said to make up a Sacrament (Accedat verbum ad elementum, & fiet Sacramentum) may more properly signifie Christs Institution of Baptism (for that is it that makes dipping or sprinkling with water, a Sacrament) and proportionably to that, the Text of Scripture, that gives commission to the Church, to receive, and embrace Christians children. And if that should be the notion of [verbum, the word] it is then the Congregation onelyonly, that is concerned in that, and thereby receives warrant for what they do, and the childes want of understanding, is no hindrance to it, any more then it is to the efficacy of the prayers of the Congregation, for the obtaining from God all those Christian graces, that, as soon as the childe is capable of them, p. 228God can early grant, and, when they are received, the childe make use of.

§. 56 So when he proceeds farther to invalidate the parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism, in these two respects: First, Because the Christian Infants are not baptized strictly on the eighth day, as the Jews were circumcised; Secondly, That the females are baptized, which were not circumcised: It already appears, That this is not of force against me, who do not undertake to make Christian Baptism parallel to Circumcision, but to the Jews baptizing of Proselytes, and that sure belonged to their females, as well as males, and was no more bound to the eighth day, then our baptism is, but yet was constantly allowed to the Proselytes children, as well as to themselves that were of full age.

§. 57 As for the placing the analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism (and so betwixt the adherencies of both) in the letter of the one, but in the spirit and signification of the other, that as Infants were circumcised, so spiritual Infants should be baptized, i. e. that they that are baptized should be children in malice, &c. That is, first, but a phancy, and a new way of making paralle…s betwixt Sacraments: for Sacraments, as such, are all significative, and so are both these, and in that sense both spiritual, and not one to be taken in p. 229the letter, and the other in the spirit. And indeed, baptism is no more spiritual circumcision, then circumcision is spiritual baptism, but both of them are rites of Initiation among the Jews, and one of them by Christ continued among Christians. And so for the adherencies of them; The baptizing of children may as well signifie, that the men that are baptized, ought to be like children (or, as Christ saith, enter the kingdome of God as that little childe, i. e. be children in malice, regenerate and born again) as the circumcising of Infants may be said to fore typifie it. The truth is, the spiritual childe, i. e. the pure, and innocent, is equally the subject of both. All which, though it make it most reasonable, that they that are not circumcised, or baptized till full age, should then with vows of new life enter the Covenant of Mercy, that belongs to none but to such as do so, and undergo those significative rites accordingly; yet doth it no way prejudge the receiving of real Infants also, who (as children in wickedness, as well as in age) have as yet a small proportion of either, … so are as capable in that sense, as the others repentance, and vows of new life, have rendred them.

And if the Primitive Church did give §. 58 milk and honey to the baptized, with that intention; to signifie, that if they were men p. 230in age, they ought yet to be children in wickedness: All that that will conclude, is, That the little children were proposed to the men, as their patterns, if they aspired to baptism: and if these qualifications were necessary to be transcribed from them, to give the men a capacity of baptism, sure they, who had them in the originals, would not reasonably be thought uncapable, unless some other incapacity were proved against them, which is not yet pretended in this reasoning.

§. 59 The next attempt is to invalidate the inference, Num. 14.Num 14which is said to be made from Christs blessing of Infants: Where, if the inference were, that all Infants are, i. e. ought to be baptized, upon this (and no other) ground, because Christ blessed them, I should acknowledge the conclusion to be weakly built: But when (as it hath formerly appeared) all the conclusion inferr'd by us hence, is onelyonly this, That the Infants are capable of being blessed by Christ, though they understand not what Christ is; and consequently that it must be uncharitable in those, who deny them this means of Christs, for deriving this blessing to them, upon no other reas… but because they do not beleive, or understand. And when the contrary conclusion (pretended to be more probably inferr'd) [that because Christ blessed these Infants, but dismissed them without baptism, p. 231therefore Infants are not to be baptized,] is so very far from being inferred probably, First, because from a part…cular omission, to conclude an universal unlawfulness, is most unreasonable; as if one should thus argue [Christ, when he prayed in the Mount, did not then preach, but onelyonly pray, therefore 'tis not lawful to preach.] Or, secondly, because though Christ baptized not those Infants before mentioned, yet 'tis for all that possible he might baptize other Infants. And thirdly, because Christ did not, that we know, baptize himself at all, Joh. 4.2. but appointed his disciples to baptize, as the Bishop now seldome baptizes, but ordains others to that function. Therefore, I say, for all these reasons, I suppose, the pretensions of that Section, Num. 14. are no way inferred against us, who do not so confine the power or mercy of Christ, as if he had no other way of bringing Infants to heaven, but onelyonly by baptism, but acknowledge, that when the Sectary himself may for his schism and uncharitableness fall under the displeasure of Christ, the poor Infant, which is … way guilty of the parents pertinacy, or unkindeness, may be abundantly supplyed by the covenant and grace of Christ, without receiving this sign of it, and wanting the ordinary means, may be allowed extraordinary.

p. 232§. 60 And the same reply is sufficient to all that is added, Num. 15. for we that think and pronounce, that God may bring children to heaven which are not baptized, and acknowledge the unbaptized Infant, to be in that perfectly guiltless, and so unpunishable, in the justice of God, for the omission of the parents, do not consider or assert the Institution of baptism, as the appointing of a rule, without which the supernatural end cannot be attained, and therefore are guiltless of having argued invalidly in that particular. And if we were as confident, that God hath commanded Infants to be baptized, as against us 'tis pretended for the Anabaptists, that they are sure, he hath not commanded it; yet we that think no person punishable for the breach of a command, but him who knowingly hath despised, or omitted it, must conclude nothing, but good hope of the unbaptized Infant, and onelyonly desire to reduce the Parent, or the Congregation, or Curate of the place, to the acknowledgement of their duty, which if neglected, may justly become blameable, and dangerous to them, w… have neither the ignorance, nor impor… of the childe to plead for them.

§. 61 And this, as it is a full answer to that branch of the arguing (Num. 15.) so it is acknowledged as undenyably true, and built on Num. 16. viz. that whatever p. 233the consequent of Original sin is, either it shall not be charged on Infants, or that Gods goodness will secure them, if he take them away, before they can glorifie him with a free obedience: which, and all the rest, which is added to that sense, in Num. 16. we acknowledge most true, as far as concerns the Infants present interests toward eternal life, (for we are far from the opinion of him, whose doctrine of the efficiency of that instrument, so signal, that where it was omitted, there was no place for hope, justly intituled him a hard father of Infants) but yet conceive there are other reasons beside those there named, why Infants should be brought, and received to baptism: wherein, as the Infants imperfect condition secures them from being blamed, or mulcted for the omission of baptism, so they that are of age to know what kindeness, and obedience signifies, and so are capable of the crime, and guilt of being unkinde, and disobedient, may fitly be admonished of their own sin and danger.

One sort of those reasons, I suppose §. 62 …self to know, viz. that children may …hus early received into the Covenant, and thereby, First, by Oath, and all other the most precious concernments and obligations, pre-engaged to the actions of a pious Christian life (assoon as they can p. 234be instructed in any part of this oath) without ever being adventured to the hazards of the contrary infusions, that the timely taking into the Church, may prevent the pollutions of the world, and Satan be supplanted, by this speedy giving up the name unto Christ. And secondly, that by the Promises of God also signed in that Sacrament, they may be more solemnly secured of a right in the inward assistances of the spirit of Christ, (which yet I hope will not without their guilt be withheld from them, in case they be not baptized) and the outward advantages, and prerogatives of being members of his Church, (such are participation of the prayers, and instruction of the Ministery, and other benefits of confirmation, and the Lords Supper, which certainly belong not to them that are not baptized) assoon as ever they are capable of receiving them. And that certainly is much earlier for most of them, then that part of the age, wherein they can be supposed (by having been sufficiently instructed in the whole Christian doctrine, and having in full purpose of minde undertaken Christs yoke) to be voluntarily, and by free choice (without this obligatio…) rendred capable of that baptism, which belongs to those of full age, and for which the Anabaptist pretends. To these I may farther adde, that as baptism is to p. 235Infants an Institution of Christ, so it gives a virtue to the external act, and words pronounced by the Minister, so far as to make them members of Christ, and children of God, and heirs of his kingdome. And this hath been the doctrine of the Church of God. Besides, the fear of being continued in the state of Original guilt, is to be considered also, and hath by the Fathers been generally considered in this matter, and without defining the damage to those, who have been, without their own fault, detained from it, the Church hath delivered it for certain doctrine, that children being baptized, have all things necessary to their salvation, and are undoubtedly saved.

And though I could name no more of §. 63 those reasons, yet as long as I ought to suppose an Institution of Christ, or practise of his Apostles to be founded in weightier reasons: then 'tis certain (or necessary) that I know, there will be no way to disprove the reasonableness of the practise, but by taking away the Apostolicalness of the ground, and so the no-fear of the Infants losing heaven by the p…ents unkindeness, will never prove, That there is no-need of baptizing Infants, which is the sole pretension of the 16. Numb.

And truly, that parents, who in this §. 64 Section are supposed to convey Adams sin p. 236and punishment to their Infant-children, and do also know that it is taken away by Christ, but withall, that Christ commands all that desire to be partakers from him of that benefit, to be baptized, and so born anew of water and of the holy Ghost (though they, whose fault it is not, that they are not baptized, shall, I hope, never be punished, or deprived, without all guilt) should not contribute their utmost to the cure of this haereditary evil, and be instruments of conveying to them the Antidote, as they have been the conduits of the Poyson, and so joyn as far in the latter, as they are by the disputer confessed to be engaged in the former part of the solemnity, seems either a great sloth, or a great unkindeness, or an itch of disputing, and innovating, and is indeed much more heinous then any of these, a causless disrelish, and fastidious contempt of an Institution of Christ. For all which, they that have no weightier exceptions against an act of charity, and another of obedience, then what are here produced, have sure no competent reward in their prospect, to recommend such unamiable, and unnecessary vices to them.

§. 65 This clears us from the reproach of that narrow conception of God Almighty, that because he hath tyed us to the observation of ceremonies of his own Institution, p. 237therefore he hath tyed himself to it] No, our doctrine is not pressed with any danger, or fear of such inconvenience; all that we conclude, is, That if God have tyed us, we are bound to obey. And as, when we are allowed to acknowledge that God can bring a childe into the world without the help of a Midwife, we yet think our selves doubly obliged both to the mother, and the childe in the womb, to bespeak a Midwifes presence and assistance to the first throw: so need we not be suspected to shorten Gods hand, or prejudge his power or goodness, if, as soon as the childe is born in the world, we desire by the Ministers ayd, to help it to a new birth, and introduce it into the Church also.

That which is added in the close of §. 66 that Number, that 'tis most unreasonable on our own head, to carry Infants to God this way without his direction] signifies little to us, who do not, what we contend for, in this matter, on our own heads, having certainly the continued example, and practise of the Church to go before us in it, nor, as we suppose, without his direction, which we think we can better infer from the Apostles practise, and clear that practise by greater evidence, and consequence from Scripture, then any man can pretend to do the contrary. And yet let me adde, ex abundanti, that they p. 238that from analogy of an indefinite command of Christ (that of baptizing all nations) shall extend that command to the baptizing the Infants of the converted nations, when, if the analogy doth not exactly hold, yet it is thought to hold so far as it is extended (and for so thinking, the opinion and practise of the whole Church of God for so m…ny hundred years is produced, and no shew of prohibition can be by any pretended against thus extending it) cannot, with any shew of reason, be censured for most unreasonable; many things being very lawful to be practised, which are neither commanded, nor directed by God, as long as the contrary is not directed: and if such be practised upon grounds of supposed obedience, either to Christ, or his Apostles, or the Church of God, and upon charitative ends, they will be found as commendable, and as highly reasonable, as either disobedience, or uncharitableness, are unreasonable. So far is the conceit we defend, from being poor, and low (as, if it undertook to retrench Gods power, it might justly be supposed) or the action, consequent to it, to be too bold and venturous, unless excess of meekness, and fear of offending, may be styled too bold, or abundance of caution, and charitable care, too venturous.

§. 67 The same argument is again repeated p. 239Num. 17. without any farther improvement, and every word of it being wholly spent on Gods care of Infants, the Infants incapacity of doing acts in order to salvation, Gods immediate mercy to them, without any external act or ministery, or confinement to particular rite, and this as well now, as before the Institution of Circumcision or Baptism] may very securely be acknowledged by us, as far as concerns the childe. OnelyOnly let me demand, whether the case were not somewhat altered in respect of a Jewish parent, after the institution of Circumcision, f om what it was before? and whether, if upon the wilful omission of circumcising the childe on the eighth day, the Angel should come and kill the childe, (though the devils did not seize on him to torment him eternally) that mother, and that wife, that were guilty of this omission, were not a bloody mother, and wife, and, the death of this childe being a punishment to the father, whether that parent that were thus punished, were not thereby supposed criminous, though the childe were but hastned to heaven, and not hindred by this means? If this question cannot be answered Negatively, as I suppose it cannot; and if the Institution of Christ extended to Infants, as I suppose it doth, and hath formerly been testified to extend, there will then be nothing p. 240left that can be thought to need answer in the 17. Num.

§. 68 This again is the argument of the 18. Num. There is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external ministery, much less for praevaricating Christs precept of [Unless a man be born again, &c.] And 'tis already evident, that this is granted by us, and that it yields the opposers no kinde of advantage against us. And when the conclusion is safely granted, the pains of confuting the reasons that are used to infer it, might, one would think, be securely spared also. But there are many things in that 18. Num. which are not rightly suggested, which, if they were, might be thought to have some validity in them, farther then the inferring the conclusion, which they are produced to confirm: As first, That water and the spirit, Joh. 3.5. signifie the same thing, and by water is meant the effect of the spirit, cleansing and purifying the soul. These words I conceive to be so far from bringing any evidence of truth with them, that they do, one branch of them, sufficiently confute the other: for if the water were acknowledged to be really an effect of the spirit, yet would that be far from concluding those two words [water and spirit] the same thing, because never any thing is the cause, or effect of it self, but when 'tis onelyonly p. 241pretended, that by water is meant that effect, i. e. that the cleansing and purifying of the soul, which really is an effect of the spirit, is onelyonly signified by the water; this is as far from proving the words to signifie the same, as our affirming water to be the Sign, and purifying the soul the grace, and baptism, the rite of conveying that grace, can be deemed to conclude it our opinion, That water, and grace, and baptism, are all one. And then the onelyonly thing to be interposed in this matter, will be; That men ought to be wary, that they do not suffer different things to be imposed on them, as if they were the same, nor beleive a proposition to be evidenced by that explication, by which it is really confuted. If the meaning be no more then this, that the water signifies the spirit, considered in one effect of it, of cleansing the soul, then (though I think it signifies somewhat more also, a death unto sin, and a new life unto righteousness, in the sense that is affirmed by our Church, and interpreted**Pract Cat. l. VI. § 2. p. 310. elswhere, yet) I think, 'tis from thence clear, that it signifies not the same thing that the spirit doth, any more then a sign, and the thing signified, signifie the same. The sign signifies the substance or grace; but the substance or grace is it, and doth not signifie it. And this is no nicety, but the very thing wherein the p. 242difficulty (all that is in this matter) consists. For, supposing the water to be the sign of the cleansing power of the spirit, and so baptism by water the thing instituted by Christ, to signifie the necessity of our being washed spiritually; Christs affirming the no-possibility of entring the kingdome of God, without being born again, both of water, and of the holy Ghost, and not onelyonly of one of them, though it exclude not those that are guilty of no fault, in not being baptized with water, cannot yet be doubted to make baptism by water regularly necessary, and so (though not exclusive of all other means of Gods bestowing heaven on Infants, yet) unfit to be advisedly laid aside, omitted, or contemned by any, either for themselves, or for others, that are by God or Nature committed to their trust.

§. 69 But afterward, when it is alleaged, that the aequipollence of these two, water and spirit, appears in its parallel place of Christs baptizing with the spirit and fire, I profess to beleive it evident that those places are not parallel. The mention of baptism with water, and the spirit] was made by Christ to Nicodemus in a wide indefinite latitude [Except a man be thus regenerate, he cannot enter, &c.] Joh. 3.5. and it referred clearly to the initiating men indefinitely (i. e. all men) into the p. 243Church, (proportionably to the baptism among the Jews, which was the ceremony of admitting all, both natives and proselytes, and their children) and belonged to all that would enter into the kingdome of God, to every Christian. But that of baptizing with the holy Ghost, and with fire, Mat. 3.11. was spoken by John Baptist of Christ, and by Christ to the Apostles, and refers to the descent of the Spirit upon them, and not upon all Christians. And what if, beside the literal fulfilling of it at Pentecost, there be morally more in it? i. e. though it signifie the effect of the holy Ghost, and his productions on the soul; Yet, first, it signifies not the same production that water signified, the water was presumed to signifie sanctifying grace, the fire, in form of tongues, signified the gift of tongues, that was given in it, and perhaps more, the fire, that should soon come out, and devour the gainsayers, the destructions that are elswhere described by fire (and so in that place, v. 12.) that were soon after to fall on unbeleivers, when this last method was frustrated, and as Christ long before, so now the holy Ghost blasphemed also. And secondly, this doth not prove that water was not a ceremony instituted by Christ, to signifie that production: which were the onelyonly thing for the Anabaptists interest to be concluded by it.

p. 244§. 70 And whereas it is added, that Christ baptizes all that come to him, with the holy Ghost and with fire; and that attempted to be proved, because John tells the Jews, not Christs disciples, that Christ shall baptize them with fire and the holy Spirit, Mat. 3.11. i. e. all that came to him, as John did with water, for so lyes the Antithesis.] To this I answer, First, that Johns saying these words unto the Jews, doth not conclude that all the Jews, that should come to him, should be baptized with fire, 'twere sufficient to the verifying of the words, that some of them, especially chosen, and for the use of all the other, were to be thus baptized, signally constituted Apostles, by that means, to preach to them, and all nations; and the Antithesis being acknowledged to be by way of comparison betwixt John and Christ, not by way of contrary opposition, might be very well made up thus, John used no higher element then the water in Jordan, but Christ shall send fire from heaven, a much more convincing evidence of his power, on the heads of select witnesses to give them (more then an entrance of Proselytes) a commission of Apostles and Governors of the Church. And this is sufficient to shew the unconcludingness of that pretended parallel.