THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Dis­course about Infant-Baptism, I think it re­quisite to premise a short Introduction.

First, Concerning the Original, And

Secondly, Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church.

Thirdly, Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it, and the Persons that were capable of Initiation.

And Lastly, Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy, or to express my self more plainly in the Heb. 2.5, 6▪ Scripture-phrase, concerning the al­teration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ.

As for the Original of the Jewish Church, it is to be re­ferred unto Abraham the Rom. 4.11. Father of the Faithful purely con­sidered as a Church. But if it be considered as a Common-wealth, [Page 2] or as a Church under such a Political Regulation, then it is to be referred unto Moses, who was called, even by Heathen Writers, the Dionys. Lon­gin. [...]. Sect. 7. Legislator of the Jews. These two Considerations of the Jewish Church, purely as a Church, and as a Common-wealth, or as a Church under such a mixture with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be distinguished.

1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature of the thing.

2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle, who was of the Seed of Abraham, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church, and as a Common-wealth.

First, I say, there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing, as is evident to any Man, who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before, and after its Union with the Empire. Before its Union with the Empire, it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years, in a State of Persecution, from Christ unto Constantine the Great; and just so the Jewish Church for above four hun­dred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses, who brought them out of Egypt, and gave them the Law.

But Secondly, As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing, so is it in effect made by the Apo­stle, Gal. 3.17. This I say, that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God [with Abraham] in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise [to Abraham] of none Effect. Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Pro­mise which God made with Abraham and his Seed, when he separated him from the World unto himself, and that Political one, which he afterwards made with the Jews, when he gave them the Law: And this difference is also observed, Rom. 4.13. The Promise, that he should be the Heir of the World, was not given to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith: For [Page 3] if they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise is of no effect.

From these words, which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham, or the Promise, which he made unto him, and the Law, it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered, as a Church, is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham, and therefore in the se­cond place, the way to find out the nature of the Abraha­mical, or pure Jewish Church, is to consider the nature of the Covenant, or Promise upon which it was founded; and if we examine the Scriptures, we shall find, that it was an Evangelical Covenant: For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ. This will appear upon a Review of those Scrip­tures which teach us, That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant; that it was made with Fide autem stare justitiā, & illic esse vi­tam praedictā est apud Hab­baccuc. Justus autem ex fide vivet. Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit. In Genes. credidit Abraham Deo, & deputatum est ei ad justitiam. Item Paulus ad Galatas. Abraham credidit Deo & deputatum est ei ad justitiam. Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae, providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide, &c. Cyprian. advers. Judaeos. Judaeos à Deo recessisse. — successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes, & de omnibus Gentibus, ac toto orbe venientes. Cyprian. ad Quirin. Testim. L. 3. Abraham, as the Father of the Faithful, and in him with all Believers, with his Spiritual, as well as Carnal Seed, proceeding from him by Spiritual, as well as Natural Generation; and that the Bles­sings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith.

To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, from the 9th. to the 15th. Verse: Cometh then this Blessedness [of Justificati­on by Faith] upon the Circumcision only, or upon the Un­circumcision also? For we say, that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness; how was it then reckon'd? When he was in Circumcision, or in Uncircumcision? Not in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision; and he re­ceived the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of (the Promises made to) the Righteousness of Faith, which he had being [Page 4] yet uncircumcised that [so believing before Circumcision] he might be the Father (both) of all them that believe, tho' they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be impu­ted unto them also (as his Children) and the Father of Circumcision to them, who are not of the Circumcision only, but (who) also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircum­cised; for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World (in his Posterity) was not to Abraham, or his Seed, through (the Righteousness of) the Law; but through the Righteousness (which cometh) of Faith: For if they [only] which are of the Law be Heirs, (his) Faith ( so much celebrated is made void, and the Promise made (to it) of no effect. So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse: He therefore that ministreth unto you the (extraordinary Gifts of the) Spirit, and worketh Miracles among you; doth he it by the works of the Law, or by the Faith, which you have heard preached, even as (it is written of) Quoniam autem & in Abraham prae­figurabatur fides nostra, & quoniam Pa­triarcha no­strae fidei, & velut prophe­ta fuit, plenis­simè Aposto­lus docuit in eâ Epistolâ, quae est ad Ga­latas dicens, Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum & operatur virtutes in vo­bis — Ire­naeus Lib. 4. cap. 38. Abra­ham, (he) believed God, and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness; know ye therefore, that they which are (the Children) of Faith, the same are the Children of Abraham; and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed. So then they which be (the Children) of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe. Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham, or his Seed, or Race were the Promises [of God] made: He, ( i. e. God, or Moses his Pen-man) saith, Not to Seeds, or Races, as if there were divers of them; but to thy Seed, i. e. to one of thy Seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the (Abrahamical) Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise ( made unto Abraham) of none effect.

From all these Texts put together, it is plain, that the Abrahamical Covenant, upon which the Jewish Church, as such, was founded, was of a Spiritual, Evangelical Na­ture, [Page 5] and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who was made of the Seed of Abraham, and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed, and whose Day Abra­ham himself saw, and rejoyced. It is farther evident from them, that this Covenant was made with Abraham, as the Father of Believers, and with his Posterity, not as pro­ceeding from him by natural, but by spiritual Generation, as Heirs of his Faith, as is plain from Rom. 4.16. There­fore (the Promise) is of Faith, that so also it might be by Grace; to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed (of Abraham) not to that only, which is of the Law; but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all, both Jew and Gentile, that be­lieve. So Chap. 9.6. &c. not as tho' the Word or Promise of God to them had taken none effect: For they are not all (the) Israel which are descended of Israel; neither be­cause they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children (of God's Covenant) but ('tis said) in Isaac shall thy Seed be called; [ tho' Abraham had more Sons] that is (all) they which are the Children of the Flesh, these are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Promise (only as Isaac was) are counted for the Seed.

Hence saith the Apostle in the name of the Christians, Phil. 3.3. we are the Circumcision, which worship God in the Spi­rit, and have no Confidence in the Flesh, and it is one God which shall justifie the Circumcision by Faith, and the Uncircumcision through Faith; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs, according to the Promise, which God made unto Abraham.

Furthermore, that this Covenant was Evangelical, and made with the Posterity of Abraham, not as his Natural, but as his Spiritual Off-spring, will appear in the third place from the initiatory Sacrament into it, which was Circumcision, or cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh; as it is written, You shall Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Flesh, and it shall be a Sign of the Covenant betwixt me and you. Hence the Covenant of which it was the Sign, is called by Acts 7.8. St. Stephen, the Covenant of Circumcision; and Cir­cumcision on the other hand is called by St. Paul, the Seal [Page 6] of the Righteousness of Faith; Faith, or Faithful Obe­dience being the Condition of that Covenant which God required of the Children of Abraham, and which they promised to perform. It also signified the Circumcision of the [...], Justin. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. [...]. ibid. p. 261. Heart; as Moses said unto the People of Israel, Cir­cumcise the Fore-skin of your Hearts, Deut. 10.16. and in Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine heart, and the hearts of thy Seed, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul, that thou mayest live. And agreeable unto this Spiritual Signification of Circum­cision, St. Paul saith Rom. 2.28. He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that Circumcision, which is outwardly in the Flesh, but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and Cir­cumcision is that of the Heart, in the Spirit, and not in the Let­ter, whose Praise is not of Men, but of God.

As to the Persons who were capable of initiation into the Jewish Church by this Sacrament, we have a very plain account at the institution of it in Gen. Chap. 27. I will (saith God unto Abraham) establish my Covenant be­tween Me, and thee, and thy Seed after thee for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee, and thy Seed after thee — Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations; this is [The Token of] my Cove­nant, which ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy Seed af­ter thee, every Male among you shall be Circumcised. And ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your Fore-skin, and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt Me and you, and he that is eight days old shall be Circumcised among you, every Male in your Generati­ons, he that is born in the House, or bought with Money of any Stranger, which is not of thy Seed, he that is born in thy House, and he that is bought with thy Money must needs be Circumci­sed, and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant.

From this account of Persons to be Circumcised, it is plain,

[Page 7]First, That Gentiles who were born of Exod 12.48, 49. Gentile Parents in Abraham's House, or bought with his Money, as Ser­vants then were, and Blacks are now among us, were to be initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision, from whence it appears, that the Spiritual Race of Abraham were the Children of the Covenant, and that when God promised to be a God to him, and his Seed after him, he meant the Children of his Faith. Hence in all Ages of the Jewish Church, if any Gentiles embraced the Jewish Faith and Religion, they were admitted into it by Circumcision, and thereupon reckoned among the Posterity of Abraham, and the peculiar People of God, although they were not the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. There were great numbers of Gentiles thus converted to the Jewish Faith and Religion, and grafted like wild Branches into the Olive-Tree, in all the Ages of the Jewish Church. Not to mention particular Persons, we read that many of the Medes and Persians became Jews in the time of Ashuerus, Esther 8.17. Selden de jure l. 2. c. 2. Likewise, in the time of David and Solomon, vast numbers of the neighbouring Countries embraced Ju­daism, and in the time of Hyrcanus the whole Nation of the Idumaeans turned Jews, and lived in their own Country according to the Jewish Rites. This short account of the Jewish Proselytes may satisfie any Man, who is not perver­ted beyond cure, that the Church of the Jews was not founded upon, nor constituted by natural Generation, but by Spiritual Regeneration, as the Church Christian is, and that those, who were then related unto God, as Members of his Church were so, because they were the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, who then was and still is the Father of the Church, and Church Members, to whom he is rela­ted not in his Natural, but in his Religious Capacity, as he was a Believer, and the Father of all those that believe.

But Secondly, It is manifest from this Scriptural account of persons to be Circumcised, that Circumcision was an Ordinance of Latitude, comprehending Persons of all Ages, and that Children, and Minors not yet arrived at years of Discretion, who were incapacitated, as to some ends of Circumcision, were notwithstanding to be solemnly initi­ated [Page 8] by it, as well as grown Men, who were capable of all. God was pleased to call them his; nay, they were his Property, as much as their Parents of whom they descended, he looked upon them as holy and separate, and as Candidates of the Covenant, and he thought them so well qualified for admission into it, that he would not have it put off beyond the eighth day.

He that is eight days old, or as it is in the Original, a Son of eight days, shall be circumcis'd among you. God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental In­itiation upon the account of natural incapacity, that he limited the time for the administration of it, beyond which he would not have it deferr'd. And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it, from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist, and Christ, who were both Circumcised the Luke 1.59.2.21. eighth day. Nay when any Gentile turned Jew, they immediately Circum­cised his Children if he desired it; always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Pa­rents. Thus saith God unto Abraham, I will establish my Covenant between thee and me, and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy Seed after thee.

The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World, and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People, by which they became relatively Holy, and of a religious Consideration, and differed from the Children of Unbe­lievers, as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves. Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents, and look upon them as Holy upon their account, it is no won­der that he should oblige them to dedicate, and devote them betimes unto him, by solemn initiation into his Church. I say, he called and elected them in their Pa­rents, and with them separated them unto himself from the World, and, agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call, and separation, he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church, by the initia­ting [Page 9] Ordinance, which the Children of Heathens were not capable of, because they were not so called, and chosen, and separated of God.

This was ground enough for their admission into the Church, and for God to look upon them, as Believers, though they could not make open Profession of their Faith, as Abraham did before he was Baptized, and it is certain, after the example of Abraham, all Selden de Synedr. l. 2. c. 3. adult Proselytes did. But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Cir­cumcised, Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circum­cised before he professed, or could profess his Faith, be­cause if he lived he was as sure to profess it by vertue of his Calling, and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his.

In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father, or, if the Child had none, of the Susceptor or God-father, 1 Maccab. 2.46. and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised, was believed of old by the Jews to be Seld. de iure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr. l. 1. c 3. imputed to the Child, as his own Faith and Consent. They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion, because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents, in wilfully neg­lecting, or despising Circumcision, was imputed to the Children, who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant, when they were not circumcised, as it is written, Every uncircumcised Male, whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised, that Soul shall be cut off from his People; he hath broken my Covenant; Cassand. de Baptism. In­fant. p. 732. and therefore if the Act of Pa­rents in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs, much more their Act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their Act and Deed. Thus in Numb. 3.28. we find the keeping of the Sanctuary im­puted to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards, because their Fathers actually kept it, and they were to be trained up unto it; and in Deut. 29.11, 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into Covenant with God, because the Men of Israel did so; and thus also our Blessed Lord, who took upon him the Seed of Abraham, although he healed Matth. 9.29. grown Persons for their own Faith; [Page 10] yet he healed Mark 9.23. Matth. 8.13. John 4.50. Vid. Cassand. de Baptismo In­fant. p. 729. Dr. Taylor of Baptizing In­fants, Great Exemplar. P [...]t 1. Sect. 9. Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents; or others who besought him for them; as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith.

Having now briefly discoursed of the Original, and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church, and the Initia­tory Sacrament of it, and the persons that were initiated thereinto, I now proceed to make a few Observations up­on the Alteration of it, from the Mosaical into the Christi­an Oeconomy; or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament, into the Evangelical under the New.

For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it; so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel, that it was under the Law. The Foun­dation is the same, tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different. For Abraham is still the Fa­ther of the Faithful; and we that believe under the Go­spel, are as much his Seed, and Children in God's prime Intention, and the true meaning of the Words, as those that were Believers under the Law.

Hence it comes to pass, that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament, the New and Supernal Je­rusalem; to let us know, that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism, the same City new reformed, constitu­ted upon a new Charter, blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly; and every way better built, and more August than it was. Thus in Rev. 3.12. Unto him that overcometh (saith the Son of Man) I will write the Name of my God, and the Name of the City of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which is come down out of Heaven, from my God: that is, I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly, and for a true Member of the pure Catholick Christian-Church, which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above. And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God, down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride, adorned for her Husband, meaning Jesus Christ. So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above, or the Supernal Jerusalem is [a] free [City] which is the Mother of us all.

[Page 11]Hence also it comes to pass, that St. Peter in his first Gene­ral Epistle, calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews, as unto his pe­culiar People, viz. a chosen Generation, a Royal Priesthood, an Holy Nation, a peculiar People; which must needs imply, that the Christian Church is fundamentally, and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews. Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles, yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild Olive-Tree into the old Olive-Trees Stock. It some of the Branches (saith Rom. 11. he unto them) be broken off [through Unbelief] and thou being a wild Olive Branch, was grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the [Ancient] Olive-Tree, boast not against the Branches [so cut off] but if thou boast [remember that] thou bearest not the Root, but the Root thee; and after­wards, If thou wert cut off from the Olive-Tree, which is wild by Nature, and wert grafted contrary to [thy wild] Nature into a good Olive-Tree, how much more shall these [unbelieving Jews] which be the natural Branches, be re-grafted into their own Olive-Tree? From this Comparison it is plain, that the Jewish and Christian Church are the same in the Root and Stock: And from this radical Argument that is betwixt them, it proceeds, that St. John in his Symbolical way of Writing in the Apocalyps, calls the Christians Jews: Behold I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews but are not, Rev. 3.9.2.9. Indeed, as Judaism was nothing but mystical Christianity; so Christianity is nothing but reformed Judaism, which made our Saviour, who was the Reformer of it, say unto the Jews, Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to perfect and fulfil. And unto his Disciples, who under him were to be Master-Builders of his House, he said, That a Scribe, or Doctor rightly instructed unto the Kingdom of God, was like a Man that is an Housholder, who bringeth out of his Store-house things both new and old. Thereby shewing, as Irenaeus observes, L. 4. c. 21. & 43. that he must be a very skilful Scribe in the Old Testament, that was fit to [Page 12] make a Workman of the new. The Old Testament and legal Oeconomy was to be his Magazine, and Storehouse, out of which he was to fetch many serviceable pieces for the new Building; and accordingly our Saviour, tho' in reforming the House of Moses, he was fain to pull it down, that it might be enlarged, yet both he that began the Re­formation, and his Apostles, who finished it, like Men that were House-holders, used much of the Old Timber and Materials, and conformed it too, as much as they could, after the manner of the old. Dr. Ham­mond of In­fant-Baptism. They introduced as much of Judaism into the Christian Religion, as the nature of the Reformation would well bear, and adhered as much as they could to the old, both in the Matter and Form of the new Oeconomy; and laid by few Jewish Rites and Cu­stoms, but such as were fulfilled in Christ and Christiani­ty, as the Antitype and Substance of them; or else such as were inconsistent with the Nature of the Church-Christian, as it was to be a manly, free, and universal Church.

These were the two reasons for which Christ and his Apostles so much altered the Face of the Church from what it was under the Mosaical Oeconomy, First, because very many of the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were Ac primò ita his in re­bus compara­tur, ut antity­pus in typi locum succe­dat, eumque adeo loco moveat, ut simul atque antitypus adsit, nullus deinceps typo locus, nullus usus reperiatur. Outramus de Sacrificiis, Lib. 2. c. 16. p. 204. ful­filled in Christ and Christianity; and Secondly, because many of them were inconsistent with the nature of a manly, free and universal Church, such as Christ intend­ed his should be.

First, Then, many of the Ecclesiastical rites, and usages of the Jews were laid aside, at the time of Reformation, because they were fulfilled in Christ, as the Antitype, and Substance of them, as is plain from the words of the Apostle, Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in Meat, or in Drink, or in respect of an Holyday, or of the New Moons, or of the Sabbath days, which are a Shadow of things that are to come to pass; but the Body is Christ: that is to [Page 13] say, Let no Man impose upon you the Doctrine of Mosai­cal Abstinence, or condemn you for eating and drinking things prohibited by the Jewish Religion, or for not ob­serving their Feasts, New Moons and Sabbaths, which are but Types of Christianity; and therefore ought to be laid aside. The like he doth shew in his Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the Temple, Priesthood, Altar, Sacrifices, and the whole Temple-Service; as is plain from many Pas­sages, whereof I shall recite some. The Priesthood being changed, there is made also of necessity a change in the Law, Chap. 7. 22. The Holy Ghost, this signifying there­by, that the way into the holiest of all, was not yet made manifest, while, as the first Tabernacle was yet standing, which was but a Figure for the time then present, in which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices; that could not make him that did the Service perfect [and cleansed] as pertaining to the Conscience, which stood, or consisted only in a certain use of Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and other carnal Ordinances imposed on them, [as Types] until the time of Reformation [by Christ] Chap. 9.8, 9, 10. So vers. 24. Christ [with the Blood of his Sacrifice] is not entred into the Holy Places made with Hands, which are the Figures of the true. And after all, Chap. 10. 1. the Law having only a Shadow of the good things to come, and not the Solidity of the things them­selves, can never with those [umbratical] Sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually make the Comers thereunto perfect.

It would make a Book of it self, to recite all the Types and Shadows of the Old Testament, which are applied to Christ and Christianity by the Writers under the New. Besides what occurs in the Apostles Writings, there is much to the same purpose in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, which is very ancient; the Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho the Jew; and the Fourth Book of Irenaeus, who af­ter insisting upon many typical things, and persons in the Old Testament, at last concludes in the 38th Chapter, Nihil enim vacuum, nihil sine signo; that almost every thing in it was typical, and had a mystical Reference to some­thing under the New.

[Page 14]But Secondly, as many of the Ecclesiastical Rites, and Usages of the Jewish Church were taken away, because they were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity, so many others were annulled, as being inconsistent with the nature of the Church-Christian, as it was to be a manly, free, and universal Church.

First, As it was to be a manly Church in opposition to the legal Pedagogy of the Jews, as St. Paul called it in saying, That the Law was but a School-master to bring them unto Christ [Gal. 3.24] and that the Jews were under it as Children are under Tutors, and Governors, until the time appointed by the Father, the Fulness of Time, when God sent forth his Son, [ Chap. 4.1, 2, 3, 4.] Hither we may refer abundance of those Precepts which concerned their Washings, and Purifications, or their Abstinence from menstruous Women, and unclean Creatures, which God imposed upon them in that State of Minority, chiefly to lecture unto them moral Purity and Temperance: For they had childish Understandings, and were, like Children, to be instructed by Symbols, and Symbolical Lessons, as is plain from the Precept about their Phylacteries, Numb. 15.38. Speak unto the Children of Israel, and bid them that they make Fringes in the Borders of their Garments throughout their Generations, and that they put upon the Fringes of their borders, a Ribband of Blue, and it shall be unto you for a Fringe, that you may look upon it, and remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them, and that ye seek not after your own Heart, and your own Eyes, after which ye use to go a Whoring.

But Secondly, As many of their Rites and Ceremonies were annulled at the time of Reformation, because they were inconsistent with the manly nature of the Christian Religion, so others were annulled, because they were not consistent with the free nature of it, in opposition to the Servile nature of the Jewish Church, which is excellently set forth by the Apostle, Gal. 4.22, &c. Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bond-maid, the other by a Free-wo­man, but he that was born of the Bond-maid was born ac­cording to the Flesh, but he that was born of the Free-woman, [Page 15] was born [by virtue of the] Promise which God made unto Abraham: Which things are an Allegory, for these [two Women] are the two Covenants. The one the Covenant which was made on Mount Sinai, which gen­dreth to Bondage, and this was Agar. For this Agar is [the figure of] Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is [still] in Bondage with her Children. But [Sarah is the figure of the Spiritual] Jerusalem, which is [come with Christ from] above, which is the Mother of us all.

Now this Ecclesiastical Bondage, and Servitude of the Jews, consisted in the vast number of their Religious Rites and Observances, which if a Man consider in retail as to the Days, Weeks, Months, and Years, which they were bound to observe; the multitude of Sacrifices of all sorts, which they were bound to offer; the frequent Wash­ings and Purifications they were bound to undergo; the strict distinction they were to make of clean from un­clean Animals; the Rules and Ceremonies they were bound to observe at Births, Marriages, Burials, at Bed and Board, at Home and Abroad, in Sickness and in Health, nay, even in Plowing, Sowing, and Reaping, he shall find that they were left almost in nothing to their own Freedom and Discretion, but that the Observances, to which they were bound in almost all their Actions, took up half of their time.

Such a burdensom and grievous Oeconomy was that un­der which the Jews lived, but yet how severe and slavish soever it was, it was suitable to the slavish temper of that People, upon whom God imposed all these Carnal Ordi­nances for the hardness of their hearts, and propension to Idolatry, as [...]. Justin Martyr often observes in his Dialogue with the Jew.

They were apt to forget God, and therefore he loaded them with so many Divine Rites and Observations, that at all times and places, and in every action, they might be put in mind of him, and this Ceremonial Yoke was so heavy upon them, that it was little less than intolerable, according to St. Peter, who said, Why tempt ye God to put a [Page 16] Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear? This he said in the Council at Jerusalem, against the believing Pharisees, who taught, that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentile Christians, and to command them to keep the Mosaical Law, not yet rightly understanding, or believing, that it was one end of Christ's coming to set them free from the Mosaick Obser­vances, as the Apostles then declared, and as St. Paul af­terwards instructed the Galatians, who were led away into this error, saying, Stand fast therefore in the Liberty, where­with Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the Yoke of Bondage.

Hither therefore we are to refer the annulling not so much of any particular sort of Jewish Ceremonies as of the whole Mass of them, even the dissolution of the whole Ceremonial Law, of which the Jews were grown weary, and with which they had been for a long time heavy la­den, when Christ called them to take his Yoke and Burden upon them, which was to be so easie, and light.

But then in the last place, as the obligatory force of all the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were taken away, because they were inconsistent with the free nature of the Christi­an Church: So some more especially were annulled, as be­ing inconsistent with the universality of it, as it was to be a Catholick Church.

Hither we may refer all those which were set up by God as Maimonides more Nevoch. p. 3. c. 37. Mounds and Hedges to keep the Jews from mixing and conversing with their Idolatrous Neighbours, and their Idolatrous Neighbours from being too familiar and well acquainted with them. Such as these were those of not rounding the Corners of their Heads, and of not shaving of the Corners of their Beards, of not letting their Cattel gender with divers kinds, of not sowing their Fields with mingled Seed, nor their Vineyards with divers Seeds; of not Plowing with an Ox and an Ass together, and of not wearing a Garment of Linnen and Woolen. God injoin­ed them these, and other things in opposition to the neigh­bouring Idolatrous Nations, that there might be a mutual strangeness and hatred betwixt them, and that by these [Page 17] and other Ceremonial Singularities, they might be distin­guished from the rest of the World. But then Christ co­ming to break down the middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles, and to abolish the Enmity of Ordi­nances that was betwixt them, that he might make Peace betwixt them, and reconcile them both into one Body in the Cross, it was requisite to this end, that he should abo­lish these, and all other distinguishing Characters betwixt them, which would have hindred the Progress of the Go­spel, had it been clogg'd with Jewish Rites and Ceremo­nies, which were become so odious, and ridiculous to all the Gentile World.

In particular, For this reason he was obliged to change the Initiatory Sacrament, and the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, I mean Circumcision, by which the Jews (ex­cepting a few The ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Is­maelites, Chol­chians. Nations) were distinguished from all the World.

They were become Jura Verpe per Anchia­lum. Mart. Credat Judaeus Apelles. Horat. Ferro succiderit inguinis oram. Petron. Mox & praeputia ponunt. Ju­ven. 1 Cor. 7.18. Is any Man called, being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised. i. e. Let him not use means to attract the Praeputium, which the Jews did often to avoid Shame, and Persecution in Gentile Countries. odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it, and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Go­spel, had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby.

Furthermore, it alone was reckoned as a grievous bur­den by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it; and for that Reason also was laid aside, as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion; for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses, and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it, we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been of­fended at the Apostles, and at their Doctrine, upon the ac­count thereof.

No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood, and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be ad­mired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism; which was of more universal [Page 18] significancy, and which Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramen­torum divino­rum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur, tingit & ipse quosdam, utique credentes, ac fideles suos — caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus — nonne manifeste dia­bolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est? Tertull. de praescrip. haeret. c. 40. O nimium faciles! Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ. Pagans (as Paganism was no­thing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil) practised, as well as Jews.

Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy, and of reforming of it into the Christian Church, but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed, that Verissimum enim est, quod vir doctissimus Hugo Brough­tonus ad Dani­elem notavit: Nullos à Chri­sto institutos ritus novos, &c. Grotii opusc. Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Ham­mond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants. Christ and his Apostles, who were the Reformers of it, did build with many of the old Materi­als, and conformed their new house, as much as they could, after the Platform of the old. This will appear from Baptism it self, which was a Ceremony by which Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedi. l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebrai­cae, p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants. Jacob Altingius dis­sert. Philolo­gica Septima de Proselytis. Prose­lytes both Men, Women, and Children were initia­ted into the Jewish Church. Though it were but a mere humane Institution, or, as the dissenting Parties usu­ally phrase it, a mere humane Invention; yet so much re­spect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church, that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned, he con­secrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church, and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of Mede 1 Book disc. 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice. Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper. Thorn­dike of Religious Assembly. chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar. p. 1. disc. of Baptism. Numb. 11. Jewish Original, as hath been shewed by many Learned Men, and the Correspondence of the Bi­shops, Presbyters, and Deacons, to the High-Priest, Priests and Levites, doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church, as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron, & filii ejus, & Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, & Presbyteri & diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. What the High-Priest, Priests, and Levites, were in the Temple, that [Page 19] the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament.

Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspon­dence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church, as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned, and Pious In his Dis­course concern­ing the one Al­tar, and the one Priest-hood, &c. Mr. Dodwell.

To all which, I may add many other Institutions, as that of Dr. Taylor his great Ex­emplar Disc. of Baptism. Num [...]. 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication, and of the ritual performance of Ordination, Confirmation, and Absolution of Peni­tents by Imposition of Hands, all which are of Jewish Original.

Likewise, the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist, which for their extream incon­venience, were taken away by the Concil. Sext. in Trull. c. 24. Churches Authority; the use of Festivals and Fasts; the Institution of the Lord's day, which is nothing but the Sabbath translated. In a word, the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies, and Worship with the Synagogue, as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike, in his Book of Religious Assemblies, even to the formal use of the He­brew-word, 1 Cor. 14.16 Rom. 11.36. Eph. 3.21. Phil. 4.20. 2 Tim. 1.17. Heb. 23.27. 1 Pet. 4.11. Rev. 1.16. Rev. 1.7. Just. Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const. Imper. p. 683. Amen.

Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse con­cerning many useful Particulars. As

First, Concerning the beginning, or Original of the Jewish Church.

Secondly, Concerning the Nature of it.

Thirdly, Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it, and the Persons that were capable of Initiation.

And Lastly, Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation; wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformati­on, and how tender Christ, and his Apostles were of Al­tering or rejecting, more than was necessary, or of rece­ding more than was needful from the Jewish Church.

[Page 20]All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed [as Praecognita] to fit and prepare the Reader's mind to under­stand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism, as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions. 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism? 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ? 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Bapti­zed? 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism? 5. Whether it is lawful to Com­municate with believers, who were Baptized in their Infancy? The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Bap­tism, lies in these five Comprehensive Questions, and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd, that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Signi­ficancy, Force, and Perfection with Baptism, and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it, not as the Antitype succeeded in the place of the Type, but as one positive Institution suc­ceeds in the place of another, and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader, because the Anabaptists en­deavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments, which otherwise are not to be evaded, by saying that Cir­cumcision under the Old Testament, was a Type of Bap­tism under the New.

Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but on­ly the Fore-runner of Baptism, we must note, that strict­ly and properly speaking, there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype, as betwixt the Sha­dow, and the Substance, or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass; Deinde (quod maxi­mè adverten­dum) id inter Antitypum & Typum inter­est, quod quae revera in An­titypo vis in est, ea non nisi specie tenus, aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit. Enimvero quam [...]is Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem ha­buerit, ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo, quàm in Antitypo semper valet. — ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Spe­cies, aut tam exilis gradus fuerit, ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit. Outramus de Sacrif. l. 2. c. 18. insomuch, that what was really, literally, and properly in the Antitype, and of perfect Efficacy and Power, was generally, but Symbolically and representa­tively in the Type, and figurative of something, which did in a more noble, perfect, eminent, and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype, than it did to it.

[Page 21]Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Sha­dows, and Representations of the Blood of Christ, and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood, serving to the purifying of the Flesh, was also but a faint and umbra­tical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious clean­sing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works. So the Brazen Serpent was but a Sha­dow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross, and the healing Virtue which, belonged to it, was but a figure, or shadow of that more eminent, and powerfully healing Virtue, which was in Jesus Christ. But the case is not so betwixt Circumci­sion, and Baptism, because Circumcision hath no Symboli­cal likeness with Baptism, nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism, which doth not as literally, properly, fully, and eminently belong unto it, as unto Baptism it self.

For First, Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel? So was Circumci­sion before, and under the Law. Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith? So was Circumcision then. Doth it properly, and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now? So did Circumcision then, as it is written, you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin, and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel, which Circumcision did not as properly, and ef­fectually under the Law. This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament, as that now is. This did then as really initiate true Believers, as that now doth. It never was an Umbraticall Sacrament, or shadow of another Sacrament, it never did Umbratically initiate Believers, or Umbrati­cally, and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Cove­nant betwixt God, and the Seed of Abraham; and there­fore could not be a Type of Baptism, no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this.

Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testa­ment as a Type of Baptism, nor Baptism, as the An­titype of it; but on the contrary, the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel, are such things, which have some Symbolical likeness [Page 22] with it, and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof.

The First, Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the Mare autem illud Sacra­mentum Bap­tismi fuisse de­clarat beatus Apostolus, Di­cens, nolo e­nim vos igno­rare. — Et addidit, dicens, haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt. Cyprian. Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism, their passing through it, when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host, a Type of our passing through that, and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil, and his Angels; and their Captain and Delive­rer Moses, a Type of our Saviour Christ.

The Second, Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark, the like figure whereunto, saith the Apostle, even Baptism doth also save us, Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans, &c. Cyprian. Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani, & in Firmilian. Ep. contra eandem Epist. ad Cyprian. & in Ep. 69. Quod & Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse, &c. 1 Pet. 3.21. Here it is plain, that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Wa­ters of Baptism, the Ark a Type of the Church, and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church.

But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism, nor was it an Umbratical, but a real Consig­nation of the Covenant of Grace, every way as real, and substantial an Ordinance, as Baptism now is, and therefore succeeded in the room of it, not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type, but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another, accor­ding to the Apostle, who saith unto the Colossians. — In whom also ye are Circumcised, with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in Baptism, Col. 2.11, 12.

But in the second place, if we consider the Original of Baptism, as a Jewish Institution, we shall find it very im­probable, that Circumcision should be a Type of it, be­cause [Page 23] a Type properly speaking is a Typus, qua­tenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum, ita definiri posse videtur, ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam, aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum, ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud prafiguret. Quod autem ita prae­figuratur illud Antitypus dici solet. Outramus de Sacrificiis, l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of some­thing future, or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New.

But, Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament; and by consequence could not be Typifi­ed, and prefigured by Circumcision, with which it was coexistent, and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church.

The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law, and our Saviour liking the Insti­tution, continued the use of it, and made it the only Cere­mony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel, superad­ding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory Sacra­ment, or the full force of Circumcision as it was a Sign of the Covenant, and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith.

These things being premised, let us proceed to the sta­ting of the former Questions. And first of all,

Quest. I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism?

Which, considering what hath already been said con­cerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the Cove­nant, which God made with Abraham, and the initiation of young Children into it by God's especial appointment, cannot without rashness be affirmed. Nothing can reflect more dishonour upon the Wisdom of God, and the practice of the Jewish Church than to assert Infants to be uncapa­ble of the same privilege, which God, and the Jewish Church granted unto them. For God commanded them to be Circumcised, and the Jewish Church commanded them to be Baptized, as well adult Proselytes, and if they were then capable both of Circumcision, and Baptism, surely they are capable of Baptism now.

If they be not, from whence comes the difference? Not from the Nature of the Covenants, for the Covenant, which God made with Abraham, and his Seed, was, as I have shew'd, the same Covenant for substance, which he [Page 24] hath since renew'd with us in Christ: Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant; for Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the same Grace, or of the same Righteousness of Faith under the Old Testament, that Baptism is now under the New.

Wherefore, since the Covenants were for substance the same, both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants, and the Grace of those Covenants the very same, and only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of those Cove­nants, and Seals of that Grace being different; what hin­ders in the nature of the thing, but that Infants who were capable of the one, should not also be capable of the other? Is Baptism a more Spiritual Ordinance than Cir­cumcision? That cannot be, because Circumcision is a Gospel-Ordinance; I mean, an Ordinance of the Gospel which God preached before unto Abraham, and if the Spiri­tuality of outward Ordinances are to be measured from the ends of their institution, then Circumcision was every way as Spiritual as Baptism, because it really signed the same Covenant, and sealed the same Grace, and was a Ceremony of Initiation to the same Spiritual Seed of Abraham, that Baptism now is.

Wherefore, if the relative nature of Circumcision, con­sidered as a Sacrament, was the same under the Law, that Baptism is under the Gospel, it must needs follow, that Children under the Gospel, are as capable of this (suppo­sing no new Command to exclude them) as under the Law, they were of that; if Infant Church-Membership, or the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity, surely it can be none now: If God under the Old Testament vouchsafed it as a gracious Priviledge unto Children to be incorporated with actual Believers, and with them to be made members of his Church; without a Prohibition to the contrary, they must needs be capable of the same Pri­viledge still Nay, if Infants were admitted into the Church, when the entrance into it was more grievous, and not without blood, how unreasonable is it to assert, that they are now uncapable of admission into it, when the entrance into it is made more easie, and more agreeable [Page 25] to the natural weakness of a young and tender Child? Certainly if the Jewish Infants were Circumcised with the most painful and bloody Circumcision made with hands, Christian Infants, without a Special Countermand from God, must be deemed capable of the Circumcision made without hands, I mean of Baptism, which is the Circum­cision of Christ. What God hath Sanctified, and Adopt­ed, and made a Member of his Church, let no Man pre­sume to think it uncapable of Sanctification, Adoption, and Church-Membership, but yet so rash and extravagant have the profess'd Adversaries of Infant-Baptism been, as to pronounce little Infants as uncapable of Baptism, as the young ones of unreasonable Creatures, and that it is as vain to call upon God to send his Holy Spirit upon them, as to pray him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree.

Nay, upon this very Presumption, that Infants are un­capable of Baptism, they assert Infant-Baptism to be a Scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism, a meer Nullity and insignificant performance, and scornfully call it Baby-Baptism, forgetting all this while that Circumcision of Infants was no scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Circumcision, but a valid and significant Performance, and that in their Phrase there was Baby-Circumcision, and Baby-Baptism in the Jewish Church.

The reason why they conclude Infants uncapable of Baptism, is taken from the consideration of their incapaci­ty, as to some ends and uses of Baptism, which cannot be answered (say they) but by the Baptism of grown Per­sons, who are capable of understanding the Gospel, and of professing their Faith, and Repentance, and of submit­ting unto Baptism, and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned in the use of it; but Infants being ut­terly incapable of understanding the Gospel, or of profes­sing their Faith, and Repentance, and of submitting unto Baptism in which they are meerly passive, or of having their Faith strengthned in the use of it, they ought to be deemed uncapable of Baptism, whose ends are so much frustrated, when it is applied unto them.

[Page 26]But this way of arguing, how plausible soever it may seem at first hearing, is weak and fallacious, and highly reflecting upon the Council, and Wisdom of God.

First, It is weak and fallacious, because it makes no di­stinction betwixt a strict institution, which is instituted by God for one, or a few ends, and precisely for Persons of one sort, and an Institution of Latitude, which is instituted by him for several ends, and for different sorts of Persons differently qualified for those several ends. Of the first sort, was the Ordinance of Fringes above-mentioned, which could only concern grown Persons, because they only were capable of answering the end, for which it was insti­tuted, viz. To look upon them and remember the Command­ments of the Lord, and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordi­nance of Marriage, which was appointed by God for se­veral ends, and for Persons differently qualified, and ca­pacitated for those several ends, in so much, that Persons, who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage, may yet honestly Marry, because they are capable of the rest. All the ends and uses, for which it was appointed can only be answered by the Marrying of Persons who are capaci­tated for procreation of Children, notwithstanding super­annuated Persons, who are past that capacity, are not in­capable Subjects of Marriage, nor is the Marriage of such invalid, or an abuse of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage, because they are capable of answering one end, for which Marriage was ordained.

This shews how fallaciously the Anabaptists argue against Baptizing of Infants, because of their incapacity as to some ends and uses for which Baptism was ordained; they ought first to have proved, what they take for granted, that it was a Divine Institution of the first sort, which I call a strict Institution, and then their Argument had been good, but this they will never be able to prove, because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision, which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort, and because our Saviour was Baptised, in whom there was a greater in­capacity, as to the ends of Baptism, than possibly can be in Infants, even as he was in a greater incapacity as to [Page 27] answering the ends of Circumcision, than ordinary Jew­ish Infants were. John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance, and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins, and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this, and other ends of his Baptism, he forbad him, telling him, that he was fitter to be the Baptist, than to be Baptized of him; but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized, viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness, he suffered him, which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude, and that in such an Insti­tution the incapacity of a Person, as to some ends, doth not incapacitate him for it, when he is capable of the rest.

But Secondly, This way of arguing from the incapaci­ty of Infants, as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflect­ing upon the Wisdom of God; who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised, although all the ends of Cir­cumcision could not be answered, but by the Circumcision of adult Persons, who only were capable of understand­ing the nature of the Institution, and the nature of the Co­venant, into which they were to enter, of professing their Faith and Repentance, and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament, in which Children were merely Passive, and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon fealing unto them the Remission of their Sins.

Wherefore, the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision, as well as Infant-Baptism, because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends, that Baptism now is, and accordingly when Men were initiated by Cir­cumcision they were to profess their Faith, and Repen­tance, and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to re­nounce Idolatry, and all idolatrous Manners and Worship, and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations; and yet up­on the desire of such Proselytes, their Children were initi­ated both by Circumcision, and Baptism, though they were altogether uncapable of understanding, or doing those things which their Fathers did.

[Page 28]Wherefore, those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism, because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism, re­proach the Divine Wisdom, and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church, not considering, that Circumcision was, and Bap­tism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass, designed on purpose by God for Children, in whom there is a capaci­ty for some, nay, for the Rem Praeci­puam in Bap­tismo non at­tendunt, hoc est testificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus & tutelam suam suscipientis & gratiam conferentis, &c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia, quae consistit in remis­sione peccatorum, regeneratione, adoptione, haereditate Vitae aeternae, cujus sane gratiae Infantes & indigentes & capaces sunt. Cassand. de Bapt. Infant. chief ends of Baptism, as well as for Men and Women, in whom there is a capa,city for all.

They are capable of all the ends of it, as it is institu­ted for a Sign from God towards us, to assure us of his Gracious favour, and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace. For their Child-hood doth not hin­der, but that they may be made Members of the Church, as of a Family, Tribe, Colledge, or any other Society, nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopt­ed the Children of God, than the Children of any other Person, nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by vir­tue of that Adoption, than by vertue of any other civil Adoption, the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate. For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men, and of being instated in all the Pri­viledges of any Society, though they cannot as yet per­form the Duties of it, nor understand any thing thereof. Since therefore, Children are as capable, and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace, and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men, is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these? Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar's Child, and incorporate him into the Royal Family, and settle a part of his Dominions upon him, and to solemnize and con­firm all this, should cut off a bit of his Flesh, or command him to be washed with Water, who would count this an insignificant Solemnity, or say, that the Child was not ca­pable [Page 29] of the Sign, when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby? Or to make a Comparison, which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Ba­ptism. Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Tray­tor's Child, and in the Presence of several Persons assem­bled for that purpose, should say: You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason, by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate, and Titles, and is quite undone, though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition. My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him, and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance, to which henceforward he shall have as much right, as if the Family had never been attainted. I justifie him freely, and declare my self reconciled unto him, and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lay upon him, I here be­fore you all wash him with pure water, to signifie that he is clean­sed from his. Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood, and that he is as fully restored to his Birth-right, as if he had never been Attaint.

Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant, could any Man say that the action was insignificant, and invalid, because the Child knew nothing of it, or that he was incapable of the Sign, when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure, and of being thereby resto­red to his blood, and Birth-right, which was the chief thing signified thereby?

These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism, against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision, and Baptism of the Jewish Church, both these, as I must often observe, were applied unto Infants as well as adult, and actual Believers under the Old Testa­ment, and accordingly, tho' Abraham believed, and so­lemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised, yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly, in com­manding Isaac, &c. to be Circumcised before he under­stood the ends of Circumcision, or could believe, much less make profession of his Belief. He was entered Sacra­mentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract, or understand what the condition of the Cove­nant was, but yet I presume they will not say he was Cir­cumcised [Page 30] in vain, although he was under the very same in­capacity as to the ends of Circumcision, that Infants are of Baptism now.

The best way, that I know, they have of evading the force of this Argument, is by saying, that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism, because it left a significant Mark, and Character in their Flesh, whereas Baptism is a transient Sign, and leaves no significant Impression behind it, whereby to instruct Men and Wo­men what was done unto them in their Infancy. But this is a meer shift:

First, Because the Mark, and Character, which Circum­cision left in the Flesh of the Child, was as insignificant to him during the time of his Non-age, as Baptism is to Chri­stian Infants, neither afterwards could he tell, but by the instruction of others, what the meaning of that Character was, and for what ends it was imprinted in his Flesh. And therefore, according to their way of reasoning against In­fant-Baptism, it ought to have been deferred till the full years of discretion, when the Circumcised Person might have understood the Spiritual Signification thereof.

Furthermore, in answer to this Objection, I must re­mind them, that the Mark and Character which Circum­cision left behind it, was of no force, or signification, un­less it did appear from the Ezrah 2.62. Nehem. 7.5.64. Registers of the Tribes, that the Person circumcised was a Jew.

I say, the Character which Circumcision left behind it, was merely of it self of no force nor signification without the Registers, or written Genealogies, because without them neither the circumcised Person himself, nor the Church could know in many Circumstances whether he were a true Son of Abraham, or an Egyptian, Ismaelite, or Samaritan, who were all Circumcised as well as the Jews. If Baptism then be a Transient, Circumcision was an Equivocal Sign, and therefore these pretended circumstantial Differences signi­fie nothing, nor make any substantial difference betwixt Circumcision and Baptism, as to the capacity of Infants unto both. They are capable of contracting a Spiritual Relati­on unto God by this, as formerly they were by that; they [Page 31] are capable of having their Spiritual attaindure removed; they are capable of receiving the Blessings of the Covenant, tho' they cannot perform the duties of it, and God may solemnly bind himself unto them, tho' they cannot as yet personally bind themselves unto him.

But Secondly, Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants, than Baptism, yet this difference is wholly avoided by referring the Practice of Infant-Baptism not only unto Infant. Circumcision, but unto the Original Practice of Infant-Baptism in the Jewish Church; which understood very well, that it was but a transient rite, and left no Character upon the person, who was initiated thereby. Those therefore who take upon them to argue against Infant-Baptism from this or any other pretended reason, take upon them to censure, and condemn the Jewish Church, which for many Ages Baptised Infants, and Minor Proselytes into the Covenant, as well as actual Believers, and yet were never censured, or reproved for it by any Prophet, which we may presume they would have been, had Baptismal Initiation of Infants into the Cove­nant been so absurd, Insignificant, and abusive a practice, as the Professors against Infant-Baptism vainly pretend it is.

Having now, I hope, sufficiently proved, that Infants are not uncapable Subjects of Baptism. Let us proceed to state the next Question, which is this.

Quest. II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ?

Where, in the first place, I must observe, that the Que­stion ought to be proposed in these Terms, and not Whe­ther Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized? For as a good Herodot. lib. 2. Author observes of the River Nile, that we ought not to ask the reason, Why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer-solstice? But rather Why it doth not overflow all the Year long? So in the Controversie about Infant Baptism, the enquiry ought not to be, whether Christ hath com­manded Infants to be Baptized? But whether he hath ex­cluded them from Baptism? Because, considering the practice of the Jewish Church as to Infant-Circumcision [Page 32] and Infant-Baptism too, it must needs be granted, that a Command from Christ, to initiate Proselytes out of all Nations into the Christian Religion, must without an ex­ception to the contrary, be understood to comprehend In­fants, as well as Men.

As for Example, suppose our Saviour had not changed the Seal of the Covenant, Dr. Stilling-fleets Vindica­tion of the A. C. p. 100. but instead of Baptizing, had said unto the Apostles, Go, and make all Nations my Disci­ples, Circumcising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I appeal to any Impartial Man's judgment, whether the Apostles receiving such a Commission to Circumcise Proselytes of all Nations, would not have presumed without directions to the con­trary, that it was Christ's Intention that the Infants of adult Profelytes should be Circumcised as well as Prose­lytes themselves, according to the Commandment of God under the Old Testament, and the Practice of the Jewish Church.

And if a command to Proselyte and Circumcise all Na­tions would, without an exception, have comprehended Infants, as well as Men, why should it be imagined that the command to Proselyte and Baptize all Nations should not likewise comprehend them, seeing that Infant-Baptism, as well as Infant-Circumcision had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church.

This is so true, that supposing our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Old Testament, and the Custom of the Jewish Church, he need not have expressed his meaning in any other manner, than by saying unto the Apostles; Go Pro­selyte all Nations, Circumcising and Baptising of them, &c. Nay he could scarce have expressed his Intentions in a more emphatical or intelligible manner unto them, who being Jews must needs have the same Apprehensions as to the Subjects of Initiation, and Church-Membership under the Gospel, that they had under the Law. They had lived under a Dispensation, where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church, and with­out they had been instructed to the contrary, they must [Page 33] naturally have understood their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants, as well as actual Believers; as if, for instance, God should now extraordinarily call twelve Men of any Christian Nation, where Infant-Bap­tism had been a constant and universal Practice, and bid them go, and Proselyte the Indians, baptizing them, &c. None of these Men could possibly imagine, that Infants were excepted out of their Commission; but common n [...]e, on the contrary, would oblige them to understand it according to the usage of their own Church.

Besides, abstracting at present from the Controversie, Whether Christ did, or did not exclude Infants from Bap­tism? What reason can any Man give, why he who fetched so many of his Institutions from Jewish usages, should exclude them from it, and recede in this Point from the Jewish Church.

They are every way as capable of the visible Signs of Gods invisible favour, and of the Benefits of the Abrahami­cal Covenant under the New Testament, as they were un­der the Old, they are as fit Subjects of Baptism now, as they were of Circumcision and Baptism then, their initia­tion into both Churches seems to be equally rational, be­cause, though the sign of the Covenant be altered, yet the Covenant still remains the same. In a word, there lay no Obligation upon our Blessed Lord, to lay aside the practice of Infant-Baptism, as being inconsistent either with the Free, or the Manly, or Universal nature of the Christian Church.

Thus much I have said to shew, why the Question be­twixt us and the Dissenters upon the account of Infant-Baptism should be, Whether Christ hath excluded Infants from Baptism? And not Whether he hath commanded Infants to be Baptized? And certainly, the Premises being considered, there is far more reason to conclude, that Christ should have prohibited Infants from Baptism, if it had been his intention not to have them Baptized, than that he should have commanded them to be Baptized, if it had been his intention to continue the practice of Infant-Baptism. For he need not have commanded his Apostles to do that, [Page 34] which they would naturally have done of themselves without a Prohibition, and that he did not prohibit them to Baptize Infants, is now the thing to be pro­ved, in shewing, that he did not exclude Infants from Baptism.

For if he excluded them from Baptism, he either exclu­ded them from it directly by an express Prohibition not to Baptise them, or consequentially by so limiting, and de­termining the Subject of Baptism, as to make it unapplica­ble unto them.

That he never excluded them by any express Prohibiti­on, the Anabaptists themselves do grant, because there is no such Prohibition to be found in the New Testament; but then they pretend, that it was Christ's intention that grown Persons should be the only Subjects of Baptism, because the Gospel requires, that Persons to be Baptized should first be Taught, Believe, and Repent.

First, The Gospel requires, that they should be Taught, as in Matth. 28.29. Go and teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c.

Secondly, That they should believe, as in Mark 16.15, Go ye into all the World, and Preach the Gospel to every Crea­ture, saying, He that Believeth, and is Baptized shall be saved.

Thirdly, Repentance, as in Acts 2.38. Repent, and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus.

But now, say they, these three Qualifications before Baptism, can belong to none but grown Persons, to Men and Women, at years of discretion, and therefore none but such ought to be Baptized. And accordingly, we find that Baptism was practised upon these terms throughout the History of the Acts, and in Heb. 6.1, 2. Repentance and Faith are mentioned as prerequisite qualifications to Baptism in these Words, Not laying again the Foundation of Repentance from deadly works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptisms.

These are the Arguments, by which the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism endeavour to prove, that Christ so limited the subject of Baptism, as to exclude Infants from it. But in this they are grievously mistaken, because these, and [Page 35] the like Texts do of themselves no more prove, that grown persons are the only Subjects of Baptism, than the words of the Apostle, 2 Thes. 3.10. prove that grown Persons only are to eat. The Apostles words are these: When we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. From whence in their Sophisti­cal way it may be argued thus.

It belongs only to grown Persons to eat, because the Apostle requires, that Persons who eat, should first Work; but now this Apostolical qualification of working can be­long to none but grown Persons, and therefore none but such ought to eat.

I have made use of this Parallel instance to shew how in­conclusive the former way of arguing against Infant-Bap­tism is in it self, and how impossible it is to prove from the Texts above-mentioned, or any other like them, that Bap­tism is restrained to grown Persons, because none but grown Persons can be Taught, Believe, and Repent. And I will fur­ther discover the weakness and fallacy of this Argument from a familiar Comparison, which any common Capacity may understand.

Suppose then there were a great Plague in any Country, and God should miraculously call eleven, or twelve Men, and Communicate unto them a certain Medicine against this Plague, and say unto them: Go into such a Country, and call the People of it together, and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine, and assure them, that he that believeth, and taketh it from you, shall Live, but he that believeth not, shall Dye.

Upon this Supposition I demand of these Dissenters, if the words of such a Commission would be sufficient for the Missioners that received it, or any others to conclude, that it was God's intention, that they should administer his revealed Medicine to none, but grown Persons, Because they only could be called together, and taught the Virtues of it, and believe or disbelieve them who brought it. No certainly, this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man, because the Children would be as capable of the Me­dicine, as the Men, though they were ignorant of the be­nefits of it, and merely passive in the Administration there­of.

[Page 36]Wherefore seeing Children, as I have shewed, are ca­pable of the benefits of Baptism, and seeing the Apostles who received a Commission to go and Teach, and Bap­tize all Nations, Or, as it is in the words of St. Mark, to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, saying, He that be­lieveth and is Baptized shall be saved. I say, seeing Children are capable of the benefits of Baptism, and the Apostles, who received this Commission, knew them to be capable of it, and to have had both Circumcision, and Baptism administred to them in the Jewish Church, how should they, or any others imagine from the tenure of such a Commission, which was given unto them, as Planters of Churches, but that it was Christ's intention that Children, as well as grown Persons were to be Baptized?

Should God in the days of David, or Solomon, have cal­led eleven or twelve Prophets, and given them the same Commission, which [Mutatis Mutandis] Christ gave to his Apostles, bidding them go and Teach all Nations the Law, Circumcising, and Baptizing of them in the Name of the God of Abraham, and teaching them to do whatso­ever he had commanded them, I say, should he have sent them out to Preach the Law to every Creature, saying, He that believeth, aad is Circumcised, and baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned, would a Commission so worded have been of it self a sufficient ground for them to think, that it was God's intention to restrain Circumcision and Baptism to adult Persons, con­trary to the practice of the Jewish Church? Or, if in a short History of their Mission, and Undertaking, we should have read, that they Circumcised, and Baptized as many Proselytes, as gladly received their word, would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circum­cise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes, according to the Laws, and Usages of their Mother-Church? No certainly, such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion, could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision, and Baptism, and therefore in parity of reason, neither could the Apostles so understand their [Page 37] Commission without other Notices, as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church.

The plain truth is, their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity, accor­ding to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries, as it is set forth by the Apostle, Rom. 20.14. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not be­lieved? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? And how shall they Preach unless they be sent? Accordingly they were sent out to Preach, or to Disciple Men, and Women by Preaching, and to Baptize as many of them, as should upon their Preaching Believe, and Repent. But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons, as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law, yet it did not hinder, that they who had been born, and bred Jews, should in­itiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons, according to the usage of the Jewish Church. What need Christ have said more unto them, when he sent them out, than to bid them Go, and teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, &c. Or, to Preach the Gospel to every Crea­ture, and tell them, that he that would believe the Gospel, and be Baptized, should be saved. But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons, and their qualification for Baptism, but could in no reason be construed by them, to exclude Infants, but only unbelie­ving Men, and Women, whereof none were to be admit­ted into the Church by Baptism, before they were taught Christianity, and had confessed their Faith and Sins. Should God, as I said before, call twelve Men of any Church, where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice, and bid them go, and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature, and to say, He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach, and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer, shall be Saved: I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism, whe­ther he thinks that these Men, bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism, could in probability so interpret this Com­mission, [Page 38] as to think, that it was God's intention, that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church.

The Professors against Infant-Baptism, put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour: He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be Saved: But if they would well con­sider the next words, they would find, that Infants are not at all concerned in them, because it follows, but he that be­lieveth not shall be Damned. The same want of Faith, which here excludes from Baptism, excludes also from Sal­vation, and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants, unless they will say with the The Petro­busians. vid. Cassandri prae­fat. ad Duc. Jul. Cli. & praefat. advers. Anabaptistas. Original Anabaptists, that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism, excludes them from Salvation too. Where­fore, it is plain, that the believing, and not believing in that Text, is only to be understood of such as are in capa­city of hearing, and believing the Gospel, that is, of grown Persons, just as the words in Joh. 3.36. He that be­lieveth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life, and he that be­lieveth not shall not see Life, but the Wrath of God abide thou him.

Thus far have I proceeded to shew, how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove, that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mention­ed Texts, which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons, and their Qualifications for Baptism; and as little success have they with some others, which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants, as that in 1. Pet: 3.21. Where the Apostle tells us, that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh, of which In­fants are only capable, signifies nothing, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God, of which, say they, Infants are altogether uncapable; to which the answer is very ea­sie, that another Apostle tells us, that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable, profited nothing without keeping the Law, which Infants could not keep, nay, that the outward Circumcision, of which Infants were only capa­ble, was nothing, but that the inward Circumcision of the heart, and in the spirit was the true Circumcision, and yet Infants [Page 39] remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that; so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts, proves nothing, because it proves too much, and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences, beyond their just Meaning, which was only to let both Jews and Christians know, that there was no re­sting in external Circumcision, or Baptism, but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised, and Bap­tized.

So weak, and unconcluding are all the Arguments, by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture, to prove, that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons; put them all together they do not a­mount to any tolerable degree of probability, much less unto a presumption, especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church. Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice, or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles, when it began. Nay, could it be proved, that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants, or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox, did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles, that these Men do now, then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are, and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ. But since it is so uni­versal, and ancient a practice, that no body knows when, or where it began, or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church, since there was never any Church Antient or Modern, which did not practise it, it must argue a strange partiality to think, that it could be any thing less, than an Apostolical Practice, and Traditi­on, or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel, which it had under the Law. Had the Ec [...]uid veri­simise est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint? Nullus inter multos eventus unus est. Exitus variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Quod autem apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum. Tertull. de praescriptione Haeret. c. 28. Churches erred they would have varied (saith Tertullian) [Page 40] but what is one and the same amongst them all, proceeds not from error but Tradition. Or, as St. De Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Augustine saith upon this Subject, That which the Universal Church doth hold, and was never instituted by Councils, but was always retained in the Church, we most rightly believe to have descended from nothing less than Apostolical Tradition.

Cassand. ad­vers. Anabapt. p. 675. Menno, one of the most learned of the Anabaptists about the time of the Reformation, was so pressed with this way of arguing, that he acknowledged Infant-Baptism to be as old, as the time of the Apostles, but then he said, it proceeded from false-Apostles, and false-Teachers in the Apostles times. But if it came first from false Apostles, and false-Teachers, in the time of the Apostles, how came it to pass that we heard no­thing of that Innovation in the Writings of the Apostles or of their Companions and Contemporaries, such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, &c? How came St. John who survived unto the latter end of the first Century to pass it over in silence, or how came the Spi­rit in the Revelations, which by his Pen reproved so ma­ny abuses in the Churches, not to censure this? It is very strange, that none of the Pen-men of the Holy-Ghost, nor none of their Assistants, and Companions should animadvert upon so scandalous an abuse of the Holy-Ordinance of Baptism, which in a short time would fill the Church with sham Christians, and destroy the Essence thereof. In like manner, if it came in by false Teach­ers, in the next Age to the Apostles, how came it to pass that none of the famous Saints and Martyrs, who flourished then, opposed it as a dangerous Innovation, nor gave us any account thereof? They wrote against the Heresies of Simon, Menander, Saturnus, Cerinthus, Ebi­on, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, &c. but we find nothing in them against Infant-Baptism, though we are sure from Omnes enim venit [Chri­stus] per se­met ipsum sal­vare, omnes, inquam, qui per eum renasountur ad deum, infantes, & parvulos, & pue­ros, & juvenes, & seniores. i. e. Christ came to save all by himself, all, I say, who by him are born again to God, Infants, and little Ones, and Boys, and Young and Old. In the An­cient Writers Baptism is called Regeneration, and Baptized Persons are said to be Regene­tate, or born again, according to the Scripture, which calls it, [...], the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3.5. Hence saith Just. Mart. Apol. 2. [...]. So hath Phavorinus observed, [...], Holy Baptism is called Regeneration, and those who would see more proofs of it, may consult Suicerus in the words [...] and [...]. Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19.28. John 3.5. Selden de jure l. 2. c. 4. But if after all this evidence any Anabaptist will say, that re­nascuntur in this place of Irenaeus, doth not signifie Baptized, or born again of Water, then it must signifie Regenerated, or born again of the Spirit; and if Infants, and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit, then they are capable of being born again of Water, or of being Baptized, as Vossius argues disp. de Baptismo, p. 181. Irenaeus, and De Baptismo. Where what he speaks about deferring the Baptism of Infants, shews that it was the practice of the Christians in that Age, Pro cujusque personae conditione, ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio Baptismi utilior est, praecipuè tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non tum necesse, sponsores periculo ingeri? — Quid festinat innocens a tas ad remissionem peccatorum? But this Opinion of his, that it was more convenient to de­fer the Baptism of Infants, was his own singular opinion, as much as that was of defer­ring the Baptism of Virgins and Widows, till they were Married, which follows in the next words. Non minore de causà innupti procrastinandi, &c. And he shews the same cause why he would have the Baptism of Children, and un-married Women deferred, for fear they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism. Siqui pondus intelligant Baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem, quam dilationem: fides integra secura est de salute. But then how absolutely necessary he thought Baptism for Infants in case of extream danger is evident from other Passages, as Cap. 13. Quum vero praescribitur nomini sine Baptismo competere salutem, and Cap. 17. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris, sicubi, aut loci, aut temporis, aut personae conditio compellit. Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur, quoniam reus erit perditi hominis, si supersederet praestare, quod liberè potuit. So likewise in his Book de anima, Cap. 39. Adeo nulla fermè Nativitas munda est Ethnicorum — Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis, nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ & Spiritu, non ibit in reg­num Dei, i. e. Non erit Sanctus. Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda, quamdiù recenseatur. — Tertullian, that it was practised in that Age.

[Page 41] Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, who were all the Act. Mart. Ignat. Scholars of St. John, as likewise Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and He­gesippus, were all contemporary with Irenaeus who was Ep. Irenaei ad Florinum. advers. Haeres. l. 3. cap. 3. l. 5. c p. 33. the Disciple of Polycarp, (and who as he tells us in several pla­ces of his Works, conversed with several Antient Epist. ad Florinum. ad­vers. Haeres. lib. 2. cap. 39. Presby­ters, that had lived in the Apostles times, of whom he had enquired after the Apostles practices) and yet this inquisi­tive Father says nothing against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from him and his contemporary Tertullian, that it was then of general practice in the Church.

[Page 42]What meaned all these Men to let such a pestilent practice pass uncondemned, which in a short time, would leave none in the Church but Mock Christians, and so pre­vail against the Catholick Church, which our Lord pro­mised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against? What, would not the Holy Ghost preserve so much as one Church among so many, from such a dangerous error, but suffer them all to embrace it without Opposition? Nunc omnes Ecclesiae erra­verint, decep­tus sit & Apo­stolus de Te­stimonio red­dendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanc­tus, uti eam in veritatem de­ducerer, ad hoc missus à Christo, ad hoc postulatus de patre, ut esset doctor veritatis. Neglexerit Officium Dei villicus, Christi Vicarius, sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelli­gere, aliter credere, quam ipse per Apostolos praedicabat. Ecquid verisimile est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint? Tertul. de praescript. Haereticorum. c. 28. Would he suffer them all so soon to Apostatize, and to practise, and believe otherwise, than Christ had taught, and the Apostles preached No! It is impossible, that they should all consent in such a dangerous error, or that they should all peaceably, and tamely submit to it without opposition, or that such an alteration should be made without Obser­vation no body can tell how, or when.

Wherefore these Dissenters are very unreasonable in charging the Church universal with apostasie from Christ upon the account of Infant-Baptism, and in striving to throw her out of the possession of such an ancient, and general practice merely by such indirect and consequential Arguments from the Scriptures, as the Ancient Fathers ne­ver drew from them, nor we can admit against their gene­ral practice and consent. Certainly those places of the Neque verò ignota fuerunt Ecclesiae, & priscis Eccle­siae patribus Evangelicae & Apostolicae Scripturae lo­ca in quibus poenitentia, & fides unà cum Baptismo requiri videntur. Sciebant enim probe haec ad adultos — Cassand. Prae­fat. advers. Anabapt. New Testament; which require a Profession of Faith, and Repentance, in grown Persons before Baptism, were un­derstood by the Ancient Fathers, they undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, but yet they never drew this absurd Consequence from them, that because Faith and Repentance were to go before Baptism, which is an Institution of Lati­tude, in Adult Persons, that therefore Baptism was not to [Page 43] go before Faith, and Repentance in Children and Minors, as both Circumcision, and Baptism in the like Case were wont to go before them in the Jewish Church. They knew the difference betwixt the admission of actual and poten­tial Believers, See Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants, great Exemplar, Sect. 9. part 2. and also knew it was a very great inconse­quence to argue from the Qualifications, which the Gospel requires in those, to the Exclusion of these. I freely ac­knowledge to them, that no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures, when the Interpretations of them are not doubt­ful, yet when they are so, I appeal to any sober Dissenter of this, or any other Perswasion, whether the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches, and the undivided con­sent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and au­thentical Interpreters, that can be betwixt Men, and Men. They thought Infant-Baptism lawful, and valid, and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism, and let any modest and moderate Man judge, whether so many Famous Hanc desi­puere praete­rita saecula, ut tot millibus parvulorum per mille, & eo amplius an­nos illusorium Baptisma [...]ri­buerent & à Christi temporibus usque ad vos, non veros ei Christianos, sed Phant [...]sticos crearent? Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum, tantaque huc usque caligine [...]vol [...]a, [...] ad aperiendos oculos suos, & ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam post tot Patres, Mar­tyres, Pontifices, & universalem Ecclesiarum Principes vos tamdiu expectarit? Petrus Ab­bas Cluntacens. apud Cassandr. Saints and Martyrs, so near the Apostles times, should fall into such a Delusion, as to conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism, and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians, and Mock-Churches, or that a little Sect, which must have separated from all the Ancient, as well as Mo­dern Churches, that were ever yet discovered, should be in a great, and grievous Error themselves.

Let them begin with the first Testimonies about the practice of Infant-Baptism, viz. at the latter end of the second, and beginning of the third Century, and take the pains to consult the successive Writers of the Church. St. Irenaeus, as I have observed, was the Disciple of St. Po­lycarp, who was the Disciple of St. John, and Tertullian was contemporary with the last days of St. Irenaeus, and the next Writer in whom we find Infant-Baptism menti­oned [Page 44] as an In Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. pro hoc & Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare, quia essent in omnibus ge­nuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam, & Spiritum ablui de­berent. In Lucam Homil. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remis­sionem peccatorum — & in lib. Homil. 8. quia per Baptismi Sacramentum nati­vitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur & par­vuli. Apostolical, and Universal Pra­ctice, I mean Origen, flourished within fifteen years after Tertullian's Death. St. Cyprian was Contemporary with the latter days of Origen, and his Epistle to Fidus the Presbyter is such an account of Infant-Baptism, that it alone is enough to Convince any Soul, where Preju­dice doth not reign, that it always was the practice of the Church. Fidus had written unto him to let him know, that he thought it was not lawful to Baptize Children before the Eighth Day, according to the Law of Cir­cumcision, to which he returned this Answer. Quantum autem ad causam Infantum pertinet, quas dix­isti intra secundum, vel ter­tium diem, quo nati sunt, constitutos, Baptizari non oportere, & considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis an­tiquae, ut infra octavum diem eum, qui natus est, Bapti­zandum, & Sanctificandum non putares, longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus vi­sum est. Ep. 58. p. 95. Ed. Rigalt. That he, and the Council (which consisted of 66 Bishops) were of another Opinion, having determined, that as God under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons: So he was no accepter of Ages, but that Infants might be Baptized as soon as they were born, to wash away their Original Sin. The African Church was one of the most flourishing, strict, and pious of the Primitive Churches, and this resolution of the Council (which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after, was not novum decretum) supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original, and immemorial practice of that Church. This Council sat about the middle of the third Century, 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle; and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus. Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptis­ma. [...] — Hast thou a Child? Let not Sin get the advantage, but let him be sanctified from his Infancy, and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years. But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned, because of the weakness of his Nature, what a silly Mother art thou, and how weak in Faith? Anna promised Sa­muel to God before he was born, and not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness, but trusting in God, Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood, almost as soon as he saw the Light. Thou wilt [Page 45] have no need of Superstitious Charms, and Amulets for him, in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls, the Honour which is due to God, but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity, which is the most safe, and excellent of Charms. And afterwards, [...]. so for the Baptism of those, who desire Baptism, but what shall we say of Infants, who are sensible neither of the gain, nor loss of it, shall we Baptize them? Most certainly, if they be in danger, for it is better, that they be Sanctified with­out the Sense of it, than that they dye uninitiated and uncon­signed; and my reason is taken from Circumcision, which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants, that had no Reason, to which I may add, the saving of the First-Born in Goshen, by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door, and the two Side-Posts.

The Brevity, which I design in this Treatise, will not permit me to recite many more Authorities, which are very Vid. testim. Veter. Script. de Baptism. apud Cassand. & Gerhard. Joh. Voss. disp. 14. de Baptis­mo. numerous out of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerom, Au­gustin, &c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerati­ons, which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Bap­tism, and are sufficient to induce any considerate and im­partial Man to believe, that so Ancient, and universal a Practice was as old, as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles, and originally derives its Authority from them.

For first, if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles, but an Innovation, it is very hard to imagine, that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dan­gerous Practice, which would in time Un-Church it, while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church. The same Holy Spirit, that was the guide of the Apostles, into all Truth, was the Author of Miracles too, but the first four Witnes­ses, which I have produced for Infant-Baptism, to wit, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, do all likewise as­sure us, that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church.

Adversus hae­reses, l. 2. cap. 56, 57. & Eu­seb. Hist. Ec­cles. l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us, that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils, and had the Gift of Tongues, and of Praescience, and Praediction, and of healing the Sick, and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by [Page 46] Fasting and Prayer, often raise the Dead, and that many so raised were then alive in the Church. Nay, he tells us, that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable, which the Church all the World over then received from Christ, and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe, that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error (as Infant-Baptism was, if it was not of Apostolical Tradition) and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians, while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders, and divers Miracles, and Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Tertullian in his Et ad Scapu­lam, c. 2. Apologetic tells us, that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils. Nay, he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those, that were acted, and inspired with any one of their Gods, and Goddesses, whom they worshipped, and if that Daemon God, or Goddess, not da­ring to tell a Lye before any Christian, should not confess it self to be a Devil, then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place.

Origen in his Answer to Celsus, frequently appeals to the Miracles, which the Christians wrought in his Days, par­ticularly in the first Cambridge Edition, p. 34. Book, he saith, that they exorcised Daemons, healed the Sick, and foresaw Future Events. And in the p. 334. See also p. 62, 80, 124, 127, 376. seventh Book, he proves, that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts, because Idiots, or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Pray­ers, and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus, banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men.

In Epist. ad Donatum; vid. & Epist. ad Magnum & ad Demetrianum, p. 202. Ed. Rigalt. St. Cyprian tells us, that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons, to re­store Mad-men to their Senses, to force Devils to confess themselves to be so, and with invisible strokes and Tor­ments to make them cry, and howl, and forsake the Bo­dies, which they possessed. These are the first four Wit­nesses, which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism, and let any man judge, whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy, and Miraculous Period, as this.

[Page 47]But secondly, If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition, or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice, how came the Vid. Vossii hist. Pelag. l. 2. pars. 2. Thes. 4. & 13. disp. de Bapt. Thes. 18. & disp. 14. Thes. 4. Cassand. praefat. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. & Testim. veterū de Bapt. par­vulorum, p. 687. Pelagians not to re­ject it for an Innovation, seeing the Orthodox used it, as an Argument against them, that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them, had there been any ground for it, to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles, or that it was brought up by False-Apostles, and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times, but then they were so far from doing this, which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence, that they practiced it themselves, and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition, and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven, tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Ori­ginal Sin.

But thirdly, If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice, from the first Plantation of Christian Churches, or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Traditi­on, let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches, not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church, or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops, and Presbyters, but of such as were Origi­nal Plantations, and betwixt which there was likely none, or but very little Communication, by reason of the vast distance, and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where Brerewoods Enquiries, c. 23 Cassand. expo­sit. de auctor. Consult. Bapt. Infant. p. 692. they lived. Among these, of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church, in the further Ethiopia, and the Osor. l. 3. de rebus gest. Em­an. cit. à Vossio in disp. 14. de Baptismo Brere­woods Enqui­ries, c. 20. Indi­an Church in Coulan, and Crangonor, and about Maliapur, Planted by St. Thomas, both which practice Infant-Baptism, tho in all probability they never had it one from the other, or both from any third Church. It is very incredible, that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice, which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice, if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants, but only grown Persons.

[Page 48]One may easily imagine, that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant Communion, or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People, in bringing their Children to the Sacrament, as we do with bringing them to Prayers, but that God should let them all (not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity) fall into a Practice, which destroys the Being of the Church, is at least a thousand times more Incredible, than that the Apostles, without a Prohibiti­on from Christ to the contrary, (and no such Prohibiti­on is Extant in the New Testament) should Baptize In­fants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church.

But in the fourth Place, what Account can rationally be given, why the Jewish Christians, who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision, should not have been much more offended, if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament, which had always been initiated under the Old. Is it reasonable to believe, that those, who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews, which lived among the Gentiles, that they should not Circumcise their Children, would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them, but quite excluded them, like the Infants of Un­believers from Admission into the Church. It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Chil­dren Treated like the Children of meer Strangers, and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced, and those that resisted the Faith. For they always looked upon Pagan Children, as Common, and Unclean, but upon their own, as Separate, and Holy; and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them, 1 Cor. 7.14. But had the Apostles taught, that the Chil­dren of those, who were in Covenant with God, had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation, than the Children of Idolaters, who were out of the Covenant, they had Taught a Doctrine, which certainly would have offended them more, than all they Preached against Circumcision, and keeping the Ceremonial Law. Wherefore, since we [Page 49] never read among their many Complaints upon the altera­tion of the Jews Customs, that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism, it is a greater presumption that the Apostles, and their Assistants Bapti­zed their Children, then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament, is that they Baptized them not.

Having now shewed, first, that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism.

Secondly, That they are not excluded from it by Christ; but that on the contrary, we have very convincing Rea­sons to presume, that the Baptism of Infants, as well as of grown Persons, was intended by him. Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question.

Quest. III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church, which appointeth Infants to be Baptized?

And this, considering what I have said upon the former Questions, must be determined in the Negative, Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful, and allow­able, or, as a Thing highly requisite, or necessary to be done.

I know very well, that my Adversaries, in this Contro­versie, will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary; as acknowledging nothing in Religious mat­ters to be lawful, but what is necessary, according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters, That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters, but what is com­manded by some Precept, or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God.

Hence they ordinarily say, Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament, if you can, we will grant, that the appoint­ment of it is lawful, but if you cannot, we disallow it as unlawful, nay, as an Usurpation, and will never be of a Church, which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men.

This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar, and would be very good, were there such a Principle in the Scripture, as this, from whence they Argue, viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters, but what is war­ranted [Page 50] by Precept, or Example in the Word of God. Where­fore, as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Con­troversie, are generally Persons of good natural Under­standings:

So in the First place, I beg them to consider, that there is no such Rule in the Scripture, as this, and therefore those, who teach it for a Scripture-rule, or Precept, do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences, as bad as Papists, and, like them and the Pharisees of old, teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God. On the contrary, the Gospel tells us, that Sin is the Transgression of a Law, and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression; and according to this plain, and intelligible Rule, though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures, yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it, upon supposition that it is not forbid.

Secondly, I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule, in that it takes away the distincti­on betwixt barely lawful, or allowable, and necessary, and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful, but makes things forbidden, and things not commanded to be the very same.

Thirdly, I desire them to consider, what a slavish Prin­ciple this is, and how inconsistent it is with the free, and manly nature of the Christian Religion, under which we should be in a far more servile, and Childish condition, then the Jews were under the Law, which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim, and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews, allowed private Persons to practice, and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature, which God had not commanded to be done.

Lastly, I entreat them to consider, how utterly impra­cticable this pretended Principle is, as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those, who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority, and particularly from their own Practice, in Baptizing grown Persons, who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion, and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper, who were not ad­mitted to the Passover, nor Paschal-cup of Blessing, without [Page 51] any Precept, or President for so doing in the Word of God.

This little well considered, is enough to obviate all Ob­jections against my first Assertion, viz. That it is not law­ful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized, upon supposition, that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful, and allowable; but if any man desire further satis­faction, as to this point, he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things, to which I refer him, it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least, a lawful, and allowable thing.

To prove this, I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions: For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel, as they were of Circumcision under the Law, and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly, nor consequenti­ally: Otherwise, if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self, as Circumcision its Fore-runner was, and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age, more than one Sex: Once more, if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace, under the Gospel, as well as under the Law, and Christ never said, nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in: In a word, If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now, that they were of Circumcision then, and of having the Priviledges of Church-Member­ship, and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them, and Christ neither by himself, nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capaci­ty: Or last of all, If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision, but said nothing to determine the Subject of it, then it must needs follow, that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful, and allowable, because it is an in­different, and not a forbidden, or sinful thing. But upon this supposition, that it were left undetermined, and indif­ferent by Christ, it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church, from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account. For in this case, Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism, [Page 52] as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism; and those who lived in a Church which did practice it, ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it, then those who lived in another Church, which did not practise it, ought to separate from her, for not appointing thereof.

Thus much I have said, I hope with sufficient modera­tion, upon supposition, that all I have written upon for­mer Questions, doth but satisfactorily prove, that Infant-Baptism is only lawful, and not highly requisite and neces­sary; but then if it be not only lawful, but highly requi­site and necessary, so that it ought to be appointed, then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church, which appointeth Infants to be Baptized.

Now, as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, sup­posing that my Reader bears in memory, that I have said upon the last Question, (to make it appear with the high­est degree of credibility, that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants, as well as grown Persons, and that the Apo­stles, and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism) I must here entreat him further to observe, that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and pra­ctice, one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason, or from plain and express words of the Gospel, where the sense is so obvious and clear, that no sober man can mis­take it, or doubt of it, and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel, or from doubtful places in it so, or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice, and practice of the ancient Catholick Church.

The first degree of necessity is founded on ostensive cer­tainty, and demonstration, wherein there is no room left for Objection.

And the Second is founded upon violent presumption, where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move, or at least to turn the Ballance, if put in the Scale against the other, which is weighed down [Mole universatis Eccle­siae] with the authority of the Universal Church. And be­cause this Rule, like others, is not so intelligible without an Example, I will add some Instances of things, which are [Page 53] necessary to be believed, and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity, that they may be better understood.

According to the First Notion of it, it is necessary to believe, that Jesus Christ is the Messias, and the Son of God, because it is delivered in express words of Scrip­ture.

And according to the Second Notion of it, it is neces­sary to believe, that he is of the same substance with the Fa­ther, and equal unto him, and that there are three distinct, and coequal Persons in the God-head, which are all but one God, because these Doctrines, though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel, yet they are to be collected from several places of it, which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church.

Again, according to the First Notion of necessity, it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God, whe­ther spoken or written, because natural reason teacheth us so to do.

And according to the Second Notion of it, it is necessa­ry to believe the Books contained in the New Testament, to be the Word of God, and no other (how Divine, and Orthodox, and Ancient soever they may be) because they, and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church.

In like manner as to matter of Practice, by the First sort of Necessity, it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God, because Reason, and Scripture plainly teach them so to do.

And by the Second fort it is necessary, that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week, because the Observation of the Lords Day, appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament, as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catho­lick Church.

To proceed, according to the First Notion of Necessi­ty, Church-Government is necessary, because it is enjoyn­ed by the Dictates of Common reason, and most express places of Scripture.

[Page 54]And according to the Second Notion of it, it is neces­sary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament, to be the Word of God, and no other, (how Divine and Orthodox, and Ancient soever they may be) because they, and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church.

In like manner as to matter of Practice, by the First sort of Necessity, it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God, because Reason, and Scripture plainly teach them so to do.

And by the Second sort it is necessary, that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on eve­ry first day of the Week, because the Observation of the Lords Day, appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament, as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church.

To proceed, according to the First Notion of Necessity, Church-Government is necessary, because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason, and most express places of Scripture.

And according to the Second Notion of it, it is necessa­ry, that the Church should be governed by Bishops (where they can be had) distinct from, and Superiour to Presbyters, because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament, as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primi­tive Catholick Church.

Furthermore, according to the first sort of necessity, it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper, because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words.

And according to the Second, which is also an indispen­sable degree of Necessity, it is necessary to administer it to Women, though they never were admitted to the Passover, or Paschal Postcaenium, which answered unto it, because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testa­ment, that they were admitted unto it, as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church.

[Page 55]To conclude, according to the former Notion of Ne­cessity, it is necessary to Baptize, because our Lord hath commanded it in express words.

And according to the Second, It is in like manner ne­cessary to Baptize Infants, because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope, and Tenor of the Gospel, and from many Passages of it, as they are interpreted accord­ing to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church.

First, From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel, which it is reasonable to presume, would extend the Subject of Baptism, as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision, and Baptism.

And Secondly, From many Passages in the Gospel, whereof I shall recite some. Except a Man be Born again of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. John 3.5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Mark 10.14. The three noted places, which inform us, that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds, as of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.16. Lydia, Acts 16.15. and the Jaylor, Acts 16.33. The Un­believing Husband is Sanctified by the [BELIEVING] Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the [BELIE­VING] Husband; else, were your Children [Common, or] Unclean, but now they are Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2.

The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, may be fairly concluded from these Texts.

For the First seems to make Purgation by Water, Alioquin meminerat dominicae de­finitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ & Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei, id est, non erit Sanctus, ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu im­munda, quamdiu recenseatur. Tertull. de Animâ. cap. 39, 40. Pro hoc & Ecclesia tra­ditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare — quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui deberent. Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. & in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur & parvuli, nisi enim quis rena­tus, &c. Omnes venit [Christus] per semetipsum salvare, omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos & pueros, & juvenes, & seniores. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. and the Spirit equally necessary for all: [...], unless one be born again, &c.

[Page 56]From the Tertullian de Bapt. ait qui­dem dominus, nolite prohi­bere illos ad me venire. This he saith by way of Objection, which shews, that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism, but then because it was his present Opinion, that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior, he answers, Veniant dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quò veniant docentur. Second, it is reasonable to conclude, that little Children are capable of Proselytism, or entring in­to the Covenant after the Jewish manner, when they are brought unto it by others.

First, Because they are declared Cassandr. de Baptism. In­fant. p, 730. capable of the King­dom of God.

And Secondly, Because Dr. Ham. of Infant-Bap­tism. Sect. 22.28. the Original words [...], are the same with [...], from whence the Word Prose­lyte doth come.

From the Third, it is reasonable to conclude, That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Pa­rents, after the Custom of the Jewish Church.

Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim & Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro sexu Sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogativâ, quàm ex in­stitutionis disciplinâ. Caeterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis, & per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus spei pignora, Matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinaretur. Alioqui meminerat. — From the Fourth, it is reasonable to believe, That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Can­didates for Baptism, and gives them a right unto it.

And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude, from the Type to the Antitype, that if the Jews with their Chil­dren were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one, that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other.

To all which may be added Rom. 5. Psal. 51.5. Rom. 3.23, 24. Joh. 3.5, 6. 2 Cor. 15.21, 22. 2 Cor. 5 14, 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss. hist. Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts, which have been alledged by the Ancients both Voss. hist. Pe­lag. p. 1. Thes. 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie, to prove the Baptism of Infants ne­cessary, to wash away their Original Sin, which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death.

I say, the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, might be fairly concluded from these Texts, without the Tradition of the Ancient Church, though without it, I confess, it [Page 57] could not be demonstrated from them, as the Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly, and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them, without Ancient Tra­dition, though without it, they could not be demonstra­ted from them, because they do not assert it in express words.

But then, as those Texts in Conjunction with Traditi­on, do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt: So do the other, which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church, put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question, because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles, practiced Infant-Baptism, as an Apostolical Tradi­tion, and by consequence, as an Institution of Christ.

In like manner, as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken rom the Style, Sanctity, Dignity, and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures, and the perpetual Analogy, and Con­formity of the several Books contained in them, are by themselves but probable, and no demonstrative reasons, that all the Books contained in the Canon, and no other, are the Word of God, but in conjunction with the Testi­mony, and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church, amount to a Demonstration: So, though the Texts which I have cited, are of themselves but probable Argu­ments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them, as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles, and all Ages since, from one Generation to another, they amount to such a demonstration, as is called in Logick, Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum, and are a violent Presumption, that Children ought to be Baptized. I might run on the Pa­rallel, as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government, the admitting of Women to the Communion, and the Observation of the Lord's day; and therefore let the Ad­versaries of Infant-Baptism consider well with themselves, Whether rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts, and such a Tradition to establish it, they do not teach [Page 58] others, especially Atheists; pure Deists, and Sabbatizers; to which I may add Scepticks, Socinians, and Quakers, a way to deny all the rest.

Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized, when there are such cogent reasons arising from the con­currence of Scripture, and Antiquity, to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition, and an In­stitution of Christ. And I have designedly called it a re­quisite, to distinguish it from an absolute necessity, lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion, who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salva­tion of Infants, so that a Child dying unbaptized, through the carelesness, or Superstition of the Parents, or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Bap­tism, were Potest pro­inde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissimâ futuros. Multum autem fallit, & fallitur, qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros, dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto — August. de peccat merit. & remiss. contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. & contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned.

No, I intended no such severe Conclusion, (because we ought not to tye God to the same means, to which he hath tied us) but only to shew that the Baptism of young Chil­dren is antecedently necessary, and Articles of Religion, Artic. 27. in any wise to be re­tained in the Church, as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture, the Apostolical Practice, and the Institu­tion of Christ. And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those, who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism, I appeal unto them, Whether Scripture, and Antiquity, standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence, that they now stand for it, it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church, for not Baptizing Infants, as they do now for Baptizing of them.

Let us suppose, for Example, That the Disciples of Christ, instead of rebuking those, that brought little Chil­dren [Page 59] unto him, had brought them to him themselves; and he had been much displeased at them for it, and said, I suffer not little Children to come unto me, for the Kingdom of God is not of such: Let us put the case, That two Evange­lists had recorded this supposed Story, and accordingly we had been assured, by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles, that then there was no Baptizing of Infants, and that the Apostles Baptized them not, and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism: Upon this Supposition, I appeal unto them, Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to se­parate from all the Churches in the World, for not allow­ing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text, to the contrary, and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church.

The case, which I suppose one way, is the real case the other, only with this difference, that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text, whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition; and therefore, seeing there are so many Texts, and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism, Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christi­anity, like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned, though it be not commanded (especially when, as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it) in express Words.

I know the Dissenters of all sorts, and especially those, for whose sake I am now writing, are bred up in great pre­judice, and sinister Suspicions against Tradition, declaim­ing against it, as very uncertain, and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God. But as to the first part of their Objection against the cer­tainty of Tradition, I desire them to take notice, that there is a certain, as well as an uncertain; an undoubted, as well, as a pretended Tradition, as there are true, certain, and undoubted, as well as pretended, and uncertain Scrip­tures, and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious, and inquisitive. Men, may satisfie themselves, which is one, and which is the other.

[Page 60]The way then to find out true and undoubted Traditi­on, as Advers. Hae­res. c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth, is to try it by these three Tests. Universality, Antiquity, and Consent.

First, By Universality, If all the Churches, wheresoever dispersed, or how different soever in their Languages, and Customs, do believe or practice such a Doctrine.

Secondly, Antiquity, If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice, was no innovation, but Believed, and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apo­stles, when such Fathers governed the Churches, or such Famous Men lived in them, as knew the Apostles, and conversed with them, or lived near unto those, or with those Apostolical Men, who so knew them, or conversed with them, or lived near unto them.

Thirdly, Consent, If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages, or of all except a very few, who had no pro­portion to the rest.

To which I will add, First, That this Tradition must be written, and not Oral. And

Secondly, That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it, and whose Authors, whether under their own, or under borrowed Names, had no in­terest to write so.

And therefore, though the Testimonies for Infant-Bap­tism in the Constitutions, going under the name of L. 6. c. 19. [...] — Baptize your Infants, & educate them in the Disci­pline, and Ad­monition of God, for saith our Lord, Suf­fer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not. Cle­mens Romanus, and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, bearing the name of C. 7. Where arguing for In­fant-Baptism, he saith, Of this we say the same things, which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us. Dionysius the Areopagite, are of no authority as to the first Century, when St. Clement, and St. Denis lived; yet they are most excellent authorities for the third, and fourth Century, when they were written, because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism. The like, I may say, of the Testimony which the Quaest. & respons. 56. Where, he saith, That there is this difference betwixt Baptized, and unbaptized Infants, that Baptized In­fants enjoy the good things of Baptism, which those, that are not Baptized do not enjoy, and that they enjoy them by the Faith of those, who offer them to Baptism. Ancient [Page 61] and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concer­ning some Questions, gives of Infant-Baptism, it is of no au­thority as for the second Century, when Justin Martyr, whose name it bears, flourished, but being a disinteressed writer, it is of excellent authority for the third, when it was written.

So much for the Test whereby to try certain, and un­doubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition, and hap­py had it been for the Church of God, if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation; had made this distin­ction, and not written so, as many of them have done, against all Tradition without any discrimination; whereas Tradition, as I have here stated it, is not only an harm­less thing, but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church. It was by Tradition in this sence, that the Catholicks, or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians, and the Church of Africk against the Donatists, and the Protestants defend themselves, as to the Scripture-Canon, and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore, in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition, as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures, I must remind them, that the Scriptures, whose sufficiency we admire, as well as they, cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition, and that though they are suf­ficient, where they are understood to determine any Con­troversie, yet to the right understanding, and interpreta­tion of them in many points, Tradition is as requisite, as the Lex currit cum praxi. practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law.

This is so true, that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons, as were born, and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures, in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special re­gard unto Proselytes, who from Judaism, or Gentilism, would come over unto the Christian Faith. Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept, or Example for Bapti­zing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament, but all the Baptized Persons we read of [Page 62] in it, were Jews, or Gentiles; and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers, [who for this, and other Reasons, have quite laid aside Baptism] without the Tradition, and Practice of the Church.

Quest. IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents, to bring their Children unto Baptism?

To state this Question aright, I must proceed in the same order, that I did upon the last.

First, In arguing from the bare lawfulness, and allow­ableness of Infant-Baptism.

And Secondly, From the necessity thereof.

As to the lawfulness of it, I have already shewn upon the last Question, That there is no necessity of having a Command, or Example for to justifie the practice of In­fant-Initiation; but it is sufficient, that it is not forbidden to make it lawful, and allowable under the Gospel. Nay, I have shewed upon the Second Question, that of the two, there is more reason that Christians should have had an ex­press command to leave off, or lay down the practice of In­fant-Initiation, because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision, and approved by him in Infant-Baptism (which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision) under the Legal State. Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something, which was never in practice before; but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted, or anciently received practice, it is sufficient, that the Power, which instituted, or approved it, do not countermand, or forbid it: and this, as I have shewn, being the case of Infants-Initiation, the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel, must at least be lawful and allowable, and if it be so, then Parents, and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church. For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God, and in this Society, as in all others there are Superi­ors, and in Inferiors, some that must Order, and some that must observe Orders, some that must Command, and some that must Obey; and therefore, if the Catholick Church, or any Member of it commands her Children to observe [Page 63] any lawful thing, they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government, and by the Precepts in the Gospel, which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline, to ob­serve her Commands. Obey them (saith the Heb. 13.17. Apostle) who have the Rule over you, and submit your selves unto them, for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. Act. 16.4. Paul, as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees, which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem, to keep; but I think, I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing, which all Dissenters will grant me, for though they differ from us, as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power, yet they all agree, that there is such a Power, and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it, ought to be Obey'd.

Wherefore, if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation, as is proved under the first Question, nor ex­cluded from it by Christ, as is proved under the Second; but on the contrary, there are very good Reasons to pre­sume, that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and ho­nour of Baptism, as well as grown Persons: then the Or­dinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Pa­rents, and Pro-parents, who live within the Pale of it, be­cause the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbid­den, but at least, allowed by Jesus Christ.

But because People, when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness, are wont, especially in Church-matters, to en­quire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands, and to obey them with most Chearfulness, and Satisfacti­on, when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain; therefore, least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Bap­tism, should doubt of the expediency of it, and upon that account be less ready to comply, I will here proceed to justifie the practice of the Church in this Particular; by shewing

First, That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants.

[Page 64]And Secondly, That the Baptizing of them condu­ceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church.

First then, Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants, because they are capable of the Be­nefits, and Priviledges of Baptism.

This I shewed in general before, under the first Questi­on, and now I will shew it in a more particular manner of Induction, by insisting upon the several Ends, for which Baptism was ordained.

First then Baptism was ordained, That the Baptized Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God, and dedicated to his Service, and I hope I need not prove, that Children are capable of this benefit; since Jewish In­fants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision; and the Scripture tells us, that Judges 13.15. Sampson was a Nazarite from the Womb, and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning, was dedicated unto the Lord.

Secondly Baptism was ordained, That the Baptized Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Bo­dy, which is the Holy Catholick Church. This is a great, and honourable Priviledge, and no Man can deny, but Infants are as capable of it under the New, as they were under the Old Testament. Nay, so far are they from be­ing under any Natural Incapacity, as to Church-Member­ship, that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms, Cities, and Companies; and therefore, why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them, as the Jewish Church was, and Civil Societies usually are, I profess I cannot tell.

Thirdly it was ordained, That the Baptized Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Na­ture, wherein he was a Child of Wrath, into a State of Adoption or Grace, wherein he becomes a Child of God.

For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath.

But by our Second Birth in Baptism, we are made Chil­dren of God: And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual, as [Page 65] well, as from one Temporal State to another, or be So­lemnly Adopted by God, as well as Man, or

Lastly, Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel, as well, as under the Law? I am confident, those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants, would be puzzled to give any rational account.

In the Fourth place, Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptized Persons the pardon of their Sins, and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life; but Baptism hath this Effect upon In­fants, as well as upon adult Persons, for it washes them clean from De hoc etiā David dixisse credendus est illud, qui in peccato concepit me mater mea, pro hoc & Ec­clesia ab Apo­stolis traditio­nem suscepit, etiam parvulis Baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi, qui­bus mysterio­rum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quia essent in omnibus ge­nuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui deberent. Origen. in Ep. ad Lous. l. 5. [...]. Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Na­tivitate contraxit. Cyprian. in Ep. ad Fidum. Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin, before the time of the Pelagian Controversie, may consult Ire­naeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14.17, 21. and many more cited out of Just. Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar, Athanasius, &c. by Vossius in his Hist. Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil. Carthag. 112. Original, as it doth Men, and Women both from Actual and Original Sin. I say, it washes them clean from Original Sin, and seals the Pardon of it, and the as­surance of God's favour unto them, and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natu­ral vitiosity which they derived from Adam, and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God, they become reconciled unto him, and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life, upon their justification, as any actual Believer in the Word. I cannot deny, but they may be saved without Baptism, by the extraordinary, and uncovenanted Mercies of God, and so may actual Belie­vers, who die unbaptized, if they did not contemn Bap­tism; but then the hopes which we ought to have of Gods Mercy, in extraordinary Cases, ought not to make us less regardful of his sure, ordinary, and covenanted Mer­cies, and the appointed means, unto which they are an­nexed.

But in the Fifth place, Baptism was ordained, That be­ing admitted into the Covenant, and ingrafted into Christ's [Page 66] Body, we might acquire a present Right unto all the Pro­mises of the Gospel, and particularly unto the promises of the Spirit, which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons, that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner, and measure, as they are capable thereof.

This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true, that they called Baptism, by the names of Heb. 6.4. [...], Just. Mart. Apol. 2.94. [...]. Gre­gor. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Illu­mination, Grace, and Unction; and we need not doubt, but they talked, as they felt; and for this reason, they Bap­tized Infants, because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism, who would be sure to preside, and watch over them, and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity, and prevent them in their very first doings with his gracious helps.

Wherefore, though it should be granted, that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Bap­tism, Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Do­natum. by reason of their natural incapacity (as Anabaptists rashly assert) yet the Baptizing of them is not frustrane­ous, as to this great End of Baptism, because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances, and Illuminations of the Holy Spirit, which they shall re­ceive, as soon, and as fast, as their natural incapacity re­moves.

This distinction betwixt having the Spirit, and having a Right unto the Spirit, holds not only in Infant-Baptism, but in the Baptism of Hypocrites, and secret Sinners, who by submitting unto the Ordinances of Baptism acquire an actual Antecedent Right unto the Spirit, although they are in a moral incapacity of receiving the Graces of it, till their Hypocrisie is removed. Nevertheless, their Bap­tism is not ineffectual as to this End, but is a means of con­ferring the Holy Ghost upon them without re-baptization, because though they cannot receive it at the moment of their Baptism, by reason of their Hypocrisie, as sincere Pe­nitents do, in whom there is no such Moral Impediment; yet by virtue of it, they will be sure to receive it after­wards, as soon, as they shall in any degree become capable thereof.

[Page 67]Those are the Blessings, and Benefits, consequent up­on Baptism by God's appointment, of which Infants are as capable, as actual Believers, and let any Impartial Man judge, Whether it is more for their benefit, that this manifold capacity in them should be actually answered by the timely Administration of Baptism, or that it should lay void and unsatisfied, till they came to years of Dis­cretion? Which is best for a Child that hath the Evil, to be Touched for it, while he is a Child, or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the Benefit? Or to make one Comparison more, which would be best for a Tray­tors Child, to be presently restored to his Blood, and and Estate, and his Princes Favour, or to be kept in a meer capacity of being restored till he was a Man?

But besides these Benefits which are consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment, there is another no less profitable to young Children, which will justifie the pra­ctice of Infant-Initiation, and that is to have such an early pre-engagement laid upon them, which without the high­est Baseness can Ingratitude, they cannot afterwards re­tract. No Person of common Ingenuity, who hath any sence of honour, or any tolerable degree of Conscience within him, can without shame and horrour break those Sacred Bonds asunder, by which he was bound to God, in his Infancy, when he comes to Years of understanding; but on the contrary, will think himself in Honour, and Gratitude, bound to own, and stand to the Obligation, which he then contracted, when he was graciously admit­ted to so many Blessings and Privileges, before he could do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them, or understand his own good. It would argue a Person to be of a very ill nature, and untoward Disposition to break such solemn Foederal Vows, and therefore, we see that Children generally do readily take upon themselves their Baptismal Obligations, when they come to the use of rea­son, whereas were they left alone, to their own Freedom, when they would be Baptized, they would be apt to put it off from time to time, through the aversness that the corrupt nature of Man hath to such strict, and Spiritual [Page 68] Engagements, and in such a State of Liberty, as this, Men would need, as many, and as earnest Exhortations unto Baptism, as unto the Lord's Supper; and in such an Age, as ours is at least, reluct as much to come unto that, as we see by experience they do unto this. Wherefore, upon Supposition that Christ doth but allow Children to be brought unto him in Baptism, The Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such an early, and beneficial pre-engagement, and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years, when Flesh, and Blood, would be apt to find out so many Shifts, and Excuses, and make them regret to be Baptized.

And therefore in the Second place, as the Baptism of Infants is very Beneficial, and profitable unto them: So it conduceth very much to the well-being, and edification of the Church, in preventing those Scandalous and Shameful delays of Baptism, which grown Persons otherwise would be apt to make, putting of it off till the time of some great sickness, as many were wont to do in the third and fourth Century, when being not Baptized in their In­fancy, they did ordinarily receive. Baptism, as Papists now receive extream Unction, when they were ready to expire.

For, as it is usual now for Persons to defer the receiving of the Lord's Supper, for fear of Damnation, mistaking the Apostle, where he saith, He that Eateth and Drinketh unworthily, Eateth, and Drinketh Damnation to himself: So in those Ages it was usual for Persons to defer their own, and their Childrens Baptism out of a Dr. Caves Prim. Christi­an. part 1. ch. 10. [...]. — Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p 647 & 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit, quò male comparetur diluvio, itaque igni destina­tur, sicut & homo, qui post Baptismum delicta restaurat. Tertull. de Baptismo. [...]. Greg. Nyssen de Baptismo. kind of Novatian Principle, for fear that if they fell into Sin after Baptism there would be no place for Repentance; mistaking that place of the Apostle, where 'tis said, that if they, who were once enlightned [i. e. Baptized] fall away, it is impossi­ble to renew them again unto Repentance.

[Page 69]Now the Baptizing of Children being deferred by their Parents out of this Superstitious fear, they, when they came to be Men and Women, put the doing of it off for several Reasons, and Pretences, which we learn out of the Writers of those times.

Some deferred it out of Worldly Love, and a Carnal loathness to renounce their sinful Pleasures, and take upon them the Yoke of Christ. Some put it off pretending want of leisure through multitude of worldly business; others out of laziness, and careless negligence. Others were wont to plead the insufficiency of their knowledge, See Mr. Wal­ker's Excellent Preface to his Treatise of In­fant-Baptism. others the inconveniency of the present time; others would not be Baptized, but at such a time, or in such a place, as such a City, or such a River, or by such a Per­son, or in such a Company. Some would put it off upon a pretence of not having such, or such Relations present, others would decline it upon the account of some small Expences, that attended it; others because they relucted to confess their Sins, others because they favoured not the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, or to comply with the Arians; some because they would imitate the Example of Christ, who was not Baptized till the 30th Year of his Age, and some out of fear of Persecution.

This happened formerly to the great shame, and dis­honour of the Christian Religion, though the Gregor. Na­zianz. Greg. Nyss. and St. Basil. Fathers sharply and vehemently Wrote, and Preached against it; and therefore, upon supposition of the bare lawfulness, or indifferency of Infant-Baptism, I cannot but approve the Wisdom, and Prudence of those Churches, which ap­point it, because the practice of it doth prevent such shame­ful, and scandalous Neglects of Baptism, which to the great prejudice of Christianity, as Experience hath taught us, would otherwise arise in the Church.

Thus much upon enquiry into the lawfulness, and ex­pediency of Infant-Baptism, to shew Christian Parents what an indispensable Obligation lies upon their Consci­ences to bring their Children to be Baptized in Obedience to the Church, which hath appointed Infant-Baptism; but then if Infant-Baptism be not only necessary because [Page 70] the Church hath appointed it, but the Church hath ap­pointed it because it is necessary, and in any wise to be re­tained, then this Antecedent sort of necessity doth yet lay a stronger Obligation upon the Consciences of Parents to initiate their Children as being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles, and the Intention, and Will of Christ.

First, As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles, who it is highly to be presumed, authorized the practice of Infant-Baptism, because, it was practised in the next Age unto them.

And Secondly, As being most agreeable to the Intenti­on, and Will of Christ, who it is to be presumed would have forbidden, and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants, if he had not had a mind they should be Baptized.

Wherefore Nam quum paedo-Baptis­mus in Eccle­siâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus, usitatus, & frequens, ut nihil ferè notius, usitatius, & fre­quentius, non opus erat, ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur. Nam Christus Baptismum in ma­nus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit, qualem invenit, hoc solùm addito, quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit. Novit satis gens universa parvulos foli­tos Baptizari, Illud praecepto opus non habuit, quod Communi usu semper invaluerat. Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba: Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publi­cum conventum in Ecclesia, insaniet certè ille, quicunque olim hinc argueret non cele­brandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces, conciones, Psalmodias, eo quod nulla in edicto de lis mentio. Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publi­cis conventibus in genere, de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem cele­brandis non opus erat, ut esset mentio, cum istae ante datum edictum, & cum daretur, sem­per, & ubique notae essent, & in usu assiduo. Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Bap­tismo, Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum, quo in professionem Evan­gelii omnes admitterentur, ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum. Particu­laris eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda, sexus Baptizandus, &c. re­gulâ & definitione opus non habuerunt, eo quod haec vel lippis & tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu. E contra ergo planâ & apertâ prohibitione opus erat, ut Infantes & par­vuli non Baptizarentur, si eos Baptizandos nollet servator. — Si aboleri istam consue­tudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuis [...]et. Silentium ergo ejus & Scripturae paedo-bap­tismum sirmat, & propagat. Lightfoot Horae Hebraitae in Marth. 3.6. his very not repealing of that practice, is a sufficient Demonstration, that it was his pleasure it should be continued; it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came, and the practice of the Church Christian not [Page 71] long after he departed, and we find the practice of it in the one, harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other; and therefore what was before, and what was after this time, we may well presume, was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles, as his presu­med Will and Intention, who never did, or spoke any thing, that can reasonably be interpreted, that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church, laid aside; and therefore, his silence, and the si­lence of the Scriptures, are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism, that considering the Antecedent usage of it, they are very strong Presumptions for it, as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth ex­cellently prove.

To this purpose also, have I discoursed above, upon the Second and Third Questions; and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church, from the Law into the Gospel, did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Bap­tism, but left Baptism to be administred in the same Lati­tude, as before his time, then it must needs be concluded, that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents (ab­stracting from the Commands of the Church) to desire Baptism for their Children, as for grown Profelytes to de­sire it for themselves.

For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children, or Persons under the years of discretion, doth lay at least an implicite Obligation upon Parents, and Pro­parents to see that act be performed. As if for Example, an Act of Parliament should be made, that all Persons what­soever, Men, Women, and Children, should pay so much an Head unto the King, the Act, by the nature of it, would oblige Parents, and Pro-parents, to pay for their Children, and the Minors in their custody, as well as for themselves. Or, if in the time of a general Contagion, the Supream Power should command, that all Men, Wo­men, and Children, should every Morning take such an Antidote, that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children, as well, as to take it themselves. Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended, or instituted [Page 72] by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children, as well, as grown Persons, it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents, and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament, otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void, and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted, as if it did not also lay an Obligation up­on Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacra­ment, it would be of no force at all.

To sum up all in short. When our Lord first appointed Baptism, and afterwards said, Go, and Proselyte all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. either he intended that Children should be Baptized, as well as Grown Proselytes, or he did not; if he did not intend they should be Baptized, Why did he not plainly discover that Intention? Nay, Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptized, as they were wont to be, but if he intended they should be Baptized according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church, Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism, as Adult Believers, Men and Women, are bound to offer themselves.

What I have here said about the Obligation, which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism, con­cerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed, as Guardians, Tutors, and Church-Wardens; and lest any should ask, as some Sceptically do, at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism? As soon, as they are born, or the next day after, or when? I answer, by shewing the impertinency of that Question, in reference to Grown Believers thus: When must a Believing Man, or Woman be Baptized? As soon as he Believes, or the next day after, or when? And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions, at any time, the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases, and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Or­dinance, and all unreasonable, and needless delays thereof.

Quest. V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Belie­vers, who were only Baptized in their Infancy?

The stating of this, depends upon what I have said up­on the Second, and Third Questions, to prove, That In­fants are capable Subjects of Baptism, and that it is lawful to [Page 73] Baptize them; and if I have not erred, as I hope I have not, in those two Determinations, then the Baptism of In­fants is lawful, and valid, and if the Baptism of them be lawful, and valid, then it cannot be unlawful to Commu­nicate with them, when they come to be Men, and Wo­men.

Accordingly, it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers, who had been Baptized in their Infancy, whe­ther they were Baptized in perfect health, as Children most commonly were, or only in danger of Death, as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above menti­oned always were, who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity, or Corruption of Baptism, that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger, and durst not let them die unbaptized.

Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children, because they thought them too weak to endure the Severi­ties of the Trine immersion; and others, perhaps, accor­ding to the private Opinion of De Baptismo, c. 18. Ait qui­dem dominus, nolite illos prohibere ad me venire, ve­niant ergò dum adoles­cunt, veniant dum discunt, dum, quò ve­niant, docentur. Tertullian and [...]. Orat. 40. Nazian­zen, thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized, between Three, and Four years old, but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health, but in case of danger they thought it [...]. necessary to Baptize them, and if they survived the danger, looked upon them as lawfully, and validly Baptized.

These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients, who never urged this for one, that Infant-Baptism was unlawful, or invalid. No, They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children, which Christ, and [Page 74] the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes, nor from the want of Precept, and Example for it in the New Testa­ment, but so understood the Scriptures, as to think it as lawful, and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Belie­vers, and necessary in case of danger; and just so did those, who deferred their Baptism, for fear of sinning af­ter it, think the Baptism of Men and Women only neces­sary at the last extremity, in apparent danger of Death.

But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful, and valid, but also necessary, as appear­ing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ, who did not countermand the practice of it, and most confor­mable to the practice of the Apostles, as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them; then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers, who were Baptized in their Infancy, but an exceeding great Sin, and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account.

In a word, If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful, but necessary, what a grievous, and provoking Sin, must it needs be, to disown those for Members of Christ's Body, whom he owns to be such? But if it be neither, as Ana­baptists vainly pretend, then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth, for Eleven hundred Years, nor a Church, for above Fifteen hundred, with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin.

This is a very absurd, and dreadful consequence, and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages, while the Church was so full of Saints, Martyrs, and Miracles, and represented as See Dr. More's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface, p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1, 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God un­der the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God, and the Altar, Revel. 11.1, 2.

THE God of all Light and Understanding lighten your Heart with all true Knowledge of his Word, Book of Mar­tyrs, 3 Vol. p. 606. Col. 2. London. 1641. and make you perfect to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereunto you are now called, through the migh­ty operation of his Holy Spirit, Amen.

I received Yesternight from you, (Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel) a Letter, wherein you gently require my Judgment, concerning the Baptism of Infants, which is the effect thereof. And be­fore I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word, and of his true Infallible Church, touching the fame, I think it not out of the matter, first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep, knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him, Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort, as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come, which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend.

Being in the midst of my sweet rest, it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure, and white, four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie, the sight whereof so inwardly com­forted me, that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof, yea, the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart [Page 84] as yet to leap for Joy: And as Charity is no Churle, but would have others to be Partakers of his delight, some thought I called to others (I cannot tell whom) and whilst they came and we together beheld the same, by and by to my great Grief it vaded away.

This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses, because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy, and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request, as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius. Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ, and the appear­ance of it in the Sky, signifieth the Heavenly State there­of, whose Conversation is in Heaven, and that according to the Primitive Church, which is now in Heaven, Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth; for as the Prophet David saith, The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills, and glorious things be spoken of the City of God. And the marvellous quadrature of the same, I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same, and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World, as the Prophet affirmeth, saying; God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House. And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof, I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church: For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost, and Peace, which passeth all Understanding, as it is written in the Psalms; As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee. And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision, and to behold this wonder­ful City, I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me, musing on your Letter, to the end, that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others, to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith, and to conform your self in all points to the same, which is the Pillar and Esta­blishment of truth, and teacheth the true use of the Sacra­ments, and having with a greater fulness than we have now, the first fruits of the Holy Ghost, did declare the true [Page 85] Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity, even as our Saviour promised to send them another Com­forter, which should teach them all truth.

And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primi­tive Church, which is our Mother, let us all that be obe­dient Children of God, submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith, and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scrip­ture. Let us not go about to shew in us, by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word, another Spi­rit than they of the Primitive Church had, lest we deceive our selves. For there is but one Faith and one Spirit, which is not contrary to himself, neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them. Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures, and be at peace with them, ac­cording as the true Catholick Church is at this day: And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us, and deliver us out of all our Worldly▪ Troubles and Miseries, and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss, through our Obedience to Faith with them.

Therefore God commandeth us in Job, to ask of the El­der Generation, and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers. For we are but Yesterdays Children, Job. 8. and be ignorant, and our days are like a Shadow, and they shall teach thee (saith the Lord) and speak to thee, and shall utter words from their Hearts. Prov. 6. And by Solomon we are commanded, not to reject the direction of our Mother. The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her, and to abhor contention with her. For as St. Paul writeth; If any Man be contentious, neither we, 1 Cor. 11. neither the Church of God hath any such custom.

Hitherto I have shewed you (good Brother S.) my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others, to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable, and then doubtless you cannot err, but boldly may be glad in your Troubles, and Triumph at the hour of your Death, that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr, and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory. And thus much have I written upon the occasion [Page 86] of a Vision before God unfeigned. But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only, and not after God's Word, I will take the ground of your Letter, and specially answer to the same by the Scrip­tures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same, and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful, commend­able, and necessary, whereof you seem to stand in doubt.

Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only, which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations, and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments, you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants. But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity, and hath his beginning from God's Word, and from the use of the Primitive Church, it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected, or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church. Am­entius one of the A [...]ims Sect, with his Adherente, was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children, and next after him Pel [...]gius the Heretick, and some other there were in St. Bernard's time, as it doth appear by his Writings, and in our days the Anabaptists, and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil, to the destruction of the Gospel. But the Catholick truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures, plainly determineth, that all such are to be Baptized, as whom God acknowledgeth for his People, and vouchsafeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sin. Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People, and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ, it must needs follow thereby, that they ought to be Baptized as well as those that can Profess their Faith. For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God, as by the Confession of Faith. For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God, and whom he acknowledgeth for his, those no Man without great Impeity may exclude from the number of the Faithful. But God promiseth, that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him, but also of Infants, promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins, as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto [Page 87] Abraham. Gen. 17. I will set my Covenant between thee and me (saith the Lord) and between thy Seed after thee in their Generati­ons, with an everlasting Covenant, to be thy God, and the God of thy Seed after thee. To the which Covenant Circumcisi­on was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men; and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Cere­monial Laws. For Christ came to fulfil the Promises, Matth. 5. and not to dissolve them. Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants, that is, of such as yet believed not; Matth. 10. Let the little Ones come unto me; and forbid them not, for of such is the King­dom of Heaven. Again, Matth. 19. It is not the Will of your Father which is in Heaven, that any of these little Ones do perish. Also, Matth. 18. He that receiveth one such little Child in my Name, receiveth me. Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes, for I tell you, their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face. And what may be said more plainer than this; It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father, that the Infants should perish? Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace, although as yet they confess not their Faith. Since then that the Word of the Promise, which is contained in Baptism, pertaineth as well to Chil­dren as Men, why should the sign of the Promise, which is Baptism in Water, be withdrawn from Children, when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us, and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant, as he for an Example did put before his Disciples.

Now will I prove with manifest Arguments, Matth. 28. that Chil­dren ought to be Baptized, and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptize Children. The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations; therefore also Children ought to be Baptized, for they are comprehended under this Word, All Nations.

Further, whom God doth account among the faithful, they are faithful, for it was said to Peter, Acts 10. That thing which God hath purified, thou shalt not say to be common or unclean: But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful: Ergo, they be faithful, except we had rather to resist God, and seem stronger and wiser than he.

[Page 88] 1 Cor. 1. And without all doubt the Apostles Baptized those which Christ commanded: But he commanded the Faith­ful to be Baptized, among the which Infants be reckoned: The Apostles then Baptized Infants.

1 Cor. 1. The Gospel is more than Baptism, for Paul said; The Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel, and not to Baptize: Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptize, but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism, for the Lord com­manded both to the Apostles: but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God, and not refused: Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism, which is a thing lesser than the Gospel? For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered, the thing signified, and the Sign, and thing signified is greater than the Sign, and from the thing signified in Baptism, Chil­dren are not excluded; who therefore may deny them the Sign, which is Baptism in Water?

St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in Water, to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given, which is the cer­tain Sign of God's People: Acts 10. For he saith in the Acts, May any body forbid them to be Baptized in Water, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants, for he knew certainly both by the Doctrine of Christ, and by the Covenant which is everlast­ing, that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants.

Rom. 8. None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven, but such as God loveth, and which are endued with his Spirit: For whoso hath not the Spirit of God, he is none of his. But Infants be beloved of God, and therefore want not the Spirit of God: Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men, if they be numbred among the People of God as well as we that be of Age, who (I pray you) may well withstand Children to be Baptized with Water, in the Name of the Lord.

The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently in­structed, did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord, but the Lord rebuked them, and said; Matth. 10. Let the Babes come unto me. Why then do not these Re­bellious Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord? [Page 89] For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism, than that they did in times past, which brought their Children to the Lord, and our Lord received them, and putting his hands on them, Blessed them, and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them, declared manifestly that Children be the People of God, and entire­ly beloved of GOD? But some will say, Why then did not Christ Baptize them? Because it is Written, Jesus him­self Baptized not, but his Disciples.

Moreover, John 4. Circumcision in the Old Law was ministred to Infants; therefore Baptism ought to be ministred in the New Law unto Children. For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision, as St. Paul witnesseth, saying to the Colos­sians; Colos. 2. By Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is without hands, when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, being buried together with him through Baptism. Behold, Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man, which is done without hands, not that Wa­ter may be ministred without hands, but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised, albeit the Myste­ry of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People.

To this I may add, That the Servants of God were al­ways ready to minister the Sacraments to them, for whom they were instituted. As for an Example, we may behold Joshua, Jos. 2. who most diligently procured the People of Israel to be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Pro­mise; but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word, and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ, who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants, since Bap­tism is in place of Circumcision?

Item, The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament: There­fore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accor­dingly to Circumcision, and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism; for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea, and the bottom of the Water of Jordan, with their Children. And although the Children be not always expressed, neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures, yet they are comprehended and un­derstood in the same.

[Page 90]Also the Scripture evidently telleth us, That the Apo­stles baptized whole Families or Housholds: But the Chil­dren be comprehended in a Family or Houshold, as the chiefest and dearest part thereof: Therefore we may con­clude, that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children, and not only Men of lawful age. And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man, Woman, and Child, it is mani­fest in the 17. of Genesis, and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House, to come out of the Land of Ca­naan into Egypt.

Finally, I can declare out of ancient Writers, that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours, neither that it was instituted by any Councels, neither of the Pope, nor of other Men, but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves. Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, ex­pounding the 6. Chapter, saith, That the Church of Christ re­ceived the Baptism from the very Apostles. St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants, in the 3. Book against the Pelagians, Heb. 11. and in his Epistle to Leta. St. Augustine reci­teth for this purpose, a place out of John, Bishop of Con­stantinople, in his 1. Book aganst Julian, Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist. 28. saith, That St. Cy­prian not making any new Decree, but firmly observing the Faith of the Church, judged with his fellow Bishops, that as soon as one was born, he might be lawfully Baptized. The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus.

Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book, Chap. 23. & 24. saith, That the Baptism of In­fants was not derived from the authority of Man, neither of Councels, but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles.

Cyril upon Leviticus, Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children, and condemneth the iteration of Baptism. These Authorities of Men I do alledge, not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men, but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them, and new Imaginations, which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment.

[Page 91]After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary. The first, which includeth all the rest, is, It is Written, Go ye into all the World, and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures. He that believeth and is Baptized, shall be Saved: But he that believeth not shall be Damned, &c.

To this I answer, That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children, as you pretend, but that is done which the same Word doth require, for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe, as it appeareth by these words; Matth. 18. He that of­fendeth one of these little Babes which believe in me, it were bet­ter for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck, and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea. Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith, Believers; because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers. And this is no Wonder so to be taken, since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age: For both in Men and Children, Righteousness, Acceptation, or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation, that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised.

And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctifi­ed, and among such as do believe, 1 Cor. 7. is apparent in the 1 Cor. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ, that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized, and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts, proving that such as Confessed their Faith first, were Baptized after: I answer, That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause, we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us. St. Mark we read, that John did Baptize in the Desart, Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance. In the which place we see Baptizing go before, and Preaching to follow after.

And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered, to make for the use of Baptism in Children, for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise; Matth. 28. All Power is given me (saith the Lord) in Heaven and in Earth, there­fore going forth [...], that is, Disciple ye, (as I may express the signification of the Word;) that is, make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations. And following, he [Page 92] declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations, baptizing them and teaching; by bapti­zing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me. And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth, say­ing, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatso­ever I have commanded you. Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine.

But hereby I do not gather; that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God, and of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, ought to be Baptized, nei­ther they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end. But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be ground­ed. And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text, that the Lord did only command such to be Bapti­zed, whom the Apostles had first of all taught. Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized, but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age, and of the first Foun­dations of Faith, and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles, which were as yet rude and ignorant of Re­ligion.

Such as be of Age may hear, believe, and confess, that which is Preached and taught, but so cannot Infants; therefore we may justly collect, that he speaketh here no­thing of Infants or Children. But for all this they be not to be excluded from Baptism.

It is a general rule; He that doth not Labour, must not Eat. But who is so barbarous that might think hereby, that Children should be Famished?

The Lord sent his Apostles at the beginning of the set­ting up his true Religion unto all Nations, unto such as were both ignorant of God, and were out of the Cove­nant of God; and truly such Persons it behoved not first to be taught, and after baptized. If at this day we should go to the Turks to Convert them to the Faith of Christ, verily first we ought to teach them, and afterward Baptize such as would yield to be the Servants of Christ. Likewise the Lord himself in times past did, when first he renewed [Page 93] the Covenant with Abraham, and ordained Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant after that Abraham was Cir­cumcised. But he, when he perceived the Infants also to pertain to the Covenant, and that Circumcision was the sealing up of the Covenant, did not only Circumcise Ismael his Son that was 13 years of Age, but all other Infants that were born in his House, among whom we reckon Isaac.

Even so Faithful People which were Converted from Heathen Idolatry by the Preaching of the Gospel, and Confessing the Faith, were Baptized; when they under­stood their Children to be counted among the People of GOD, and that Baptism was the Token of the People of GOD, they procured also their Children to be baptized. Therefore as it is written; Abraham Circumcised all the Male Children of his House. Semblably we read in the Acts and Writings of the Apostles, that after the Master of the House was turned to the Faith, all the whole House was baptized. And as concerning those which of old time were compelled to Confess their Faith before they received Baptism, which were called Catechumeni, they were such as with our Fore-Fathers came from the Gentiles to the Church, who being yet rude of Faith, they did instruct in the Principles of their Belief, and afterward they did Bap­tize them; but the same Ancient Fathers notwithstanding did Baptize the Children of Faithful Men, as I have al­ready partly declared.

And because you do require a hasty answer of your Let­ter of one that is but a dull Writer, I am here enforced to cease particularly to go through your Letter in answering thereto, knowing that I have fully answered every part thereof, in that I have already written, although not in such order as it had been meet, and as I purposed. But for­asmuch as I understand that you will be no Contentious Man, neither in this matter, neither in any other, contrary to the judgment of Christ's Primitive Church, which is the Body and fulness of Christ, I desire you in the intire love of him, or rather Christ desireth you by me (that your joy may be perfect, whereto you are now called) to submit your Judgment to that Church, and to be at Peace [Page 94] and Unity with the same; that the Coat of Christ which ought to be without Seam, but now alas, most miserably is torn in pieces by many dangerous Sects and Damnable Opinions, may appear by you in no part to have been rent, neither that any giddy Head in these Dog-days, might take an ensample by you to dissent from Christ's true Church: I beseech thee, Dear Brother, in the Gospel, fol­low the steps of the Faith of the Glorious Martyrs in the Primitive Church, and of such as at this day follow the same; decline from them neither to the Right Hand nor to the Left. Then shall Death, be it never so bitter, be more sweeter than this Life; then shall Christ with all the Heavenly Hierusalem triumphantly imbrace your Spirit with unspeakable Gladness and Exaltation, who in this Earth was content to joyn your Spirit with their Spirits according as it is commanded by the Word, That the Spirit of Prophets should be subject to the Prophets. One thing ask with David ere you depart, and require the same, that you may dwell with a full accord in his House, for there is Glory and Worship: And so with Simeon in the Temple embracing Christ, 1 Cor. 14. depart in Peace: To the which Peace Christ bring both you and me, and all our loving Brethren that love GOD in the Unity of Faith, by such ways as shall please him, to his Glory. Let the bitter Passi­on of Christ which he suffered for your sake, and the Hor­rible Torments which the Godly Martyrs of Christ have endured before us, and also the inestimable Reward of your Life to come, which is hidden yet a little while from you with Christ, strengthen, comfort, and encourage you to the end of that Glorious Race which you are in Amen.