ally given to infants, is taken from the writings of the Old Testament; but the proof that baptism was usually given to the infants of proselytes is taken only from the testimonies of the Jews themselves: yet the Jews themselves (how fallible soever they are in judging of the meaning of the law, what ought to be done, or how necessary it was, yet) cannot fail of being sufficient witnesses of the matter of fact, and able to tell what was actually done among themselves."

The difference which the Jews made between themselves and other nations in giving baptism to Gentile proselytes and their children, but not to themselves nor their own children, does not at all affect the question that is disputed between the Christian pædobaptists and antipædobaptists: because in respect of the Christian religion the Jews themselves have the same need of becoming proselytes and of being baptized, that other nations have. The gospel has concluded all under sin and St. Paul, speaking of this very matter of baptism k, says, that in respect of it there is neither Jew nor Greek, i. e. there is no difference between them. The Jews themselves do seem to have understood, that when the Christ came, their nation must be baptized as well as others: and therefore they asked John, (who baptized Jews,) Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias1? &c. signifying that if he had been the Christ or Elias, they should not have wondered, at his baptizing of Jews.

The same thing is to be said eft tenet of the Jews, that the infant children of a proselyte, born to him before his baptism, are to be baptized; but

メ

как

not the children born to him after his baptism, nor any of their posterity in any succeeding generations, they being now looked on as natural Jews.

This, I say, does not affect the question of Christian pædobaptism. Because that privilege which the Jew had, or supposed himself to have, above other people, is as to the Christian dispensation abolished and because both the pædobaptists and antipædobaptists are agreed that all persons do now need baptism; as well those that are born of baptized, as those that are born of unbaptized parents: our Saviour having satisfied Nicodemusm that that which is born of the flesh (whether of a Jewish or Gentile, baptized or unbaptized parent) is flesh, and must be born again.

The antipædopabtists are satisfied of this; the only question is, at what age they must be baptized. Now the practice of the Jews before and in our Saviour's time was, that all persons whom they baptized at all they baptized in infancy, if they had, as I said, the power or possession of them in infancy. And in this matter our Saviour gave no direction for any alteration. 'He took' (as Dr. Lightfoot" says) into his hands baptism such as he found it; adding only this, that he exalted it to a nobler purpose and to a larger use.'

6

Some Socinians indeed would have the use of baptism to be abolished in all Christian nations, where the body of the people has once been generally baptized and do say of Christian baptism, as the Jews did of theirs, that the baptism of the forefathers is sufficient for them and all their posterity. This reason against the continuance of baptism, which m John ii. 6, 7.

a Hor. Hebr. in Matt. iii. 6.

기

was never thought a reason by any Christians before, Socinus gave about 150 years ago; Water baptism seems unnecessary for those that are born of Christians, and do imitate their parents in the 'profession of Christianity. It matters not whether 'such be baptized or not. And if they be, it is all

6

one whether it be at their adult age or in infancy.' Which opinion, or one more against baptism, the Quakers have since taken up. But the antipædobaptists do hold it necessary, as I said, for every particular person and not only for a nation at the first planting of Christianity.

And it is easy to guess what it was that swayed Socinus into the other opinion; viz. his desire of abolishing the doctrine of the Trinity: which it was hard to accomplish so long as persons were continually baptized into that faith.

There never was any age (at least since Abraham) in which the children, whether of Jews or proselytes, that were admitted into covenant, had not some badge or sign of such their admission. The male children of Abraham's race were entered by circumcision. The whole body of the Jews, men, women, and children, were in Moses's time baptized. After which the male children of proselytes that were entered with their parents, were (as well as their parents) admitted by circumcision, baptism, and a sacrifice: the female children by baptism and a sacrifice. The male children of the natural Jews, and such male children of proselytes as were born after their parents' baptism, by circumcision and a sacrifice and the female children by a sacrifice offered for them by the head of the family. Now after that circumEpist. de Baptismo, apud Vossium de Baptismo Disp. 13.

cision and sacrifice were to be abolished, there was nothing left but baptism, or washing, for a sign of the covenant and of professing religion. This our Saviour took (probably as being the easiest and the least operose of all the rest; and as being common to both sexes, making no difference of male or female) and enjoined it to all that should enter into the kingdom of God. And St. Paul does plainly intimate to the Colossians, ch. ii. 11, 12. that it served them instead of circumcision: calling it the circumcision of Christ, or Christian circumcision.

But

The baptism indeed of the nations by the apostles ought to be regulated by the practice of John and of Christ himself, (who by the hands of his disciples baptized many Jews,) rather than by any preceding custom of the Jewish nation; if we had any good ground to believe that they did in the case of infants differ, or alter any thing from the usual way. we have no kind of proof that they made any such alteration. The commission which our Saviour gave to his disciples to baptize in the country of Judæa, during his abode with them, is not at all set down as I said. And what John did in this particular, we have no means left to know, but by observing what was done before and after.

There is no express mention indeed of any chil dren baptized by him; but to those that consider the commonness of the thing (which I have here shewn) for people that came to be baptized to bring their children along with them, that is no more a cause to think that he baptized no children, than one's minding that in the history of the Old Testa-ment there is sometimes 500 years together without P John iii. 5.

기기

the mention of any child circumcised, is a cause to think that none were circumcised all that while. And whereas it is said of the multitudes that came to John, that they were baptized by him confessing their sins, (which confession can be understood only of the grown persons,) that is no more than would be said in the case of a minister of the church of England (which I put before) going and converting a heathen nation. For in a short account which should be sent of his success, it would be said that multitudes came and were baptized, confessing their sins: and there would need no mention of their bringing their children with them because the converting of the grown persons was the principal and most difficult thing, and it would be supposed that they brought their children of course.

I shall at ch. 13. of this my collection shew it to be probable that St. Ambrose does take it for granted that John must have baptized infants as well as others: for he does by way of allusion make a comparison between Elias and him; and speaks of Elias's turning the waters of Jordan back toward the springhead, as a type of the baptism of infants, by which they were reformed from their natural corrupt state back again to the primitive innocence of nature. And St. Ambrose does not there stand to prove that any infants were baptized: but speaks of it as of a thing commonly so understood by all Christians. And so Dr. Lightfoot says on this account, I do not believe the people that flocked to John's baptism 'were so forgetful of the manner and custom of the 'nation, as not to bring their little children along 'with them to be baptized.'

... Hor. Hebr. on Matt. iii.