NOW the firſt thing to be enquired after is the Inſtitution of it, and ſo much the rather, becauſe though there is no doubt as to the thing it ſelf, yet there is as to the firſt beginning of it. For there are, who have thought this Sacrament to have been firſt inſtituted by our Saviour immediately before his Aſcenſion, and when he gave command to his DiſciplesMatt. 28.19. to go, and teach, or diſciple all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. And I willingly grant (becauſe our Saviour was ſent only Matt. 15.24. to the loſt ſheep of the Houſe of Iſrael) that that was the firſt inſtitution of it, as to that more general extent it was to have in the World, and it may be too as to that clear, and explicit profeſſion of the Trinity, into the Names of which our Saviour afterwards commanded to baptize: Becauſe ſuch Doctrines as that were to be poured into the Diſciples by dgrees, and according as they ſhould be able to receive them. But that the Sacrament it ſelf had a more early Inſtitution, will appear from the mention there is of our Saviour's baptizing long before, or at leaſt of his Diſciples doing it by his Commiſſion, and Appointment.

For the clearing whereof we are to know, that whatſoever he may be thought to have done, before he firſt paſſed into Judaea after his own Baptiſm by John the Baptiſt, yet there heJoh. 3.22., or his Diſciples Joh. 4.2. baptized; yea to ſo great a number, that John's DiſciplesJoh. 3.26. affirmed to their Maſter, that all men came to him, and it; and news was afterwards brought to the Phariſees Joh. 4.1., that he made, and baptized more Diſciples, than John himſelf. Into what profeſſion is not difficult to conjecture from our Saviour's being ſaid to make Joh. 4.1. Diſciples by it, and from the Baptiſt's affirming in allowance of our Saviour's Baptiſm, that he that believed on the SonJoh. 3.36., ſhould have everlaſting Life, but he, that believed not the Son, ſhould not ſee life, but, on the contrary, have the wrath of God abiding on him. For what could that aſſertion have ſignified toward the legitimating of our Saviour's Baptiſm, eſpecially when John himſelf admoniſh'd Men by his to believe on him, that ſhould come after him Acts 19.4., that is, on Chriſt Jeſus? Were it not, that our Saviour, or his Diſciples did expreſly baptize Men into the belief of him, and of that Auguſt Authority, and ſaving power, which was veſted in him as the Meſſiah. Which makes me wonder ſo much the more, that Tertullian De Bapt. c. 11. ſhould make that Baptiſm of the Diſciples but of the ſame nature with that of John, but above all at his asking, how Chriſt could be ſuppoſed to baptize into himſelf, when he at that time made it his buſineſs to conceal who, and what he was. For as John the Baptiſt was not wantingJoh. 1.29, &c. to diſcover what he was; ſo our Saviour was ſo far from being reſerv'd as to that particular, that the very firſt of thoſe Diſciples, that came to him, did both acknowledge himJoh. 41.45. as the Meſſiah immediately, and repreſent him as ſuch to other Men.

But let us riſe yet higher, than Chriſt's baptizing in Judaea, though that be not far remov'd from his firſt ſetting up for Diſciples, becauſe whilſt John was yetJoh. 3.22, 23. baptizing, which is the time, from whence the ScriptureAct. 1.22. — 10.37. makes our Saviour's preaching to commence. Not that there are any expreſs proofs before that time of his baptizing any Diſciples, but that it may be ſome probable proofs may offer themſelves for it, and ſuch as we cannot reaſonably refuſe. Of which nature I reckon firſt his making Diſciples before that time, and particularly thoſe Diſciples, whom he made uſe of to baptize in the Land of Jury. For if our Saviour made Diſciples before, why not after the ſame manner, wherein he made thoſe of Judaea? He had to induce him to it the cuſtom, that then prevail'd among the Jews, of making Diſciples by that ſolemnity, as appears both by their ſo admitting Proſelytes, and the Baptiſm of his Forerunner. He had to induce him to it the greater likelihood there was thereby of inviting others to the ſame Baptiſm, than if thoſe, who were the firſt, and chief, and moreover made uſe of by himſelf to baptize, had not firſt been baptiz'd themſelves: Becauſe ſo there could have been no pretence to refuſe the Baptiſm he propos'd, whereas otherwiſe they might have rejected it as a thing unneceſſary to be had, or ſcrupled it as proceeding from incompetent Adminiſtrators of it. In fine, he had to induce him to it that, which prevail'd with himſelfMatt. 3.1 • . to receive the Baptiſm of John, even their fulfilling all righteouſneſs, who were not only the firſt of his Diſciples, but ordained by himſelf to be a pattern unto others. Which inducements as they are of no ſmall force to perſuade his baptizing from the beginning, becauſe but ſuitable to his own proceedings, or the common reaſonings of Mankind; ſo will no doubt be accounted ſuch, if there be not equal probabilities to the contrary, as which are the only things, that can take off the edge of them. Now what is there of that nature, that can perſwade Chriſt's omiſſion of Baptiſm, unleſs it be either the Scripture's ſilence, which ſhall be afterwards conſidered, or his willingneſs thereby to intimate, that he had not ſo tied his own Graces to an external Rite, but that he could, and would upon occaſion conferr them without it? But beſide that there was a like fear thereby of Men's neglecting his appointments upon a preſumption of their receiving his Graces as the Apoſtles did; This may ſeem to have been too early a ſeaſon for ſuch an intimation, becauſe before Men were well confirm'd in his Authority, or ability to conferr them, even by the ordinary ſolemnities. For if they were not as yet well confirm'd in that, how ſhould they dream of a greater power, yea not rather be thereby tempted to queſtion altogether his Authority, becauſe departing ſo far even from the example of John the Baptiſt, whom all MenMatt. 21.26. accounted as a Prophet?

But beſide that our Saviour made Diſciples before, and may therefore not improbably be thought to have made them after the ſame manner; We find yet farther, that before he baptiz'd thoſe of Judaea, he repreſented the ſolemnity of Baptiſm as a thing neceſſary to enter Men into that Kingdom of God, to which he invited them: Our Saviour not only telling Nicodemus, that except a Man were born again Joh. 3.3,, he could not ſee the Kingdom of God, but yet more plainly, that except he were born again of Water Joh. 3.5., and of the Spirit, he could not poſſibly enter into it. For how could Chriſt repreſent that as neceſſary, which be himſelf had not afforded to his firſt, and chiefeſt Diſciples, nor, for ought that doth appear, ever after did? For if he did, he would certainty have done it before he made uſe of them to baptize others; Partly becauſe they were the firſt Diſciples he had, and partly becauſe ſo they would have been more apparently qualified to have adminiſtred the ſame Baptiſm unto others. If therefore Chriſt repreſented Baptiſm as neceſſary, even before his baptizing in Judaea, it is not unreaſonable to think he had both inſtituted, and adminiſtred it before: Eſpecially, when the Diſciples he before had cannot well be thought to have had it afterwards, as in reaſon they muſt have had it, if it were ſo neceſſary as our Saviour affirm'd it. And poſſibly neither would they, who are otherwiſe perſwaded, have in the leaſt ſuſpected the force of this argument, had it not been for an opinion of theirs, that our Saviour ſpake not in this place of Baptiſm, but of Men's being born again of that ſpirit of God, which hath the ſame cleanſing quality with water: So making that ſpeech of our Saviour to be that, which the Rhetoricians call an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and conſequently reſolvable into a watery, or cleanſing Spirit, as Virgil's pateris libamus & auro, is into pateris aureis, or golden Diſhes. Even as they ſuppoſe the ScriptureMatt. 3.11. meant when it affirm'd, that Chriſt ſhould baptize with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire, that is to ſay, with that Holy Ghoſt, which hath the purifying, and warming qualities of that Element. I will not now ſay, though I might, that that figure might have been more allowable here, if that ſpeech of Chriſt could have been ſo fairly reſolv'd into a watery Spirit, as pateris & auro may be into pateris aureis; Which that it cannot be is ſufficiently evident from Gold's being the proper Material of thoſe Diſhes, whereof the Poet ſpeaks, which water to be ſure is not of the other. But neither will I any more than ſay, that Chriſt's baptizing with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire doth not make at all for this figure, becauſe it is certain that at the day of Pentecoſt, which was the moſt notorious deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, and particularly referr'd to by that BaptiſmAct. 1.5., Chriſt baptized his Diſciples with a material fire, as well as that. But I ſay, which is more material, that there is great reaſon to underſtand our Saviour here of that Baptiſm by water, which we have affirmed his words to import. For ſo firſt (as Mr. Hooker Eccl. Pol. li. 5.9.59. did long ſince obſerve) the Letter of the Text perſwades, and which we are not lightly to depart from, unleſs we will make the Scripture a very uncertain Rule, and indeed to prove any thing, which wanton wits would have it. So ſecondly (as the ſame Hooker Ibid. obſerves) the Antients Juſtin Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 94. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 13. Cyprian Epiſt. 73. without exception underſtood it, yea heTertul. ubi ſupra., who makes the Baptiſm now under conſideration, even the Baptiſm of Chriſt before his Aſcenſion, to be but of the ſame nature with S. John's. So thirdly, we have cauſe to underſtand Chriſt here, becauſe expreſſing what he here intended by a new birth from water; which is the property Tit. 3. • . of that Baptiſm, he afterwards commanded the Apoſtles to adminiſter. In fine, ſo ſeveral circumſtances both of the Text, and Context perfwade, and ſome too, that are not ſo ordinarily taken notice of. Of which nature I reckon as none of the leaſt that, which gave occaſion to them, even Nicodemus's coming to Jeſus by night Joh. 3.2. and there, and then acknowledging to him, that he was a teacher come from God, and that he himſelf was induced to believe it by the miracles our Saviour wrought For that ſecret confeſſion of his being not only not agreeable to that more publick oneMatt. 10.32., which our Saviour requir'd, but (as appears by the anſwer he return'd to it) intimated by him to be inſufficient, becauſe letting him know, that except he was born again of water, and the ſpirit, he could not enter into the Kingdom of God; Nothing can be more agreeable to our Saviour's mind, than to underſtand thoſe Words of his of Men's making a more publick confeſſion of him in order to their Salvation, if the Words can with any reaſon be thought to admit of it. Which that they may is evident from hence, that, whatever our Saviour now underſtood by them, the like expreſſionTit. 3.5. became afterwards an uſual periphraſis of Baptiſm, which was a publick confeſſion of our Saviour. I ſay ſecondly, that as the occaſion of the words doth naturally lead to ſuch a ſenſe, as will make them import a more publick Confeſſion of our Saviour; So it will conſequently prompt us to underſtand them of ſuch a new Birth, as is perform'd by Water, and the Spirit, rather than of that, which is perform'd by the Spirit alone: That, as it is a Birth, which manifeſts it ſelf to the Eyes of others, which this cannot be ſuppoſed to do, ſo being a Birth therefore, which may publickly declare our Confeſſion of him, by whoſe appointment we are born again. Agreeable hereto thirdly is the ſenſe of the words themſelves, if thoſe Jewes, of whom Nicodemus was ſometime a Ruler, may be liſtned to in this affair; They not only affirming their own Proſelytes to have been admitted by Baptiſm, but that Baptiſm alſo repreſented as a thing, which gave them a new birth, yea ſo far, as to make them put off their old relations by it. For what then can be more reaſonable, than to think, that our Saviour, when he ſpake to a Jew, ſpake the ſame Language with them, and conſequently, that, as he ſpake of being born of Water, as well as the Spirit, he meant a like Baptiſm by it. Eſpecially, when it is obſervable, fourthly, that our Saviour ask'd Nicodemus, not without ſome amazement,Joh. 3.20., Art thou a Maſter in Iſrael, and knoweſt not theſe things? For what was this, but to intimate yet more, that the new Birth, whereof he ſpake, was no ſtranger to themſelves, and conſequently, becauſe he ſpake of being born of Water, that he meant a Baptiſm by it? Add hereunto, fifthly, our Saviour's affirming himſelf in the former Diſcourſe to have ſpoken of earthly Joh. 3.12. things, and (as one would think) therefore of ſuch a Birth, which though influenced by God's Spirit, yet had ſomething of earthly, as that is oppos'd to heavenly, adhering to it: As, in fine, the Evangeliſt's ſubjoyning to this Diſcourſe of a new Birth by Water the mention of our Saviour'sJoh. 3.22. paſſing into Judaea, and there baptizing; There being not a fairer account either of that connexion, or our Saviour's proceedings, than that, agreeably to what he had ſaid concerning the neceſſity of Men's being ſo born again, he went into Judaea, and baptized, and ſo made way for their entrance into God's Kingdom. Such evidence there is of our Saviour's meaning a proper Baptiſm, when he ſpake of the neceſſity of Men's being born again of water, and of the Spirit; And if our Saviour meant ſuch a Baptiſm, there is as little doubt of his having before both inſtituted, and adminiſtred it, yea even from the time of his ſetting up for Diſciples; There being not the leaſt appearance of Chriſt's baptizing thoſe firſt Diſciples afterwards, which yet he muſt have done, conſidering the neceſſity thereof, if they had not been baptiz'd before.

I will conclude what I have to ſay concerning the earlineſs of our Saviour's Baptiſm, when I have added from a paſſage of Chriſt to S. Peter the farther probability there is of his, and the other Apoſtles having receiv'd it, and therefore, if they did ſo, of their having receiv'd it from the beginning of their Diſcipleſhip: That I mean, whereupon S. Peter's begging of Chriſt to waſh not only his feet, but his hands, and his head, if (as our Saviour had told him) he could have no part in him, unleſs he waſh'd him, Chriſt is ſaid to have made anſwerJoh. 13.10., that he, that had been waſh'd, even by a more general waſhing, needed not ſave to waſh his feet. For as our Saviour intimates by that expreſſion, that he, and the reſt had paſſed under the former waſhing, and conſequently did not need ſuch a general waſhing a ſecond time; ſo he may not improbably be thought to have meant the waſhing of Baptiſm, and which though in it ſelf an outward purification, yet was attended with an inward, and ſpiritual one: Partly, becauſe it is certain that our Saviour had before this time made uſe of the Baptiſm of Water to purifie Men unto himſelf, and may therefore be well enough ſuppoſed to allude unto it; And partly, becauſe that Baptiſm, or waſhing will be more directly oppoſed to that, which our Saviour intended, and which though deſign'd by him to ſignifie a more ſpiritual purgation, even that of the affections, or actions, yet was performed by him by an outward waſhing. For why then ſhould we not think, that the Apoſtles had that more general waſhing of Baptiſm? Eſpecially when we know that about this time Chriſt adminiſtred to them the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, and which as it is in order of nature after that of Baptiſm, and may therefore not unreaſonably be thought to have been preceded by theirs, ſo is an evidence that Chriſt meant, in ſome meaſure at leaſt, to conduct them by the ſame Rites, and Ceremonies, wherewith he intended to bring other Men unto himſelf.

One only thing there is, which can any way prejudice the former Diſcourſe, even the ſilence there is in the New Teſtament of any Baptiſm by Chriſt before that in Judaea, yea the ſilence there is of it in that very Evangeliſt, who takes ſuch particular notice of the other. And ſurely ſuch a ſilence would have been of no ſmall force, if it had been either a perfect ſilence, or an unaccountable one. But as that ſtory cannot be look'd upon as perfectly ſilent, which affords ſo many probable proofs of what it is pretended to be ſilent in; ſo there may be reaſon enough given of its aſcending no higher in its account of Chriſt's adminiſtration of Baptiſm, than that, which was performed by him in Judaea: Partly, becauſe the Author of it had before acquainted his Readers with Chriſt's repreſenting it as generally neceſſaryJoh. 3.5. to Salvation, and from which, and the following practice of our Saviour in making Diſciples, Men might reaſonably enough collect his having ſo made the former ones; And partly becauſe he knew, that what was defective in his account of our Saviour's Baptiſm, might be abundantly ſupplied to poſterity (to whom he, and the other Evangeliſts principally wrote) by what thoſe other EvangeliſtsMatt. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. had ſaid concerning Chriſt's giving command to his Apoſtles of baptizing all Nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. For that, together with his own account of our Saviour's Baptiſm, was enough to let them know (and therefore enough for their own purpoſe) that as Chriſt himſelf initiated Men by Baptiſm, yea repreſented it as neceſſary to Salvation, ſo it was his abſolute will, and pleaſure, that thoſe, to whom his Apoſtles, and their Succeſſors publiſhed his Goſpel, ſhould be initiated by the ſame means, if they meant to enter into the Kingdom of God.

BUT becauſe whatever doubt there may be of the firſt Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Baptiſm,

Queſtion. What is the outward viſible ſign or form in Baptiſm?

Anſwer. Water, wherein the perſon is baptiz'd in the name of the Father, &c.

But becauſe among thoſe at leaſt, by whom the Scripture is acknowledg'd, the queſtion is not ſo much, whether all ſin enter'd by Adam, but after what manner it enter'd by him; And becauſe, till that be known, we cannot ſpeak with any certainty concerning the derivation of the corruptneſs of our Natures from that of our firſt Parents or Parent; Therefore paſs we on to ſhew, according to the method before laid down, that as the ſin of all Mankind enter'd in by Adam, ſo it enter'd in by him, not (as ſome have vainly deem'd) meerly as one, who firſt committed it, or tempted others by his example to do the like, but as one alſo, yea eſpecially, who by the malignant influence of his ſin was more or leſs the cauſe of all thoſe ſins, that followed it. That the ſin of all Mankind enter'd not in by Adam either meerly, or principally as one, who firſt committed it, will need no other proof than his being not the firſt committer of ſin even in this ſublunary World, but that Serpent, who tempted our firſt Parents to it. For as he, and his fellow Angels ſinned before them in thoſe glorious ſeats, in which they were firſt beſtow'd; So he ſinned alſo before them here by that temptation, which he ſuggeſted to them, and without which they had not fallen from their integrity. Which as it is an evidence of ſin's not entring in by Adam in that ſenſe, and conſequently that that was not the ſenſe intended by S. Paul; So is the more to be conſidered, becauſe S. John attributes this entrance of ſin to the Devil 1 Joh. 3.8., yea makes all the committers of ſin to be therefore of him. But beſides that Adam was not the firſt of thoſe that ſinned, and we therefore not ſo to underſtand S. Paul, when deſcribing ſin as entring by him; Neither was he the firſt of humane kind that ſinned, which will be a yet farther prejudice to the former ſurmiſe. For (as we learn from the ſtory of the FallGen. 3.6., yea from this very Apoſtle elſewhere)1 Tim. 2.14. Adam was not deceiv'd, that is to ſay, was not the firſt that was ſo, but the Woman being deceiv'd was in the tranſgreſſion. Which what is it but to ſay, that ſin did not enter in by Adam in that ſenſe, and conſequently that that was not the ſenſe intended by the Apoſtle in it? Only if it be ſaid (and more than that cannot be ſaid in it) that we are not ſo to underſtand S. Paul, when deſcribing ſin as entring by Adam, as not alſo to ſuppoſe him to connote the Partner both of his Bed, and of his tranſgreſſion; As I will not be forward to deny the ſuggeſtion altogether, becauſe believing them both to have contributed to the production of our tranſgreſſions, as well as Nature, ſo I cannot forbear to ſay upon the account of that which follows, that we ought to conſider Adam as the more eſpecial inſtrument in it. Becauſe S. Paul not only repreſents himRom. 5.14. in particular as the Type, or Figure of him, that was to come, but both deſcribes him all along under the notion of one Man Rom. 5.12.15, 16. &c. , yea makes a great part of the likeneſs, that was between him and Chriſt to conſiſt in it. Which could by no means have been proper, if he had meant no other by ſin's entring in by Adam, than entring in by him as one of the firſt committers of it. For in this ſenſe Eve muſt neceſſarily have had the preeminence, becauſe not only offending before her Husband, but tempting even him to do the ſame. From that firſt ſenſe therefore paſs we to the ſecond, and which indeed is both more antient, and plauſible, than the former. For as it is as old as that Pelagius Vid. Voſſ. Hiſt. Pelag. li. 2. parte 2. Theſ. 1. , who firſt call'd Original Sin in queſtion, ſo it allows the ſin of Adam to have had an influence upon other Men's ſins, as well as to have given beginning to the being of it. But that it hath as little ſolidity, or pertinency to the words, whereunto it is apply'd, will appear if we reflect upon the ſequel of S. Paul's Diſcourſe, or the ſubject matter of that, which is offered as the interpretation of it. For is there any reaſon to think (without which that interpretation can be of no avail) that Adam by his ſin tempted all his poſterity to offend? Nay, is there not reaſon enough to believe, that that example of his contributed little to Men's following ſins, yea contributed nothing at all to many of them? For how many Men have there been, to whom the knowledge of his ſin never reach'd? How many are there yet, who are under the ſame ignorance, or may hereafter be? And muſt not theſe therefore be look'd upon as exempted from the influence of his ill example, and conſequently, if their ſins entred in by Adam, be acknowledg'd to have entred ſome other way? And though the ſame be not to be ſaid of thoſe, to whom the Scriptures have come, becauſe thoſe are not without the knowledge of his ſin, nor incapable of being influenc'd by his example; Yet is there as little reaſon to think, that that example of his contributes much to their ſins, or indeed ever did to theirs, who lived nearer to him, and ſo were more likely to have been inflicted by him. For beſide that a ſin ſo chaſtis'd, as that was, was not very likely to draw their thoughts towards it, and therefore as little likely to tempt them to the imitation of it; Beſide that many of them might have no actual conſideration of it, as no doubt many now have not, even when they offend in the like kind; They might have been influenc'd, and no doubt were by other ſins of his, as much, or more than by his firſt tranſgreſſion, or by the ill examples of thoſe, that were nearer to them, rather than by any of his. In fine they might have been, and no doubt often were influenced by the baits of pleaſure, or profit, and thereby drawn aſide from their integrity; Theſe having been as apt to influence them, as the example of that ſin, by which their ſeveral offences are ſuppos'd to have entred into the World. And I ſhall only add, that as that ſenſe cannot therefore be reaſonably impos'd, if we regard, as no doubt we ought, the ſubject matter of it; So we ſhall find as little encouragement for it from the ſequel of his Diſcourſe, whoſe words are now under conſideration. For beſide that he himſelf may ſeem ſufficiently to obviate it by affirming preſently afterRom. 5.14., that there were many of thoſe, that ſinned, that did not, nor well could ſin after the ſimilitude of Adam's tranſgreſſion, becauſe knowing nothing at all of any ſuch poſitive law, as he tranſgreſs'd; It is the main deſign of his Diſcourſe to compare the good, that Chriſt brought by his obedience, with the hurt which that type of his did by his tranſgreſſion. Which compariſon had been but a frigid one, if all the hurt, that Adam did us, was by the force of his ill example: Becauſe it is certain that Chriſt's obedience was of a much more efficacious influence in the kind of it, as well as in the degree, and would therefore rather have been vilified, than any way illuſtrated, or commended by the compariſon, if the malign influence of Adam's ſin had reach'd no farther, than that of an example. I conclude therefore, that what ever was meant by ſin's entring in by Adam, yet ſomething more was meant by it, than its entring by him either as the firſt committer of it, or as one, who by his ill example tempted others to do the like. And indeed as the inſtance but now alledg'd, even the likeneſs, that is between Adam's ſin, and Chriſt's obedience, makes it but reaſonable to look upon all ſin as entring alſo by Adam, as more, or leſs the cauſe of it, ſo it ſtands yet more confirm'd by what S. Paul affirms in the ninteenth verſe, eſpecially as it lies in the Original: The purport thereof being, that Men are conſtituted ſinners by his diſobedience, yea that they are ſo conſtituted ſinners by it, as Men are conſtituted righteous by the obedience of Chriſt. For though the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may in themſelves be capable of a ſofter ſenſe, and accordingly ſignifie no more, than Men's being reputed, and us'd as ſinners upon the account of that tranſgreſſion, which Adam committed; Yet I ſee not how that ſenſe can be thought to fit them here, or indeed any other than that of conſtituting, or making Men ſinners: Partly becauſe their being conſtituted ſinners by Adam's diſobedience is rendred by S. Paul Rom. 5.18, 19. as the reaſon of their condemnation by it, and ought therefore to be diſtinguiſhed from it; And partly becauſe they are ſaid to be conſtituted ſinners by Adam's diſobedience, as they, who belong to Chriſt, are conſtituted righteous by his obedience. For the obedience of Chriſt procuring Men's being really righteous, as well as their being reputed ſuch, yea procuring their being really righteous in ſome meaſure, that they may be ſo accounted of, and us'd; What can be more reaſonable than to think, that that diſobedience of Adam, which is affirmed to be like it, is of the ſame cauſality, and accordingly conſtitutes, or makes Men ſinners, as well as accounted of as ſuch.

One only thing remains towards the clearing of the matter in hand, even the derivation of the corruptneſs of our Nature from that of our firſt Parent, or Parents; And that is, that as all ſin entred in by Adam as more, or leſs the cauſe of it by his own, ſo he became the cauſe of it by his own by thereby depraving his own Nature firſt, and then communicating that depravation to thoſe, that deſcended from him. Of the former whereof as there cannot well be any doubt, conſidering the hainouſneſs of that ſin, which he committed (That as it could not but occaſion the withdrawing of the Divine Grace from Adam, ſo neither but draw after it the depravation of his Nature, as which receiv'd all its rectitude from the other) ſo there will be as little doubt of the latter, if we compare what S. Paul here ſaith concerning Adam's being the cauſe of all our ſins by his own, with what he afterward ſaithRom. 7.17, 20. concerning Men's falling into actual ſin by vertue of an evil principle, that dwelleth in them. For if all actual ſin proceed immediately from ſuch an evil principle, that evil principle muſt be alſo from Adam, as without which otherwiſe he could not be the cauſe of our ſins by his own, nor conſtitute us ſinners by it.

IV. I will not be over poſitive in defining by what means this evil principle is convey'd, becauſe I am not well aſſur'd how our very Nature is. It ſhall ſuffice me to repreſent (what may tend in ſome meaſure toward the clearing of it) That Original ſin, cleaving to our nature from the firſt beginnings of it, muſt conſequently be conveyed to us by the ſame general means, by which our nature is, even by natural generation, yea that the Scripture teacheth us ſo to reaſon, where it affirms Men to be conceiv'd in ſin Pſal. 51.5., to become fleſh by being born Joh. 3.6. of fleſh, and unclean Job. 14.4. by being brought out of thoſe Parents, that are ſo; That, though the more particular means, by which Original Sin is convey'd, cannot with any certainty be aſſign'd, becauſe it is alike uncertain, whether thoſe Souls, in which it is moſt reaſonable to place it, be either traduced, or immediately created, yet there would not be any uncertainty as to this particular, if we believ'd the Souls of Men to be traduc'd, as ſeveral of the AntientsVid. Voſſi. Hiſt. Pelag. Lib. 2. Parte 3. Theſ. 1. , and not a few of the Moderns have believ'd (For ſo it would not only not be difficult to apprehend the particular means of the others conveyance, but almoſt impoſſible to overlook them, becauſe making it to paſs together with thoſe Souls, to which it adheres, and diffuſe it ſelf from thence to thoſe Bodies, to which they are united) That, though the traduction of Souls be not without its difficulties, and ſuch as I ſhall not be ſo vain as to attempt the ſolution of, yet it is in that particular but of the ſame condition with the immediate Creation of them, that I ſay not alſo leſs exceptionable, as to the buſineſs of Original Sin; In fine, That, as it hath nothing from Scripture to prejudice the belief of it, as appears by the ſolutions, which have been long ſince Hotham's Introd. to the Trent. Philoſophy. given to the Objections from it; So it ſeems to me much more agreeable to that account, which it gives of the Creation, and indeed to the Nature of a Parent. For what can be more clear from the Story of the Creation, than that God deſigned once for all to Create all the Beings, which he intended, leaving them, and particularly Man, to carry on the Succeſſion by thoſe productive principles, which he had planted in them? For if ſo, what ſhould hinder us from believing, but that Men produce their like after the ſame manner, that other Creatures do, and by the ſame Divine Benediction, and concurrence. Sure I am, as they will otherwiſe fall ſhort of the powers of inferiour beings; as well as be an anomalie in the Creation, ſo they will be but very imperfectly in the condition of Parents, becauſe contributing only to that part, which is the leaſt conſiderable in their Poſterity. Only as I liſt not to contend about any thing, of which I my ſelf am not more ſtrongly perſuaded; So I ſhall leave it to thoſe, whom the immediate creation of Souls better pleaſeth, to make their advantage of it, and ſatisfie themſelves from it concerning the means of Original Sin's conveyance. Which if they do, they ſhall do more, than the great S. Auguſtin could after all his travails in this Argument; Becauſe profeſſing that he could not find either by reading or praying, or reaſoning Ep. 157. ad Optatum., how Original Sin could be defended with the opinion of the Creation of Souls.

V. I may not diſmiſs the Argugument that is now before us, or indeed ſo much as attend to the conſideration of thoſe Objections, that are made againſt it, before I have alſo enquir'd, whether that, which hath the name of Original Sin, be truly, and properly ſuch, and not rather ſo ſtiled in reſpect of that firſt ſin, from which it proceeded, or in reſpect of thoſe ſins, to which it leads. For beſide that that Church, whoſe Catechiſm I have choſen to explain, leads us to the conſideration of it, becauſe both there, and elſewhereArt. of Relig. 6. affirming it to have the nature of a Sin, to make us the Children of Wrath, and to deſerve God's Wrath and Damnation; The reſolution of it is of no ſmall moment toward the right ſtating of our duty, and the valuableneſs of that remedy, which Chriſtianity hath provided for it. For neither otherwiſe can we look upon Original Sin as any proper matter for our Repentance, whatſoever it may be for our lamentation, nor upon Baptiſm as bringing any other pardon to Infants, than that of the Sin of their firſt Parents, and which they who look upon Original Sin as rather our unhappineſs, than fault, are generally as far from charging them with. This only would be premis'd for the better underſtanding of it, that by Sin is not meant any actual tranſgreſſion of a Law (for no Man was ever ſo abſurd, as to affirm that concerning Original Sin) but that which is contrary to a Law in the nature of an evil habit, and both imports an abſence of that Righteouſneſs, which ought to be in us, and an inclination to thoſe evils, from which we ought to be averſe; This, as it is no leſs the tranſgreſſion of a Law, than any actual ſin is, ſo making the perſon, in whom it is, as obnoxious to puniſhment, and conſequently to be look'd upon as yet more properly a ſin. Now that that, which we call Original Sin, is really ſuch in this latter notion, will appear if theſe two things be conſidered; Firſt, that the Scripture gives it the title of ſin, Secondly, that it repreſents it as ſuch upon the account of our being obliged by the Law of God to have in us a contrary temper. That the Scripture gives that, whereof we ſpeak, the title of ſin, is evident from thoſe Texts, which we before made uſe of to prove the being of it; More particularly from thatPſa. 51.5., which repreſents David as conceiv'd, and born in ſin, and thoſeRom. 7.17-20., which repreſent us all as having ſin dwelling in us. For theſe having been before ſhewn to ſpeak of Original Sin make it evident that the Scripture gives it the title of Sin, becauſe in the former places repreſenting it under that notion. And though I will not from that only Topick conclude it to be properly ſuch, becauſe the Scripture makes uſe of figurative expreſſions, as well as proper, yea doth ſo in this very particular whereof we ſpeak (for thus it ſometimes gives the title of ſin to that, which is intended only as the puniſhment thereof) yet as we may lawfully inferr from thence, that there is more cauſe to believe Original Sin to be properly, than figuratively ſuch, till the contrary thereof be made appear, The proper ſenſe being otherwiſe to be preferr'd before the figurative; So that there can be no place for the figurative ſenſe, if that, which is there repreſented as a ſin, be elſewhere repreſented as ſuch upon the ſuppoſition of our being obliged to have in us the contrary temper. Which that it is will appear from ſuch Texts, as do more immediately affirm it, or ſuch as affirm thoſe things, from which it may by good conſequence be deduced. Of the former ſort I reckon that, which is immediately ſubjoyn'd by David to the mention of his being conceiv'd in ſin, and brought forth in iniquity Pſa. 51.6.. Behold thou requireſt truth in the inward parts, and ſhalt, or rather haſt made me to underſtand wiſdom ſecretly. For as we cannot but look upon what is there ſaid concerning God's requiring truth in the inward parts as ſpoken with relation to that ſin, whereof he before complains, and to the mention whereof he ſubjoyns the mention of the other; So neither (conſidering it to have been his intent to aggravate his ſinfulneſs before God) but look upon it as alſo his intent to aggravate the ſinfulneſs of his frame by that piety which God required of him. Which ſuppos'd, Original Sin will not only be found to be ſo entituled by the Scripture, but to have had that name beſtowed upon it upon the account of Men's obligation to the contrary, and conſequently to be truely and properly ſuch. And though there be not it may be many more Texts of that nature, or which therefore can be thought ſo directly to affirm, that it becometh the ſin of thoſe, in whom it is, upon the account of their obligation to the contrary; Yet will it not be difficult to find others, which do as clearly aſſert thoſe things, from which it may by good conſequence be deduced. Such as are thoſe which make Original Sin to be a proper matter for confeſſion, yea to induce a guilt upon the perſon, in whom it is. But ſo the Prophet David doth plainly ſuppoſe in that very Pſalm, which we but now made uſe of; Becauſe not only confeſſing Pſa. 51.5. the ſinfulneſs of his Nature together with that of his external actions, but begging of God, immediately after that confeſſion of his, that he would purge him Pſa. 51.7. with Hyſſop from it. For as we have no reaſon to exclude that from the matter of the deſir'd purgation, which immediately precedes the Prayer that is put up for it; So much leſs reaſon to doubt, after that Prayer for the purgation of it, of its inducing a guilt upon the perſon, in whom it is: The uſe of Hyſſop in the Old Law (as appears by ſeveral placesExo. 12.22. Lev. 14.6. in it, and a conſentient Text in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews Heb. 9.19, &c. ) being to ſprinkle the Blood of the Sacrifices upon thoſe, who were any way obnoxious to its cenſures, and ſo deliver them from the ſeverity thereof. For what other then could the Pſalmiſt mean by that Prayer of his, than that God would purge him from that, and his other ſins by the blood of an expiatory Sacrifice? Or ſo meaning be thought to intimate more clearly, than that that, from which he deſir'd to be purg'd, ſtood in need of ſuch a Sacrifice, and conſequently was no more without its guilt, than his actual tranſgreſſions were. Only, if that notion may not be thought to be of ſufficient clearneſs to build ſo important a Concluſion on, it will not be difficult to ſtrengthen it yet more by the word the Hebrew makes us of for purge, and thoſe Prayers, which the Pſalmiſt ſubjoyneth to it; By the former becauſe literally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifying a purification from ſin, by the latter, becauſe importing it to be his deſirePſal. 51.7, 8, 9., that God would waſh him from it, that he would cauſe thoſe bones, that had been broken by it, to rejoyce, and in fine, that he would hide his face from his ſins, and blot out all his iniquities: Theſe, as they are known and uſual expreſſions for the remiſſion of ſins, and conſequently importing the guilt of thoſe, to whom they are apply'd, and their purification from it, ſo with this farther reaſon to be ſo taken here, becauſe the Pſalmiſt afterwards begsPſal. 51.10., that God would purifie him from the filth of them, and renew a right ſpirit within him.

VI. Now though from what hath been ſaid it be competently evident, that the Doctrine of Original Sin is not without good Authority to warrant it, yet becauſe that Doctrine hath been impugned by the Pelagians of Old, and ſince that by the followers of Socinus, therefore it may not be amiſs for the farther clearing of it to conſider their Objections againſt it, and either return a direct, and ſatisfactory anſwer to them, or at leaſt ſhew, that they ought not however to be admitted as a bar againſt what the Scripture hath ſaid concerning it. To begin with thoſe Objections which reſpect the being of it, or rather tend to ſhew that it hath no being in the World; Which are either ſuch, as conſider it as a ſimple corruption of humane Nature, or ſuch as do alſo conſider it as a ſinful one. Of the former ſort are thoſe, which repreſent it as a thing unconceivable, how it ſhould come into humane Nature, which the better to perſuade, they alledge plauſible reaſons againſt all thoſe means, whereby it may be ſuppos'd to find admittance. For theſe being deſtroy'd, they think they may lawfully inferr, that there is indeed no ſuch depravation upon humane Nature. Of what force thoſe reaſons are will be then more ſeaſonable to enquire, when I conſider what is objected againſt the fountain of Original Corruption, or the means by which it is convey'd. At preſent it may ſuffice to ſay, that of what force ſoever they may be thought to be, yet they are not of ſufficient force to deſtroy the being of Original Corruption, which is the thing for which they are here alledg'd; Partly, becauſe many things may be, yea be aſſur'd to us, of the original, or conveyance whereof we our ſelves are perfectly ignorant (for who doubts of the being of humane Souls, though he neither knows, nor well can, whether they be traduc'd, or infus'd) and partly becauſe the teſtimony of Scripture, with the experience we have of its effects, is a much more forcible argument of the being of it, than all the former reaſons are of the other: Theſe being direct, and immediate proofs of its exiſtence, whereas the other are only indirect, and mediate. From ſuch objections therefore as conſider Original Sin as a ſimple Corruption of humane Nature, paſs we to thoſe, which conſider it alſo as ſinful, and which indeed ſeem moſt hardly to preſs upon it: Such as are, that all ſin is the tranſgreſſion of a Law, which Original Sin ſeems not to be; That it requires the conſent of the will of him, in whom it is, which cannot well be affirm'd of that; As in fine, that the Scripture it ſelf may ſeem to make that, which we call Original Sin, rather the Parent of Sin, than ſin it ſelf, becauſe making ſin to ariſeJames 1, 13, &c. from the conception, and parturition of it. As to what is objected from the forementioned Scripture, it is either nothing at all to the purpoſe, or very much againſt the purpoſe of thoſe, that alledge it: Partly becauſe by the ſin there ſpoken of can be meant no other, than actual ſin, and nothing therefore to be concluded from thence, but that all actual ſin is the product of Men's Luſt, and partly becauſe that Text makes even actual ſins to be the product of Men's Luſt, yea of ſuch a luſt as draweth them aſide, and enticeth them. For who can well think the Parent of ſuch Children to be of a better Nature, than the Children themſelves, eſpecially when ſhe is deſcribed as giving birth to them by falſe, and deceitful Arts? Such Arts as thoſe reflecting no great honour upon the Mother, but on the contrary making her to be altogether as criminal, as the other. If therefore they, who impugn Original Sin as ſuch, would do it with any advantage, it muſt not be by Arguments drawn from Scripture, which will rather hurt, than profit them, but by Arguments drawn from reaſon, and particularly by ſuch as repreſent Original Sin as no tranſgreſſion of a Law, and therefore no ſin properly ſo call'd, or as a thing which hath not the conſent of the will of him, in whom it is, and therefore yet farther removed from it. As concerning the former of theſe, even that which repreſents Original. Sin as no tranſgreſſion of a Law, I anſwer that they, who ſo ſpeak, muſt deny it to be ſuch, either becauſe it is no Act, or becauſe there is no Law, which it can be ſuppos'd to be a tranſgreſſion of. If the former of theſe be their meaning, I willingly grant what they alledge, but I ſay withall, that it will not from thence follow, that it is no ſin at all. For if Men are obliged by the divine Law to a pious, and innocent temper, as well as not to ſwerve from it in their actions, the want of that happy temper, or the having a contrary one will be as much the tranſgreſſion of a Law, as the want of the ſame piety in their actions. Which will conſequently devolve the whole force of that Objection upon the ſuppoſition of there being no ſuch Law of God, which requires the former temper, or which therefore Original Sin can be thought to be a tranſgreſſion of. But as I have already made it appear in ſome meaſure, that there is in truth ſuch a Law, as requires a pious, and innocent temper, ſo I ſhall now endeavour to ſtrengthen it by ſome more particular proofs, and by anſwering thoſe exceptions, that are made againſt it.

In order to the former whereof we are to know, that as the Law we ſpeak of muſt be ſuppoſed to have been given to Adam, as that too not only in his private, but publick capacity, and as he may be thought to have been the repreſentative of all Mankind (there being no other Law, which can be ſuppos'd to concern us, before we come to be in a capacity to apprehend, and obey it) ſo I ſhall endeavour to make it appear firſt, that there was ſuch a Law given to Adam, and then that it was given to him not only in his private, but publick capacity, and as he may be thought to have been the repreſentative of all Mankind. Now that there was a Law given to Adam, requiring a pious, and innocent temper, as well as the preſerving that piety and innocency in his actions, will need no other proof than God's creating him in it, and the love he may be ſuppoſed to bear unto it. For as we cannot think God would have ever intruſted ſuch a Jewel with Adam, if it had not been his intention that he ſhould preſerve, and exerciſe it, ſo much leſs, when the holineſs of the divine Nature perſuades his love to it, as well as the declarations of his word. For what were this, but to make God indifferent, what became of his moſt excellent gifts, which no wiſe perſon, and much leſs ſo hearty a lover of them can be ſuppoſed to be? If therefore there can be any doubt concerning the Law we ſpeak of, it muſt be as to its having been given to Adam in his publick capacity, and as he may be ſuppos'd to have been the repreſentative of all Mankind. Which I ſhall endeavour to evince firſt by ſhewing what I mean by his publick capacity, ſecondly by ſhewing that Adam was ſet in ſuch a capacity, and thirdly that the Law we ſpeak of was given to him as conſidered in it. By the publick capacity of Adam I mean ſuch a one, whereby as he was deſign'd to be the Father of all Mankind, ſo God made him a kind of Truſtee for it; In order thereunto both giving him what he did for their benefit, as well as his own, and obliging him for their ſakes, as well as his own, to ſee to the preſervation of it, and act agreeably to it. Which if he did, his Poſterity as well as himſelf ſhould have the benefit thereof, and God's favour together with it, but if not, forfeit together with him what God had ſo beſtow'd upon him, and incurr the penalty of his diſpleaſure. Now that Adam was ſet in ſuch a capacity (which is the ſecond thing to be demonſtrated) will appear from the Scriptures making him the cauſe of all Men's death by his offence, and diſobedience. For the effects of another diſobedience being not otherwiſe chargeable upon any Man, than as that other may be ſuppos'd to be appointed to act for him; If the effects of Adam's diſobedience were to fall upon all his Poſterity, he alſo muſt be ſuppoſed to have been appointed to act for them, and conſequently to have been ſet in that publick capacity, whereof I ſpeak. Which will leave nothing more for us to ſhew upon this Head, than that that Law, which requires a pious and innocent temper was given to Adam in that capacity. But as we can as little doubt of that, if his contracting a contrary temper was as fatal to his Poſterity, as to himſelf; So that it was, will need no other proof than his producing the like temper in them, and that temper's proving as deadly to them. The former whereof is evident from what I before ſaid to ſhew, that Original Sin had its beginning from Adam, the latter from S. Paul'sRom. 7.24. calling it a Body of Death, or a Body that brings it: The Genitive Caſe Grot. i • loc. among the Hebrews, and Helleniſts, being uſually ſet for ſuch Adjectives, as betoken a cauſality in them; Even as the Savour of Death is us'd for a deadly one, or that which bringeth death, and the Tree of Life for a life-giving one, or that which was apt to produce, or continue it.

I deny not indeed (that I may now paſs to thoſe Exceptions that are commonly made againſt it) that it may ſeem hard to conceive how Adam ſhould be ſet in ſuch a capacity, as to involve all mankind in happipineſs, or miſery, according as he either continued in, or fell from that integrity, wherein God created him. I deny not therefore, but that it is equally hard to conceive how God ſhould give him ſuch a Law, the obſervation, or tranſgreſſion whereof on his part ſhould redound to the account of his Poſterity. But as every thing, that is hard to be conceiv'd, is not therefore to be deny'd, if it be otherwiſe ſtrengthen'd with ſufficient proofs; So it would be conſider'd alſo, whether it be not much more hard to conceive, how God ſhould otherwiſe involve Infants, and Children in thoſe calamities, into which they often fall, eſpecially in National Judgments: It being certainly more agreeable to the divine Juſtice, to conceive thoſe to have ſome way, or other offended, and conſequently thereto to have fallen under the diſpleaſure of it, than to conceive them to ſuffer it without any offence at all. For why then ſhould we not think, eſpecially when the Scripture hath led the way, that God oblig'd them in Adam to a pious, and innocent temper, and which they loſing in him, they became obnoxious with him to the ſame ſad effects of his diſpleaſure? And though it be true, that there is this great imparity between the caſes, that the effect of God's diſpleaſure upon occaſion of Original Sin is made to reach to eternal miſery, as well as to a temporal one, whereas the caſe we before inſtanc'd in concerns only a temporal puniſhment: Yet as they do thus far agree, that a puniſhment is inflicted, where there is no actual ſin to deſerve it, which is ſufficiently irreconcileable with the underſtanding we otherwiſe have of the divine Juſtice; So that great imparity may be much abated by conſidering, that God hath provided a Plaſter as large as the Sore, (even by giving his Son to dye for all Mankind) and appointed the Sacrament of Baptiſm to convey the benefit of it. For as the conſequents of Original Sin will be thereby taken off from ſo many Infants at leaſt, as are admitted to that Sacrament, ſo that mercy of his to thoſe, and the aſſurance we have from the Scripture of his giving his Son to dye for all may perſwade us to believe, that though he hath not reveal'd the particular way to us, yet he hath ſome other way to convey the benefit of that death to thoſe, who are not admitted to the other.

But it will be ſaid it may be (which is a no leſs prejudice againſt the being of Original Sin) that all ſin, to make it truly ſuch, muſt have the conſent of the will of thoſe, in whom it is, as well as be the tranſgreſſion of a Law. A thing by no means to be affirm'd concerning that, which we call Original Sin, becauſe not only contracted before we had a being, and therefore alſo before we had ſo much as the faculty of willing, but moreover conveyed to us, when we had neither reaſon to apprehend it, nor any power in our wills either to admit, or reject it. And indeed how altogether to take off the force of that Objection is beyond my capacity to apprehend, or ſatisfie the underſtandings of other Men: Becauſe as I cannot ſee how any thing can be a ſin, which hath not alſo the conſent of the will of thoſe, in whom it is, ſo I am as little able to conceive how Original Sin ſhould have the conſent of ours, either when it was firſt contracted, or when it was tranſmitted to us. But as I am far leſs able to conceive how Infants, and Children ſhould come to be ſo ſeverely dealt with without any offence at all, or therefore without having ſome way, or other conſented to one; So I think firſt, that that difficulty may well be laid in the ballance againſt the other, yea alledged as a bar to the ſuppoſed force of it. For why ſhould my inability to apprehend how Infants, and Children could conſent to Original Sin, prevail with me to deny the being of it, when a far greater inability to apprehend how the ſame perſons ſhould come to be ſo ſeverely dealt withal without it, doth not prevail with me to deny that ſevere uſage of them? Neither will it avail to ſay (which is otherwiſe conſiderable enough) that we have for the belief of this laſt the teſtimony of our ſenſes, which is not to be alledged as to the other. For the queſtion is not now whether the ſevere uſage of Infants, and Children may not more reaſonably be believ'd, than their Original Sin, upon the account of the greater evidence there may be of it; But whether we can any more deny the Original Sin of Infants, and Children upon the account of our inability to apprehend, how they ſhould conſent unto it, than we can deny the ſevere uſage of the ſame perſons upon the account of our inability to apprehend, how they ſhould come to be ſo dealt with without the other. Which that we cannot is evident from hence, that we are equally at a loſs in our apprehenſions about the one, and the other, that I ſay not alſo more at a loſs about the latter, than about the former. And indeed, as we find it neceſſary to believe many things notwithſtanding our inability to apprehend how they ſhould come to paſs, and ought not therefore to deny the being of any one thing upon the ſole account of that inability; So our apprehenſions are ſo ſhort as to the modes of thoſe things, of the being whereof we are moſt aſſured, that it will hardly be deemed reaſonable to inſiſt upon the ſuggeſtions of them, againſt the affirmations of the Scripture: Partly becauſe of the Authority of him, from whom it proceeded, and partly becauſe we cannot ſo eaſily fail in our apprehenſion concerning the due ſenſe of the affirmations of it, as in the deductions of our own reaſon concerning the things affirmed; Nothing more being required to the underſtanding of the one, than a due conſideration of the ſignification of the words, wherein they are expreſſed; whereas to the right ordering of the other, there is requir'd a due underſtanding of the Nature of thoſe things about which we reaſon, which is both a matter of far greater difficulty, and in many caſes impoſſible to be attain'd. Whatever difficulty therefore there may be in apprehending how Original Sin could have the conſent of thoſe, in whom it is ſuppoſed to be, and conſequently how it ſhould be truly and properly a ſin; Yet ought not that to be a bar againſt our belief of it, if the Scripture hath repreſented it as ſuch, and which whether it hath, or no, I ſhall leave to be judg'd by what I have before obſerv'd from it.

From ſuch Objections, as are level'd more immediately againſt the being of Original Sin, paſs we to thoſe which impugne the derivation of it from Adam, and from whom we have affirmed it to proceed. Which Objections again do either tend to ſhew, that it had its Original from ſomething elſe, or that it cannot be ſuppos'd to have its Original from Adam. An opinion hath prevail'd of late years, that that, which we call Original Sin, took its riſe from the ſins of particular Souls in ſome praexiſtent eſtate, and from thoſe evil habits, which they contracted by them. And certainly the opinion were reaſonable enough to be embrac'd, if the praexiſtence of Souls were but as well prov'd, as it is ſpeciouſly contriv'd. For, that ſuppos'd, it would be no hard matter to give an account of the riſe of that Corruption, which is in us, nor yet of God's afflicting thoſe on whom no other blame appears: That corruption, as it is no other than what particular Souls have themſelves contracted, ſo making them as obnoxious to the vengeance of God, as any after ſins can be ſuppoſed to do. But do they, who advance this hypotheſis, think the plauſibleneſs thereof a ſufficient ground to build it on? Or are problems in Divinity no other way to be determin'd, than thoſe of Aſtronomy, or other ſuch conjectural Arts are? I had thought that for the reſolution of theſe we ought rather to have had recourſe to that word of God, which was deſign'd to give us an underſtanding of them, to have examin'd the ſeveral aſſertions of it, and acquieſced in them, how difficult ſoever to be apprehended. I had thought that we ought to have done ſo much more, where the Scripture profeſſeth to deliver its opinion, and doth not only not wave the thing in queſtion, but ſpeaks to it. Which that it doth in the preſent caſe will need no other proof than the account it gives of the Original of Mankind, and then of the Original of Evil. For as it profeſſeth to ſpeak of Adam not only as created by God, but as appointed by himGen. 1.28. to give being by the way of natural Generation to all, that after him ſhould repleniſh the Earth (which how he ſhould be thought to do, if he were only to be a means of furniſhing them with a Body, who had the better part of their being before, is paſt my underſtanding to imagine) ſo it profeſſeth to ſpeak of the ſame Adam as one by whom ſin, and death Rom. 5.12. 1 Cor. 15.21, 22. enter'd into the World, as well as the perſons of thoſe, on whom it ſeizeth. And can there then be any place for a precarious hypotheſis about the Original of Mankind, or the evils of it? Can there be place for advancing that hypotheſis not only beſide, but againſt the determinations of the Scripture? Do not all ſuch hypotheſes proceed upon the uncertainty of the matter, about which they are converſant? Do they not come in as a relief to the underſtandings of Men, where they cannot be ſatisfied any other way? But how then can there be place for ſuch a one, where the Scripture hath determin'd? How can there be any place even for the moſt ſpecious, and plauſible? For as that cannot be ſuppos'd to be uncertain, which the Scripture hath determin'd; So no plauſibility whatſoever can come in competition with the determinations of God, ſuch as thoſe of the Scripture are. But ſuch it ſeems is the reſtleſneſs of ſome Men's minds, that if they cannot ſatisfie their ſcruples from what the Scripture hath advanced, they will be ſetting up other Hypotheſes to do it by. Wherein yet they are for the moſt part ſo unlucky, as to advance ſuch things themſelves, as have nothing at all of probability in them. For who can think it any way probable, that, if mens Souls had an exiſtence antecedent to their conception in the Womb, they ſhould not in the leaſt be conſcious of it, nor of any of thoſe things, which were tranſacted by them in it? Is it (as one hath obſerv'd, who ſeems to have been the firſt broacher of it in this latter Age) is it, I ſay, for want of opportunity of being reminded of their former tranſactions, as it happens to many, who riſe confident that they ſlept without dreaming, and yet before they go to bed again recover a whole ſeries of repreſentations by ſomething that occurr'd to them in the day? But who can think, when the Souls of Men muſt be ſuppoſed to carry in them the ſame evil tendencies, and inclinations, that they ſhould never light upon any one thing, which might bring back to their minds what they had formerly tranſacted, or but ſo much as that they had a being antecedent to their preſent one? For whoever was ſo forgetful of his dreams, as not to remember he was ſometime in a dreaming condition, yea that he actually dreamed in it? Is it ſecondly (as the ſame Learned Man goes on) by a deſuetude of thinking of their former actions, and whereby it ſometimes comes to paſs, as he there obſerves, that what we have earneſtly meditated, labour'd for, and pen'd down with our own hands, when we were at School, becomes ſo loſt to our memories, that if we did not ſee our own handwriting to it, we ſhould not acknowledge it to be our own? But doth this come home to the preſent caſe? Doth it perſuade ſuch a forgetfulneſs in the Souls of Men, as not only not to remember their particular actions, but not ſo much as that they were in a condition to act any thing, or acted any thing under it? For though a Man may forget the particular exerciſe he did at School, yet can any Man (though he ſlept an Age, and never ſo much as dream'd in all that time of being at School, or any other thing, be ſuppoſed, if he awoke in his right wits, to forget he was ſometime in ſuch a place, and performed ſome exerciſes in it? Is it laſtly by means of ſome diſtemper, that happens to the Soul by coming into an earthly Body, and by which the foremention'd perſon conceives the Soul may ſuffer in its memory, as we ſee it ſometime doth in its preſent ſtate by caſualties, and diſeaſes, yea ſo far as to make the perſon forget his own name? But though the Soul ſhould be ſuppoſed to fall into ſuch a forgetfulneſs by entring into a body (as we ſee it is a long time before it comes to exerciſe its reſpective faculties) yet is there any reaſon to think it ſhould continue in it after it hath gotten above the infirmities of the other, yea ſo far as to reaſon with that clearneſs, wherewith this Author doth in many things, and with great plauſibility in all others? For though Men may happen to be ſo ſtricken by a diſeaſe, as to forget even their own names, yea have undoubtedly ſuffered in that nature; yet is there no evidence from ſtory that I know of, or indeed preſumption for the ſuppoſition of it, that though the parties did again recover the free uſe of their faculties, yet they were unable to look back to their priſtine ſtate, or call to mind any of the paſſages thereof. So much more ſpecious, than ſtrong are the reaſons that Author alledgeth to ſhew the Soul to be in a natural incapacity to call to mind its priſtin ſtate, and actions. And yet if they prov'd what they intended, they would hardly make it credible, that it ſhould be without all knowledge of them: God, who thruſts it down into its preſent ſtate by reaſon of its former errours, being likely enough to bring them to its mind, though it ſhould be otherwiſe ignorant of them. Otherwiſe he ſhould neither make it ſenſible of its own guilt, and his chooſing thus to puniſh it, which is one ſuppoſed end of his thruſting it down, nor careful to break off from it, which is another. And I ſhall only add, that as we cannot therefore be in any great danger from thoſe Objections, which pretend to derive Original ſin from another principle; So ſhall we not now be much incommoded by the force of thoſe Objections, which profeſs more directly to impugn the derivation of it from Adam. For as thoſe Objections are principally founded upon the incompetency of Adam to involve all mankind in the guilt of his tranſgreſſion, ſo I have not only made it appear already, that Adam was no way incompetent for that purpoſe, becauſe appointed by God as the repreſentative of all mankind, but ſaid enough, though not to anſwer, yet to ſilence what is objected againſt it from the ſuppoſed want of our conſent to his tranſgreſſion. Which will leave nothing more for us to do, than to conſider what is objected againſt the means, we have before aſſign'd of the conveying of that Original Sin whereof we ſpeak. But as I have not been poſitive in aſſigning the particular means of its conveyance, and muſt therefore be the leſs concern'd to anſwer what is objected againſt them; So I ſhall oppoſe to all thoſe Objections the aſſurance we have from the Scripture of our having it in us from our Conception, and Birth, yea contracting it from thoſe fleſhly, and unclean perſons, from whom we are deſcended: That, as it is enough to ſhew that it is conveyed to us by the ſame general means, by which our very nature is, ſo making it at leaſt probable that it paſſeth from them to us together with our Souls, and from thence diffuſeth it ſelf unto our Bodies. And how far a probability ſo founded ought to prevail againſt all the Arguments, which are oppos'd to the traduction of Souls, eſpecially when the Scripture ſeems to favour that traduction alſo, will be no hard matter for him to judge, who ſhall conſider on the one hand the ſhortneſs of our own reaſonings, and on the other what difficulties attend the Creation, and Infuſion, as well as the traduction of Souls. For as thoſe very difficulties will oblige us to ſit down after all with a probable aſſent in this affair, ſo the ſhortneſs of our own reaſonings to guide that aſſent rather by probable teſtimonies of Scripture, than by probable arguments from Reaſon: Becauſe as we are more aſſur'd of the truth of thoſe teſtimonies, than we can be of the truth of any of thoſe arguments, which we ground our ſelves upon in this affair; So we cannot ſo eaſily fail in our apprehenſions concerning the other; Nothing more being requir'd toward the apprehending the force of the former, than the due conſideration of the ſenſe of the words, wherein they are expreſſed, whereas to the apprehending of the force of the latter we muſt have a clear knowledge of the nature of thoſe things, about which they are converſant, which is certainly a matter of far greater difficulty, and wherein therefore we may more eaſily miſtake. Only if what is ſaid in this particular may not be thought to be ſatisfactory, becauſe rather a bar to what is objected againſt the traduction of Souls (and conſequently of Original Sin) than any direct anſwer to it; I ſhall deſire thoſe, who are diſſatisfi'd with it, to give ſuch an anſwer, as they themſelves demand to what is objected by the other party againſt the immediate Creation, and infuſion of them: It ſeeming not ſo eaſie to imagine (that I may not now preſs them with any other inconveniencies) that God ſhould create a Soul on purpoſe to infuſe it into ſuch inceſtuous conceptions, as he himſelf cannot but be thought to abhor. For my ſelf, as I can with equal eaſe digeſt the traduction of Souls with all its inconveniencies, or rather acquieſce in that evidence, which the Doctrine of the Scripture, and the ſimple nature of a generation do ſeem to ſuggeſt; So I ſhall hardly think it reaſonable to quit it, till they, who aſſert the Creation of Souls, free it from the former inconvenience, and other ſuch difficulties, wherewith it is alike encumbred. For till that be done, the traduction of Souls will not only be of greater probability, but ſerve more clearly to declare how that corruption, which our firſt Parents contracted, paſſed from them unto their Children, and ſo on to ſucceding Generations.

I Have conſidered the ſign of Baptiſm hitherto in its relation to Forgiveneſs, that Grace, which tends to free men from their guilt, and is for that purpoſe convey'd by Baptiſm to us; I come now to conſider it in its relation to thoſe, which either tend to free them from the pollution of ſin, beſt known by the name of a Death unto it, or to introduce the contrary righteouſneſs, and is call'd a new birth unto it. Where again I ſhall ſhew in each of them, that as the outward work of Baptiſm hath the relation of a ſign unto them, ſo it hath equally the relation of a means fitted by God to convey them, and where it is duly receiv'd, doth not fail to introduce them.

To begin (as is but meet) with that, which hath the name of a Death unto ſin, becauſe ſin muſt be firſt ſubdu'd, before the contrary quality can be introduc'd; Where firſt I will enquire what we are to underſtand by it, and then what evidence there is of the ſign of Baptiſm's being fitted to convey it.

For the better underſtanding the former whereof we are to know, that as Men by the corruption of their nature are inclined unto ſin, and yet more by the irregularity of their converſations, ſo thoſe inclinations are to the perſons in whom they are, as a principle of life to a living Creature, and accordingly do both diſpoſe them to act ſutably thereto, and make them brisk, and vigorous in it. Now as it cannot well be expected, that where ſuch inclinations prevail, Men ſhould purſue thoſe things, which piety, and vertue prompt them to, ſo it was the buſineſs of Philoſophy firſt, and afterwards of Religion, if not wholly to deſtroy thoſe inclinations, yet at leaſt to ſubdue them in ſuch ſort, that they ſhould be in a manner dead, and the perſons, in whom they were, ſo far forth dead alſo; They neither finding in themſelves the like inclinations to actual ſin, nor hurried on by them, when they did. How little able Philoſophy was to contribute to ſo bleſſed an effect is not my buſineſs to ſhew, nor indeed will there be any need of it, after what I have elſewhereExpl. of the Creed. Art. I believe in the Holy Ghoſt. ſaid concerning the neceſſity of the divine Grace in order to it. But as Chriſtianity doth every where pretend to the doing of it, and (which is more) both repreſents that effect under the name of a death unto ſin, and compares Men's thus dying with that natural death, which our Saviour underwent, ſo it may the more reaſonably pretend to the producing of it, becauſe it alſo pretends to furniſh Men with the power of his Grace, to which ſuch an effect cannot be ſuppos'd to be diſproportionate. The only thing in queſtion as to our preſent concernment is, whether as the outward work of Baptiſm hath undoubtedly the relation of a ſign unto it, ſo it hath alſo the relation of a means fitted by God for the conveying of it, and what evidence there is of that relation.

Now there are two ſorts of Texts, which bear witneſs to this relation, as well as to its having that more confeſſed relation of a ſign. Whereof the former entreat of this Grace under the title of a death unto ſin, the latter of a cleanſing from it. Of the former ſort I reckon that well known place to the Romans, where S. Paul doth not only ſuppoſe all true ChriſtiansRom. 6.2. to be dead to ſin, and accordingly argue from it the unfitneſs of their living any longer therein, but affirm all, that are baptized into Jeſus Chriſt Rom. 6.3., to be baptized into that death, yea to be buried by Baptiſm Rom. 6.4, into it; to be planted together Rom. 6.5, by that means in the likeneſs of Chriſts death, and to have their old Man Rom. 6.6., or the body of ſin crucified with him. For ſhall we ſay that S. Paul meant no more by all this, than that the deſign of Baptiſm, and the ſeveral parts of it was to repreſent to us the neceſſity of our dying, and being buried as to ſin, and that accordingly all, that are baptized into Chriſt, make profeſſion of their reſolution ſo to do, but not that they are indeed buried by Baptiſm as to that particular. But beſide that we are not lightly to depart from the propriety of the Scripture phraſe, which muſt be acknowledg'd rather to favour a real death, than the bare ſignification of it; That Apoſtle doth moreover affirm thoſe, whom he before deſcrib'd as dead, to be freed Rom. 7.18. from ſin, yea ſo farRom. 7.18. as to have paſſed over into another ſervice, even that of righteouſneſs, and to have obeyed from the heart Rom. 7.17. that form of Doctrine, into which they had been delivered. Which ſuppos'd (as it may, becauſe the direct affirmation of S. Paul) will make that death, whereof we ſpeak, to be a death in reality, as well as in figure, and accordingly (becauſe Men are affirmed to be baptized into it) ſhew that Baptiſm to be a means of conveying it, as well as a repreſentation of it. Agreeable hereto, or rather yet more expreſs is that of the ſame Apoſtle to the Coloſſians Col. 2.11. though varying a little from the other, as to the manner of expreſſion. For having affirmed them through Chriſt to have put off the body of the ſins of the fleſh by a circumciſion not made with hands, and conſequently by a ſpiritual one, he yet adds (leſt any ſhould fancy that ſpiritual Circumciſion to accrue to them without ſome ceremonial one) in the Circumciſion of Chriſt, even that Baptiſm, which, conformably to the circumciſion of the Jews, he had appointed for their entrance into his Religion by, and wherein he accordingly affirms, as he did in the former place, that they were not only buried with him, but had riſen together with him by the faith of the operation of God, who raiſed him from the dead. From whence as it is clear, that the putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh (which is but another expreſſion for a death unto them) is though accompliſhed by a ſpiritual Grace, yet by ſuch a one, as is conveyed to us by Baptiſm, ſo it becomes yet more clear by what he adds concerning Men's riſing with him in the ſame Baptiſm, even to a life contrary to what they had before depoſited, through the faith of the operation of God. For as we cannot conceive of that riſing with Chriſt as other than a real one, becauſe there would not otherwiſe have needed ſuch a faith, as that, to bring it about; So neither therefore but think the like of that death, which it preſuppoſeth, and conſequently that that Baptiſm, to which it is annex'd, is a means of conveying it, as well as a repreſentation of it. But ſo we may be yet more convinc'd by ſuch Texts of Scripture, as ſpeak of this death unto ſin under the notion of a cleanſing from it. Of which nature is that ſo often alledged oneEph. 5.26, 27. concerning Chriſt's ſanctifying, and cleanſing his Church with the waſhing of water by the word. For as it appears from what is afterwards ſubjoyn'd as the end of that cleanſing, even that the Church might not have any ſpot, or wrinkle, but that it ſhould be holy, and without blemiſh; As it appears, I ſay, from thence, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks in the verſe before concerning a cleanſing from the filth of ſin, which is but another expreſſion for the putting off the body of ſin, or a death unto it; So it appears in like manner from S. Paul's attributing that cleanſing to the waſhing of water, that the outward ſign of Baptiſm is by the appointment, and proviſion of God, a means of conveying that ſpiritual Grace, by which that cleanſing is more immediately effected, and that death unto ſin procur'd.

From that death unto ſin therefore paſs we to our new birth unto righteouſneſs, that other inward, and ſpiritual Grace of Baptiſm, and the complement of the former. A Grace of whoſe conveyance by Baptiſm we can much leſs doubt, if we conſider the language of the Scripture concerning it, or the Doctrine, as well as practice of the Church; The opinion the Jews had of that, which ſeems to have been its type, and exemplar, or the expreſſions even of the Heathen concerning it.

For what leſs can the Scripture be thought to mean, when it affirms us to be born of the water Joh. 3.5. of it, as well as of the ſpirit, yea ſo, as to be as truly ſpirit Joh. 3.6., as that, which is born of the fleſh, is fleſh? What leſs can it be thought to mean, when it entitles it the laver of Tit. 3.5. Regeneration, and which is more, affirms us to be ſaved by it, as well as by the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt? What leſs, when it requires us to look upon our ſelves as alive Rom. 6.11. unto God by it, as well as buried Rom. 6.4. by it into the former death, or (as the ſame Apoſtle elſewhere expreſſeth it) as riſen with Chriſt in it Col. 2.12. through the faith of the operation of God, who raiſed him from the dead? In fine, what leſs when it affirms us to be ſanctified with the waſhing Eph. 5.26. of it, as well as it elſewhere doth by the influences of God's Spirit. For theſe expreſſions ſhew plainly enough, that Baptiſm hath its ſhare in the producing of this new birth, as well as the efficacy of God's Spirit; And conſequently that it is at leaſt the conveyer of that Grace, by which it is more immediately produc'd.

And indeed as, if men would come without prejudice, they would ſoon ſee enough in thoſe expreſſions to convince them of as much as I have deduced from them; So they might ſee yet more (if they paſs'd ſo far) in the doctrine, and language of the Church, to confirm them in that Interpretation of them. For who ever even of the firſt, and pureſt times ſpake in a lower ſtrain concerning Baptiſm? who ever made leſs of it, than of a means, by which we are regenerated? I appeal for a proof hereof to their ſo unanimouſly See Part 2. underſtanding of Baptiſm what our Saviour ſpake to Nicodemus concerning the neceſſity of men's being born again of water, and of the ſpirit. For as all men whatſoever interpret that of our new birth unto righteouſneſs, and, ſo far, as the ſpirit of God is concerned in it, of the means, by which it is produc'd; So they muſt therefore believe, that if the Antients underſtood it of Baptiſm, they allotted that its ſhare in it, and conſequently made it at leaſt a conveyer of that Grace, by which this new birth is produc'd. I appeal farther to the particular declarations of ſome of the moſt eminent among them, and which whoſoever ſhall ſeriouſly conſider, will wonder how it ſhould come to fall back to a naked, and ineffectual ſign. For Juſtin Martyr Apolog. 2. p. 93, 94. ſpeaking concerning thoſe, who had prepar'd themſelves for Baptiſm, affirms them to be brought by the brethren to a place, where water is, and there to be regenerated after that way of regeneration, wherewith they themſelves were. Which what it was, and of how great force he afterwards ſhews, by affirming them thereupon to be waſh'd in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, as that too conformably to what our Saviour ſpake concerning the neceſſity of men's being born again, To what the Prophet Iſaiah meant, when he ſaid, Waſh you, make you clean, put away wickedneſſes from your ſouls; And in fine, to procure their deliverance from that, whether natural, or habitual corruptions they were under the power of. For theſe things ſhew plainly enough, that as he ſpake of the Baptiſmal regeneration, ſo he ſpake of it too as a thing, which procur'd, as well as figur'd the internal regeneration of them. To the ſame purpoſe doth Tertullian diſcourſe, and particularly in his Tract de Baptiſmo; Witneſs his calling it, in the very beginning thereof, that happy Sacrament of our water, wherewith being waſh'd from the faults of our preſent blindneſs, we are freed into eternal life His affirming preſently after, that we the leſſer fiſhes, according to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or greater one Jeſus Chriſt, are born in the water, neither can continue ſafe, unleſs we abide in it; That we ought not to wonder, if the waters of Baptiſm give life, when that Element was the firſt, that brought forth any living creature; That, as the Spirit of God moved at the beginning upon the face of waters, ſo the ſame ſpirit of God, after the invocation of his name, doth deſcend from Heaven upon thoſe of Baptiſm, and having ſanctified them from himſelf gives them a power of ſanctifying others. For theſe and the like paſſages ſhew as plainly, that that Authour look'd upon the outward ſign of Baptiſm as contributing in its place to the production of our new birth, or ſanctification, as well as to the repreſentation of it. But of all the Antient Fathers, that have entreated of this affair, or indeed of that Sacrament, which we are now upon the conſideration of, there is no one, who hath ſpoken more, or more to the purpoſe than S. Cyprian, or whoſe words therefore will be more fit to conſider. Only, that I may not multiply teſtimonies without neceſſity, I will content my ſelf with one ſingle one, but which indeed for the fulneſs thereof will ſerve inſtead of many, and be moreover as clear a teſtimony of our dying unto ſin by Baptiſm, as of our regeneration by it. For when (ſaith heEpiſt. ad Donat.) I lay in darkneſs, and under the obſcurity of the Night; When uncertain and doubtful I floated on the Sea of this toſſing World, ignorant of my own life, and as great a ſtranger to truth, I thought it exceeding difficult, as the manners of Men then were, that any one ſhould be born again, as the divine mercy had promis'd, and that being animated to a new life by the laver of ſalutary water, he ſhould put off that which he was before, and whilſt the frame of his body continu'd the ſame, become a new Man in his heart, and mind. For how (ſaid I) is it poſſible, that that ſhould be ſuddenly put off, which either being natural is now grown hard by the natural ſituation of the matter, or contracted by a long cuſtom hath been improv'd by old Age, &c. To theſe, and the like purpoſes I often diſcours'd with my ſelf; For as I was at that time entangled with many errours of my former life, which I did not then think it was poſſible for me to put off; So I willingly gave obedience to thoſe vices, that ſtuck to me, and through a deſpair of better things, I favour'd my evils, as though they had been my proper, and domeſtick ones. But after that through the aſſiſtance of this generating water the blemiſhes of my former life were waſh'd off, and my mind thus purged had a light from above poured into it; After that the ſecond birth had chang'd me into a new Man through the force of that ſpirit, or breath, which I ſuck'd in from above; Then thoſe things, which were before doubtful, became exceeding certain, and manifeſt; things, which were before ſhut, were then laid open, and dark things made light. Then that, which before ſeemed difficult, appear'd to help, rather than hinder, and that, which ſometime was thought impoſſible, as poſſible to be done. So that it was not difficult to diſcern, that that was earthly, which being carnally born did before live obnoxious to faults, and that that began to be God's, which the Holy Ghoſt now animated. You your ſelf verily know, and will as readily acknowledge with me, what was either taken from, or beſtow'd upon us by that death of crimes, and life of vertues. Which as it is an illuſtrious teſtimony of the force of Baptiſm in this particular, and with what reaſon we have affirm'd it to be a means of procuring the former death, and birth; So I have the more willingly taken notice of it, becauſe it comes ſo near even in its expreſſion to what our Catechiſm hath repreſented as the inward and ſpiritual Grace thereof: There being no great difference between a death of crimes, and life of vertues, which is the expreſſion of that Father, and a death unto ſin, and a new birth unto righteouſneſs, which is the other's. And I ſhall only add, that as the Doctrine of the Church muſt therefore be thought to bear ſufficient teſtimony to Baptiſm's being a means of our regeneration; So its practice is in this particular anſwerable to its Doctrine, and though in another way proclaims the ſame thing. Witneſs what hath been elſewhere obſerv'd concerning its giving Milk, and Hony See Part 3. to the new Baptized perſon, as to an Infant new-born, its requiring him preſently after Baptiſm to ſayExpl. of the Lord's Prayer in the words Out Father. Our Father, &c. as a teſtimony of his Son-ſhip by it; And in fine its making uſe of the word regenerated to ſignifie Baptized: As is evident for the Greek Writers from what was but now quoted out of Juſtin Martyr, De vitâ B. Martini c. 1. Necdum tamen regeneratus in Chriſto agebat quendam bonis operibus Baptiſmatis candidatum. and from Sulpitius Severus among the Latins. Which things put together make it yet more clear, that whatever it may be now accounted, yet the Church of God ever look'd upon the Sacrament of Baptiſm as a mean of our internal regeneration.

And indeed as it is hard to believe, that it ought to be otherwiſe eſteem'd, conſidering what hath been alledg'd either from Scripture, or the declarations of the Church; So it will appear to be yet harder, if we conſider the opinion of the Jews concerning that, which may ſeem to have been both it's Type, and exemplar. For as I have made it appear beforePart 1., that even they were not without their Baptiſm, and ſuch a one, as was moreover intended for the ſame general ends, for which both their Circumciſion was, and our Baptiſm is; So I have made it appear alſoIbid., that the perſons ſo baptiz'd among them were accounted as perſons newborn, yea ſo far, that after that time they were not to own any of their former relations; In fine, that that new birth was look'd upon as ſo ſingular, that it gave occaſion to their Cabaliſtical Doctors to teach, that the old ſoul of the Baptized Proſelyte vaniſhed, and a new one ſucceeded in its place. For if this was the condition of that Type of Chriſtian Baptiſm, how much more of the Antitype thereof? Eſpecially when it is farther probable (as hath been alſoPart 2. noted from the diſcourſe of our Saviour to Nicodemus) that he both alluded in it to that Baptiſm of theirs, and intimated the conformity of his own Baptiſm to it in that particular.

And though after ſo full an evidence of this relation of Baptiſm to regeneration it may ſeem hardly worth our while to alledge the expreſſions of the Heathen concerning it; Yet I cannot forbear, for the conformity thereof to the preſent argument, to take notice of one remarkable one of Lucian Lucian. Philopatr. p. 999. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., who brings in one Triepho thus diſcourſing after his ſcoffing manner. But when (ſaith he) that Galilean lighted upon me, who had a bald Pate, a great Noſe, who aſcended up to the third Heaven, and there learn'd the moſt excellent things (meaning, as is ſuppos'd S. Paul) he renewed us by water, made us to tread in the footſteps of the bleſſed, and deliver'd us from the Regions of the ungodly. In which paſſage under the title of renewing men by water he perſonates the Chriſtian Doctrine concerning their being regenerated, or renewed by Baptiſm, and accordingly makes it the ſubject of his reproach.

HAving thus given an account of ſuch inward, and ſpiritual Graces of Baptiſm, as tend more immediately to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare; It remains that I ſay ſomewhat of that, which though of no ſuch immediate tendency, yet is not without all, becauſe qualifying us for the reception of the other: That Ʋnion I mean, which we thereby obtain to Chriſt's myſtical body the Church, and by which we, who were before Aliens from it, as well as from God, and Chriſt, become members of the Church, and partakers of the ſeveral priviledges thereof. Which Ʋnion if any Man ſcruple to reckon among the inward, and ſpiritual Graces of Baptiſm properly ſo call'd, I will not contend with him about it; Provided he alſo allow of it as a thing ſignified by it on the part of God, and Chriſt, and as moreover a Grace, and favour to the perſon, on whom it is beſtow'd. For as that is all I ask at preſent concerning the Union now in queſtion; So what I farther mean by it's being an inward, and ſpiritual Grace ſhall be clear'd in the proceſs of this Diſcourſe, and receive that eſtabliſhment, which it requires. In order whereunto I will ſhew the outward and viſible ſign of Baptiſm to be a means, whereby that Union is made, and then point out the conſequences of that Union.

That the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm is in the nature of a means, whereby we are united to the Church, will appear if we reflect upon what the Scripture hath ſaid concerning it; or the agreeing declarations of the Church it ſelf. For what elſe (to begin with the former) can S. Paul 1 Cor. 12.13. be thought to mean, where he affirms all whether Jews, or Gentiles, or of what ever other outward differences, to have been baptiz'd by one ſpirit into one body? For as it is plain from the foregoing1 Cor. 12.12. verſe, or verſes, that S. Paul entreats of Chriſt's Body the Church, and conſequently that the baptizing here ſpoken of muſt be meant of our Baptizing into it; So it is alike plain from what it was deſigned to prove, as well as from the natural force of the expreſſion, that it was ſet to denote alſo our being united to it thereby. For as we cannot impoſe a more natural ſenſe upon Baptized into that body, than our being receiv'd by Baptiſm into it, as the Baptized perſon is within the water, and conſeqently ſome way united to it; So much leſs if we conſider what it was intended to prove, even1 Cor. 12.12. that Chriſtians, how many ſoever, are but that one body. For how doth their being baptiz'd into it prove them to be that one Body, but that that viſible ſign, by which they are ſo, unites them to one another, and to the whole? A meer ſign of Union, though it may ſhew what the partakers thereof ought to be, yet being no juſt proof of what they are, and much leſs (as S. Paul ſeems to argue) that they are ſo by the means of it. And indeed, as it will therefore be hard to make the ſign here ſpoken of to be any thing leſs than a means of our Union to the Church; So eſpecially, if we conſider what is elſewhere ſaid concerning thoſe, who firſt after the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, were baptized in the name of Chriſt: S. Luke not only affirming of thoſe new baptiz'd ones, that they were added to Acts 2.41. the Apoſtles, and their other company, (which he afterwards expreſſethActs 2.47. by added to the Church) but that they were partakersActs 2.42. with the reſt in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, and in breaking of bread, and in Prayers. For this ſhews their having an intereſt in all the priviledges of that Body, and therefore much more their being united to it. But ſo it appears that the Antient Church eſteemed of it, whoſe determination is of the more force, becauſe it is only about the ſuppoſed means of Union to its own Body; Juſtin Martyr, after he had ſpoken of the baptizing of ſuch as offer'd themſelves to the Chriſtian Church (which he himſelf expreſſeth, when ſo baptiz'd, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or conjoyned with themſelves) affirming that they were immediately brought where the brethren were aſſembled, there to partake with them of the common Prayers, that were then offer'd up, of the kiſs of peace, and of the Lord's Supper. Which laſt particular I have the more confidently repreſented the new baptized perſons as then admitted to, becauſe the ſame Father doth not only make no diſtinction between them, and the other brethren in it, though he ſubjoyns the buſineſs of the Euchariſt to the former Prayers, and kiſs of peace, but affirms the ſame Euchariſt preſently after to be lawful to none to partake of, but thoſe that believ'd their Doctrine, receiv'd the laver of regeneration, and liv'd as Chriſt delivered. For as he intimates thereby the admiſſion of thoſe that believ'd, and were baptiz'd, if they were alſo ſuch as liv'd as Chriſt deliver'd, which the new baptized were in reaſon to be accounted, till they had given proof to the contrary; So there is reaſon to believe from the uſe of Excommunication in the Church, that that addition of living as Chriſt deliver'd was not made to bar the new baptized from it, till they gave farther proof of ſuch a life, but to intimate the excluſion of thoſe, who, after they had been admitted to it, liv'd otherwiſe, than Chriſtianity preſcrib'd: So making the perſons excluded the unbaptiz'd, or ill living Chriſtians, and conſequently the contrary thereto admitted. I deny not indeed, that the Rite of Confirmation did very antiently come between the receiving of Baptiſm, and the Euchariſt. I deny not farther, becauſe of what was beforeExpl. of the Sacrament in general. Part 4. quoted from Juſtin Martyr concerning the particular Prayer that was made for the new baptized perſon, that the ſubſtance thereof was then in uſe, even prayer for grace for him to live as he had but now profeſs'd. But as the deſign of Confirmation appears to have been to procure for the new baptiz'd a more plentiful effuſion of God's Graces, which is no intimation at all of his having been before no perfect Chriſtian, or not perfectly united to the Church, ſo Baptiſm may for all that be look'd upon as the means of our Union to the Church, which is all, that I have taken upon me to aſſert. For the farther evidencing whereof I will in the next place alledge a paſſage of Tertullian De Bapt. c. 6. , which will, though not ſo directly, prove the ſame thing; That I mean where he ſaith, that when the profeſſion of our faith, and ſponſion of our ſalvation are pledged under the three witneſſes before ſpoken of, there is neceſſarily added thereto the mention of the Church, becauſe where thoſe three are, even the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, there is alſo the Church, which is the body of the Three. For as it is evident from thence, that Men were even from his time baptiz'd expreſly into the belief of the Church, as well as into the belief of the Trinity; So it will not be difficult to inferr, that they were alſo baptiz'd into the unity thereof, and made members of the Church by it: Becauſe as he affirms the Trinity to become Sponſors of our Salvation in Baptiſm, as well as either Witneſſes, or objects of our Profeſſion; So he affirms thoſe Sponſors to be as it were emboyed in the Church, and conſequently to exert their ſaving influences within it, which ſuppoſeth Men's being united to it by Baptiſm in order to their partaking of the ſalutarineſs of the other. And indeed, though in that form, which our Saviour preſcrib'dMatt 28.19. for Baptiſm, there is mention only of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, yet inaſmuch as he preſcrib'd that very form for the making of Diſciples Ibid. by, he muſt conſequently be ſuppos'd to propoſe it for the aggregating them to that body, which he had already begun to frame, and making them alike members of it.

There being therefore no doubt to be made of the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm being a means of our Ʋnion to Chriſt's myſtical body the Church, it may not be amiſs (if it were only to manifeſt the great advantages thereof, as to that particular) to ſhew the conſequences of that Ʋnion. Which we ſhall find in the general to be a right to all thoſe priviledges, which Chriſt hath purchas'd for it; More particularly to the partaking of its Sacred Offices, and in, and through the means of them of thoſe inward, and ſpiritual Graces, which thoſe Sacred Offices were intended to procure, or convey. For every member of a Society being by that memberſhip of his entituled to all the priviledges, that belong to it as ſuch; He, who becomes a member of Chriſt's Body, the Church (as every Man, who is united to it by Baptiſm, doth) muſt in his proportion be entituled to all thoſe priviledges, which Chriſt hath purchas'd for it, and particularly to the priviledge of partaking of its ſacred Offices, and in, and by the means of them, of thoſe inward and ſpiritual Graces, which thoſe ſacred Offices were intended to procure, or convey. Which how great a commendation it is of our Ʋnion to that Body, and conſequently of that Baptiſm, by which it was made, will need no other proof than the Scripture's aſſuring us that Chriſt is the Saviour Eph. 5.23. of that Body, and the promiſes it makes to thoſe PrayersMatt. 18.19, 20., that are made by it, and to that EuchriſtMatt. 26.26, &c., which is adminiſtred in it; The purport of thoſe promiſes being no other, than the granting what is asked by it, and particularly all thoſe benefits, which Chriſt's Body and Blood were intended for the procuring of. And if theſe be, as no doubt they are, the conſequences of our union to the Church by Baptiſm, yea ſo far (as I have elſewhereExpl. of the Creed, Art. of The forgiveneſs of ſins. ſhewn) that they are not ordinarily to be attained out of it; That very Union may not improperly be ſtil'd one of its inward and ſpiritual Graces, becauſe leading to thoſe, that are moſt ſtrictly ſuch, and indeed the only ordinary means of obtaining them.

HAving thus conſider'd the things ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of God, and Chriſt, beſt known by the name of its inward, and ſpiritual Graces; It remains that I give the like account of the things ſignified by it on the part of the baptiz'd, or the things the baptized perſon maketh Profeſſion of by it. Which, as was before obſerv'd, are an Abrenunciation of ſin, a preſent belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and a reſolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws.

That ſomething is ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized, as well as on the part of God, and Chriſt, is evident from what was before ſaidOf the Sacrament in general, Part 2. concerning the nature of a Sacrament in the general, and Baptiſm'sIbid. relating as well to ſomething to be perform'd by the baptiz'd, as to thoſe divine Graces, or priviledges which we expect from the other.

That the things before mentioned are the things thus ſignified by it, hath alſo been elſewhereExpl. of the Apoſties Creed. declar'd, and ſo, that it would not be difficult for a diligent Reader to ſatisfie himſelf from thence. But becauſe what I have ſaid concerning them lies diſperſedly in my former Diſcourſes, and would therefore require more pains, than I ought to impoſe upon my Reader, to find it out, and apply it to the preſent Argument; I will here, though very briefly, conſider them anew, and if not (which would be too tedious) repeat all that I have ſaid concerning them, yet point him as I go to the particular places, from whence they may be fetch'd.

That Abrenunciation of ſin is one of the things ſignified by Baptiſm is not only evident from the manner of adminiſtring it in the Primitive times, and which together with the form of their Abrenunciation, and our own are ſet down in my account of the Preliminary queſtions, and anſwers of the Catechiſm, but alſo from the general tenour of that Religion, which Baptiſm is an initiation into; That requiring the renouncing of all ſin, and wickedneſs, and therefore ſuppoſing the baptized perſon to do ſo, when he takes that Religion upon him. For which cauſe as an expreſs Abrenunciation was heretofore requir'd, and continues ſo to be to this very day; So it was ſignified, as by other Rites, and particularly by the baptized perſons putting off his cloaths in order to his Baptiſm, as putting off together with them the Old Man, and his deeds, ſo by the Rite of Baptiſm it ſelf: He, who ſubmits to that, implying thereby his looking upon ſin as a Moral impurity, and which therefore for the future he would not have any thing to do with.

The ſecond thing ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized is his preſent belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, more eſpecially of the Doctrine of the Trinity. As is evident from that Baptiſm's being commanded by our Saviour to be made in, or into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. For to be baptiz'd into the name of thoſe perſons importing the owning of thoſe perſons as our Maſters Expl. of the Creed. Art. I believe in the Holy Ghoſt. , and our ſelves as the Diſciples of them; To be ſo baptized moreover importing the owning of thoſe perſons as alike Ibid. Maſters of us, and conſequently, becauſe the Father cannot be own'd in any lower relation, as partakers of the ſame divine Nature, and Authority; Laſtly, to be ſo baptiz'd importing the owning of them in particular by a belief of the Chriſtian Doctrine, that being the moſt ſignal inſtance of that Diſcipleſhip, we receive by it; The belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and of the Trinity in particular muſt be look'd upon as ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized, and thoſe baptized ones conſequently as making profeſſion of that belief by it. For which cauſe as the rule of Faith, or the Creed Introd. concerning Catechiſing, &c. was given to thoſe to learn, who were willing to be initiated into Chriſtianity, ſo they were particularly interrogatedExpl. of the Prel. Queſt. and Anſwers. as to their belief of the Articles thereof, and then, and not till then baptiz'd into it, and the priviledges thereof.

I Have hitherto entreated of the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, of its inward and ſpiritual Grace, or the things ſignified by it, and the farther relation that outward ſign beareth to them. It follows that I entreat of the foundation of that relation, the Fourth thing propos'd to be conſider'd.

Now as the Foundation of that relation hath been ſhewnExpl. of the Sacrament in general, Part 2. to be no other, than the Inſtitution of Chriſt, as that again not ſo much as deliver'd by him, as appli'd to that water in which it is ſubjected; So I have in the ſame diſcourſe ſaid Ibid. Part 2, 3. ſo much concerning the Inſtitution of this, and the application of that Inſtitution to the outward viſible ſign thereof, that I ſhall need to ſay the leſs here. It may ſuffice briefly to obſerve from thence, that when the Miniſter hath prepar'd the water of Baptiſm by a declaration of the end of its Inſtitution, and by imploring the Holy Spirit on it, Chriſt, who hath promiſed to be with him in that miniſtration of his, gives it the relation of the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and conſequently makes it apt to convey the ſeveral graces thereof to thoſe, who are to partake of it. Which will leave little more for us to conſider, as to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, than the right Adminiſtration of it, or what may without any violence be reduced to it.

Now there are Four things, which are eſpecially to be enquir'd in order to the clearing of that, which is now before us.

I. The ground of the firſt of theſe, even whether Baptiſm ought expreſly to be adminiſtred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, is not any the leaſt doubt of thoſe being the expreſs words of the Inſtitution, or of their not admitting, conſider'd in themſelves, of any variation from it, but the accounts we have from the Scripture of the adminiſtration of that Sacrament either by the hands, or at the command of the Apoſtles, and other ſuch inſpired men: Thoſe ſeeeming to intimate it to be enough to baptize in the name of the Lord Jeſus, as comprehending within it an acknowledgement of the other two perſons, and indeed of all other the ſubſtantial Articles of his Faith, in whoſe name we are ſo baptiz'd. For thus when thoſe Jews, to whom S. Peter Preach'd on the day of Pentecoſt, were wrought upon ſo far, as to ask what they ought to do in order to their Salvation; S. Peter's anſwer wasActs 2.38. that they ſhould be baptiz'd in the name of the Lord Jeſus: Which accordingly we may believe to have been done by thoſe, that gladly receiv'd the word, becauſe it is afterwardsActs 2.41. ſaid of them, that they were baptiz'd, that is, as one would think, in that, and that only name, which had been preſcrib'd. Thus again it is ſaidActs 8.16. of thoſe, who had been baptiz'd by Philip at Samaria, that they were baptiz'd in the name of the Lord Jeſus, without any the leaſt hint of their being baptized in any other name: As in like mannerActs 10.47., that S. Peter gave order for the baptizing of Cornelius, and his company, after that the Holy Ghoſt had by his preaching deſcended upon them. In fine thus we find, that the Diſciples of Epheſus Acts 19.5. were, who it ſeems till that time had not only no gifts of the Holy Ghoſt upon them, but not ſo much as any knowledge, whether there were any Holy Ghoſt, or no. Which place is the more to be ſtood upon, becauſe thoſe Diſciples having before ſo little knowledge of a Holy Ghoſt, one would think he that told the ſtory of their taking upon them the Chriſtian Baptiſm at the hearing of what was ſaid to them by S. Paul, ſhould have expreſs'd that Baptiſm of theirs by their being baptiz'd into the belief of the Trinity, and particularly of that Holy Ghoſt, which they ſeem before to have been ignorant of. But as we are not lightly to think, nor indeed without an irrefiagable reaſon, that thoſe firſt Diſciples of Chriſt made uſe of, or countenanc'd any other form of Baptiſm, than what their Maſter had ſo clearly, and expreſly preſcrib'd; So there is nothing of any ſuch moment in the places before alledg'd to perſuade their making uſe of, or giving countenance to any other. On the contrary the Text laſt mention'd, if taken in all its parts, ſeems rather to perſuade thoſe Diſciples having been baptiz'd in the very words of the Inſtitution, than only in the name of the Lord Jeſus. For S. Paul asking, as by way of wonderment, unto what they had been before baptiz'd, if they had not (as they ſaid) ſo much as heard of any Holy Ghoſt, ſeems to intimate that all, that then receiv'd the Chriſtian Baptiſm, could not but know from the very form of it, that there was ſuch a thing as a Holy Ghoſt. Neither will it avail to ſay, as was before objected, that if that had been S. Paul's intention, or the certain form of Baptiſm, S. Luke, who tells the ſtory, ſhould in reaſon have expreſs'd it by their being baptiz'd into the Trinity, and particularly into the name of him, whom they were before ſo ignorant of. Becauſe S. Luke's buſineſs was not ſo much to give an account of the form of their Baptiſm, as to acquaint us, that whereas before they had been only baptiz'd into John's Baptiſm, upon their underſtanding from S. Paul, that John himſelf directed thoſe, that came to it, to believe on him that ſhould come after him, that is on Chriſt Jeſus, they were then expreſly baptiz'd into the Baptiſm of Chriſt, or (as S. Luke there expreſſeth it) into the name of Jeſus Chriſt: So oppoſing the baptizing into the name of Jeſus Chriſt not to the baptizing in any other form, and particularly into the name of all the three perſons, but to the Baptiſm of John only, and as the name of Jeſus Chriſt might diſcriminate their preſent Baptiſm from it. And though it be true, that the like is not to be ſaid as to the foregoing Texts, becauſe there is no oppoſition in them between the Baptiſm of John, and that of Chriſt. Yet may a fair account be given, without ſuppoſing that to have been the form of Baptiſm, of the Scriptures expreſſing thoſe primitive Baptiſms by baptizing into the name of Jeſus only; Becauſe our Saviour was the immediate Author of that Religion, into which thoſe Baptiſms were made, and the baptizing into his name therefore no improper expreſſion of a baptizing into the whole of it, and into every part, and particle thereof. I will conclude this affair, when I have added that as it appears from Juſtin Martyr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apolog. 2. p. 94. one of the Antienteſt Writers the Church hath, that Baptiſm was in his time adminiſtred in the name of the three perſons; So all, that have mentioned the Creed, have repreſented it as a thing given to thoſe, who were to be baptized, and into which therefore we are to think, that if men were not minutely, and particularly baptiz'd, yet they were at leaſt into the capital Articles thereof.

II. It appearing from the premiſes, that Baptiſm ought expreſly to be adminiſtred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, which is the firſt of thoſe things we propoſed to conſider; Paſs we on to enquire, who are valid Adminiſtrators of it, or rather whether Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are. A queſtion which will beſt be voided by conſidering the force of thoſe Arguments, which the condemners of their Baptiſm have produc'd, and particularly which S. Cyprian their chiefeſt Champion hath. Now thoſe are, that Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, are by that their Schiſm, and Hereſie deprived of the Spirit of God themſelves, and cannot therefore be ſuppoſedQuis autem poteſt dare quod ipſe non habeat? aut quomodo poteſt ſpiritalia agere, qui ipſe amiſerit ſpiritum Sanctum? Ad Januarium. Ep. 70. to conferr it upon others. That Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks, as ſuch, are out of the Church, and conſequently can neither themſelves enjoy any priviledges that belong Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam aeternam, & remiſſionem peccatorum per Sanctam Eccleſiam, intelligimu • remiſſionem peccatorum non niſi in Eccleſiâ dari, apud Haereticos autem ubi Eccleſia non ſit, non poſſe peccatadimitti. Cypr. ubi ſupra, & alibipaſſim. to it, nor be inſtrumental toward the procuring of them for others; That by their Schiſm and Hereſie they are ſinners Sed & Baptizato quam precem poteſt facere ſacerdes ſacrilegus, & peccator? Cum ſcriptum ſit, Deus peccatorem non audit, ſed qui eum coluerit, & voluntatem ejus fecerit, illum audit. Cypr. Ib. before God, and whom therefore we cannot ſuppoſe that God will hear for other perſons; In fine, that Hereticks in particular deprave that Faith Vid. Cypr. ad Jubaian. Ep. 73. , into which Baptiſm is requir'd to be made, and conſequently muſt be ſuppos'd to baptize into a a falſe, and counterfeit one. But how little force there is in theſe Arguments, as to the invalidating the Baptiſm of Schiſmaticks, or Hereticks, will appear upon a more narrow inſpection into them.

But leaving what is commonly urg'd againſt the Argument from the Circumciſing of Infants, becauſe, as I ſuppoſe, ſufficiently aſſoil'd by the foregoing diſcourſe. Let us take a view of ſuch Objections as ſtrike more directly at Infant Baptiſm, or at leaſt of the more material ones. Such as I take to be firſt the want of an expreſs command, or direction for the adminiſtring of Baptiſm to Infants; Secondly, their being incapable of that regeneration, which is the great intent and end of Baptiſm, or giving no ſutable indications of it afterwards; Thirdly, their being as incapable of anſwering what is prerequired to it on the part of the perſons to be baptized, or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it.

That which ſeems to ſtick much with the Adverſaries of Infant Baptiſm, and is accordingly urg'd at all turns againſt the Friends, or Aſſerters of it, is the want of an expreſs command, or direction for the adminiſtring of Baptiſm to them. Which objection ſeems to be the more reaſonable, becauſe Baptiſm, as well as other Sacraments, receiving all its force from Inſtitution, they may ſeem to have no right to, or benefit by it, who appear not by the inſtitution of that Sacrament to be intitled to it, but rather, by the qualifications which it requires, to be excluded from it. And poſſibly more might be of the opinion of the Objecters, if there had not been before an expreſs Law for admitting Infants to that righteouſneſs of Faith, of which Baptiſm is a ſign, and a means of conveyance, and for admitting them too by ſuch an outward ſign, as that of Baptiſm is. But ſuch an expreſs law having been before given by God, and that law as notorious as any law in either Teſtament, there was no reaſonSee Stillingfleet's Irenicum. Part 1. cap. 1. §. 3. for God to give any ſuch expreſs law for the ſo adminiſtring of Baptiſm, or for us to expect it from him: It being eaſie to collect from the Analogy there is between the two Sacraments, and the great graciouſneſs of the preſent diſpenſation, that what was communicated to the Children of Abraham's poſterity by the ſign of Circumciſion, which was then the ſtanding way of adminiſtring it, was alike intended for the Children of thoſe, who were to as good, or better purpoſe the Children of the ſame Abraham, and intended too to be tranſmitted to them by their particular Sacrament, and to which (as was before obſerv'd) the great graces of the Goſpel were annex'd by our SaviourJoh. 3 5. himſelf. Which Argumentation is ſo much the more reaſonable, becauſe it appears by what was but now ſuggeſted, that our Saviour, whoſe Inſtitution Baptiſm was, gave a ſufficient indication of his own kindneſs to that tender eſtate, yea of his owning thoſe, that were of it, to have a right to that Kingdom of Heaven, to which Baptiſm by his own appointment was intended to admit men.

The next great Objection againſt the Baptiſm of Infants is their ſuppos'd incapacity of that regeneration, which is the great end, and intent of Baptiſm, or giving no ſuitable indications of it, when they begin to be in a natural capacity to exert it. The former whereof the Anabaptiſts argue from the Scripture's ſpeaking of it1 Pet. 1.23. as produced by the word of truth, and other ſuch rational means; As the latter by the little appearance there is of it in many of thoſe, that are baptiz'd, after they arrive at the years of diſcretion: Eſpecially where, as it often happens in the Dominion of the Turks, they are taken away from their Parents, before they come to be of any years, and bred up in the Mahumetan Religion. For under this they are ſo far from giving any indications of a Chriſtian regeneration, that our Religion hath no greater, or more implacable enemies, than they.

As to what is argu'd toward the proof of Infants incapacity of regeneration from the Scriptures ſpeaking of it as produc'd by the word of truth, and other ſuch rational ways of procedure, I muſt needs ſay I do not ſee why it ſhould be alledg'd in this particular, unleſs it any where intimated, that there was no other way of producing it, no not in the Souls of Infants. For the Scripture ſpeaking to, and of men converted from Judaiſm, or Heatheniſm to Chriſtianity, and conſequently brought to it in a rational way; What is ſpoken of their regeneration, is not to be drawn into example here, unleſs the ſame Scripture did any where intimate that there was no other way of regeneration than that, or it could not be otherwiſe produced. Which beſide the affront it offers to the omnipotency of God's ſpirit, and which even in men muſt be ſuppoſed to have the chiefeſt ſtroke, will need no other confutation, than Gods creating man at firſt after his own image without any concurrence of his, and producing in our Saviour, even in his conception, that perfect holineſs, which was in him. For why may not God produce in an Infant that imperfect regeneration, whereof we ſpeak, as well as he did that more perfect Righteouſneſs, and true Holineſs, wherewith our firſt Parents were created, or that more excellent, as well as more durable one, which he did in our Saviour from the very beginning, and which the Scripture it ſelf attributes to the Holy Ghoſt's overſhadowing his Mother's Womb? But it may be, though Infants are not incapable of regeneration, and ſo far forth cannot with reaſon be debarr'd the Sacrament of it; Yet there is evidence enough upon the poſtfact, that no ſuch thing is collated in their Baptiſm, and that Baptiſm of theirs therefore not to be look'd upon as a legitimate one. For if the regeneration we ſpeak of were collated in the Baptiſm of Infants, it would, (becauſe all Infants are alike qualifi'd for that Sacrament) be collated in ſome meaſure upon all of them, which yet the future behaviour of many of them doth render juſtly queſtionable: Many of them being untoward enough, when they firſt come of years, though advantaged by a ſutable education, and others (as before ſaid) taken away early from their Chriſtian Parents, and both educated in a contrary Religion, and made zealous Proſelytes of it. Which things how they ſhould be conſiſtent with that regeneration, whereof we ſpeak, is at leaſt very difficult to apprehend. And poſſibly theſe two things have ſtuck more with conſidering men than moſt of the other Arguments that have been brought againſt Infant Baptiſm, and have perhaps given as much trouble to all thoſe, who have duly conſider'd them. But whether they are in truth of that force, which they ſeem to be of, may well be doubted by thoſe, who ſhall conſider this regeneration as the ſtate of Infants requires, or at leaſt makes it reaſonable enough to do; I mean as a weak, and imperfect thing, and rather as the ſeed of a more ſtrong, and perfect regeneration, than a throughly form'd, and well ſetled one. For ſo if we conceive of it, we ſhall find no great difficulty to apprehend firſt, that where there is not only nothing of a Chriſtian education to excite, and improve it, but a contrary one from the very beginning, and ſuch a one in particular as Chriſtian Children have from the Turks; So, I ſay, it will not be difficult to apprehend, but it may be perfectly overwhelm'd, and choaked by it: As that ſeed in the Parable was, that was ſown among Thorns, or as that may be ſuppos'd to be, that is covered over with rubbiſh, and hindred by it from ſprouting forth. And though I cannot ſay the ſame of the regeneration of ſuch perſons, as have afterwards had a Chriſtian, and it may be a careful education to excite it (for here one would think it ſhould every where more forcibly exert it ſelf) yet this I may, which will be of equal force, that in that caſe it may equally fail for want of thoſe perſons exciting it, in whom that ſeed is ſown, or of their anſwering by their care, and endeavour that education, which is made uſe of in order to it. For Baptiſm (as hath been often ſaid) being in the nature of a ſtipulation, or Contract, where ſomewhat is to be perform'd by the party Baptized, as ſoon as he is in a capacity to do it, as well as by him, with whom the contract is made; No wonder if, when the baptized perſon comes to be in a capacity to perform his part, and doth not, he with whom the Contract is made, do firſt withdraw his bleſſing from that, which he hath before ſown in him, and afterward the ſeed it ſelf. For in either of theſe caſes we cannot expect ſuch indications, or effects of the Baptiſmal regeneration, as otherwiſe we might, and as do actually ſhew themſelves in many of thoſe, who have been made partakers of it. It may be enough that God hath furniſh'd ſuch perſons with a regeneration, which during their minority will qualifie them for, and ſecure them to his Kingdom, and a regeneration too which, if well improv'd, will grow into a more complete, and effectual one, and in fine bring them to a due holineſs, and unto God. If the baptized perſons will, when they are in a capacity to do better, neglect to excite it, or will oppoſe it, they muſt thank themſelves, if they miſcarry, and not lay the blame upon any failure on Chriſt's part, and much leſs deny his having conferred it on them.

The third, and laſt great Objection againſt the Baptiſm of Infants is their being incapable of anſwering what is prerequired to it on the part of the perſons that are to be baptized, or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it. Which incapacity they argue, as to the former of theſe, from the Scripture's pre-requiring Faith, and Repentance to it, as the latter from that ſtipulation, which Baptiſm involves, and which Infants are equally incapacitated to make.

Theſe I take to be ſufficient Arguments againſt the repetition of Baptiſm, and the more, becauſe they alſo ſuggeſt as ſatisfactory anſwers to what hath been before alledged for it. For neither can they be look'd upon as Heathen, and conſequently as ſtanding in need of a new Baptiſm, who however they may have renounc'd the old, whether by their Impiety, or Apoſtaſie, yet ever were, and ever will be under the obligation of it. And much leſs after their repentance, and return can they be thought to want it toward the producing of that regeneration, which they are without: Their former Baptiſm, through the favour of him who annex'd the promiſe of regeneration to that Sacrament, being as effectual for that purpoſe, as any new Baptiſm what ſoever. Baptiſm is indeed generally neceſſary to regeneration, it is ſo neceſſary that no man living can promiſe it to himſelf without it; But if it be of as much value, as neceſſity, it may, and no doubt will induce him, who is the diſpenſer of his own graces, to confer it upon a former, as well as upon any new adminiſtration of it.