the commission; so that that is not always an unerring rule, What is the reason that, in case circumcision had been appointed for the nations, it must have been of course given to infants, though they had not been expressly named? The reason is this, Because the apostles knew of themselves that circumcision was usually given to infants. If it do appear then, that baptism was also usually given to infants, and the apostles must know it, the same reason would direct them to the same interpretation. of, If it had been circumcision that had been ordered, the apostles going out into the nations must have circumcised the grown men at the age that they found them but they would have circumcised the infants also; because one that is to be circumcised at all should be circumcised in infancy, if one has then the power or direction of him; - so they must baptize the grown men among the nations at the age that they found them of; and we have reason to conclude that they must think themselves obliged to give baptism (or order it to be given) to infants also; because by the rules of baptism received in their nation, all that were to be baptized at all, were baptized in infancy, if they had then the power and direction of them. Though the proof that circumcision was usually given to infants is taken from the writings of the Old Testament, but the proof that baptism was usually given to the infants of proselytes is taken only from the testimonies of the Jews themselves; yet the Jews themselves (how fallible soever they are in judging of the meaning of the law, what ought to be done, or how necessary it was) cannot fail of being sufficient witnesses of the matter of fact, and able to tell what was actually done among themselves. The difference which the Jews made between themselves and other nations in giving baptism to Gentile proselytes and their children, but not to themselves nor their own children, does not at all affect the question that is disputed between the Christian Pædobaptists and Antipædobaptists; because, in respect of the Christian Religion, the Jews themselves have the same need of becom ing proselytes, and of being baptized, that other nations have. The gospel has concluded all under sin; and St. Paul, speaking of this very matter of baptism, says, That in respect of it there is neither Jew nor Greek, i. e. there is no difference between them. The Jews themselves do seem to have understood, that when the Christ came, their nation must be baptized as well as others; and, therefore, they asked John (who baptized Jews) Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias? &c. signifying, that if he had been the Christ, or Elias, they should not have wondered at his baptizing of Jews. The same thing is to be said of that tenet of the Jews, That the infant children of a proselyte, born to him before his baptism, are to be baptized; but not the children born to him after his baptism, nor any of their posterity in any succeeding generations, they being now looked on as natural Jews. This I say, does not affect the question of Christian Pædobaptism; because that privilege which the Jew' had, or supposed himself to have, above other people, is as to the Christian dispensation abolished; and because both the Pædobaptists and Antipædobaptists are agreed that all persons do now need baptism, as well those that are born of baptized, as those that are born of unbaptized parents,―our Saviour having satisfied Nicodemus that that which is born of the flesh (whether of a Jewish or Gentile, baptized or unbaptized parent) is flesh; and must be born again. The Antipædobaptists are satisfied of this. The only question is, At what age must they be baptized? Now, the practice of the Jews, before and in our Saviour's time, was, That all persons whom they baptized at all, they baptized in infancy, if they had, as I said, the power or possession of them in infancy; and in this matter our Saviour gave no direction for any alteration. "He took" (as Dr. Lightfoot § says)" into his hands baptism such as he * Gal. iii. 27, 28. ↑ John i. 25. § Hor. Heb. in Matt. iii. 6. found it; adding only this, that he exalted it to a nobler purpose and to a larger use." Some Socinians indeed would have the use of baptism to be abolished in all Christian nations, where the body of the people has once been generally baptized: and do say of Christian baptism, as the Jews did of theirs, that the baptism of the forefathers is sufficient for them and all their posterity. This reason, against the continuance of baptism, which was never thought a reason by any Christians before, Socinus gave about 150 years ago: "Water-baptism* seems unnecessary for those that are born of Christians, and do imitate their parents in the profession of Christianity. It matters not whether such be baptized or not; and if they be, it is all one whether it be at their adult age or in infancy." Which opinion, or one more against baptism, the Quakers have since taken up; but the Antipædobaptists do hold it necessary, as I said, for every particular person, and not only for a nation at the first planting of Christianity; and it is easy to guess what it was that swayed Socinus into the other opinion; viz. his desire of abolishing the doctrine of the Trinity; which it was hard to accomplish, so long as persons were continually baptized into that faith. There never was any age (at least since Abraham) in which the children, whether of Jews or proselytes, that were admitted into covenant, had not some badge or sign of such their admission. The male children of Abraham's race were entered by circumcision;- the whole body of the Jews, men, women, and children, were, in Moses's time, baptized; after which the male children of proselytes, that were entered with their parents, were, as well as their parents, admitted by circumcision, baptism, and a sacrifice; - the female children by baptism and a sacrifice; the male children of the natural Jews, and such male children of proselytes as were born after their parents baptism, by circumcision and a sacrifice; and the female children by a sacrifice offered for them by the head of the family. Now, after Epist. de Baptismo, apud Vossium de Baptismo, Disc. 13. that circumcision and sacrifice were to be abolished, there was nothing left but baptism or washing, for a sign of the covenant and of professing religion.This our Saviour took (probably, as being the easiest and the least objectionable of all the rest, and as being common to both sexes, making no difference of male or female) and enjoined it* to all that should enter into the kingdom of God; - - and St. Paul does plainly intimate to the Colossians (ii. 11, 12) that it served them instead of circumcision; calling it the Circumcision of Christ, or Christian Circumcision. The baptism indeed of the nations by the apostles ought to be regulated by the practice of John and of Christ himself, who, by the hands of his disciples, baptized many Jews, rather than by any preceding custom of the Jewish nation, -if we had any good ground to believe that they did, in the case of infants, differ, or alter any thing from the usual way; but we have no kind of proof that they made any such alteration. The commission which our Saviour gave to his disciples to baptize in the country of Judea, during his abode with them, is not at all set down, as I said; and what John did in this particular, we have no means left to know, but by observing what was done before and after. There is no express mention indeed of any children baptized by him; but to those that consider the commonness of the thing, which I have here shewn, for people that came to be baptized to bring their children along with them, that is no more a cause to think that he baptized no children, than one's minding that, in the history of the Old Testament, there is sometimes 500 years together without the mention of any child circumcised, is a cause to think that none were circumcised all that while; and whereas it is said of the multitudes that came to John, that they were baptized by him, confessing their sins (which confession can be understood only of the grown persons) that is no more than would be said in the case of a minister of the church of England, which I put before, going and converting a heathen nation; for, in a short account which * John iii. 5. should be sent of his success, it would be said that multitudes came, and were baptized, confessing their sins; and there would need no mention of their bringing their children with them; because the converting of the grown persons was the principal and most difficult thing, and it would be supposed that they brought their children of course. I shall, at ch. 13, of this collection, shew it to be probable that St. Ambrose does take it for granted that John must have baptized infants as well as others; for he does, by way of allusion, make a comparison between Elias and him; and speaks of Elias's turning the waters of Jordan back toward the spring-head, as a type of the baptism of infants, by which they were reformed from their natural corrupt state, back again to the primitive innocence of Nature; and St. Ambrose does not there stand to prove that any infants were baptized; but speaks of it as of a thing commonly so understood by all Christians; and so Dr. Lightfoot says, on this account, *"I do not believe the people that flocked to John's baptism were so forgetful of the manner and custom of the nation, as not to bring their little children along with them to be baptized." The same man, who was most excellently skilled in the books and customs of the Jews, says, at another place, "If baptism and baptizing infants had been a new thing, and unheard of till John Baptist came, as circumcision was till God appointed it to Abraham, there would have been, no doubt, as express command for baptizing infants as there was for circumcising them; but when the baptizing of infants was a thing commonly known and used, as appears by uncontestable evidence from their writers, there need not be express asserions that such and such persons were to be the object of baptism, when it was as well known before the gospel began, that men, women, and children were baptized, as it is to be known that the sun is up, when," &c. He deduces the argument with great evidence in this + Harmony on John i. 25. * Hor, Heb. on Mat. iii, |