Ad 18.-But here the Anabaptist gives us his warrant : Though Christ said, none but those who are born again by water and the Spirit' shall enter into heaven; he answers, fear it not, I will warrant you. To this purpose it was once said before, "Yea, but hath God said, In the day ye shall eat thereof ye shall die ?" I say ye shall not die, but "ye shall be like gods."-But let us hear the answer. First, it is said that baptism and the Spirit signify the same thing: for by water is meant the effect of the Spirit.-I reply, that therefore they do not signify the same thing, because-by water is meant the effect of the Spirit; unless the effect and the cause be the same thing: so that here is a contradiction in the parts of the allegation. But if they signify two things, as certainly they do, then they may as well signify the sign and the thing signified, as the cause and the effect; or they may mean the sacrament and the grace of the sacrament, as it is most agreeable to the whole analogy of the Gospel. For we are sure that Christ ordained baptism, and it is also certain that in baptism he did give the Spirit; and therefore to confound these two is to no purpose, when severally they have their certain meaning, and the laws of Christ and the sense of the whole church, the institution and the practice of baptism make them two terms of a relation, a sign and a thing signified, the sacrament and the grace of the sacrament. For I offer it to the consideration of any man that believes Christ to have ordained the sacrament of baptism, which is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that by water and the Spirit' should be meant the outward element and inward grace; or that by water and Spirit' should be meant only the Spirit cleansing us like water? But suppose it did mean so, what would be effected or persuaded by it more than by the other? If it be said, that then infants by this place were not obliged to baptism; I reply, that yet they were obliged to new birth nevertheless; they must be born again of the Spirit, if not of water and the Spirit: and if they are bound to be regenerate by the Spirit, why they shall not be baptized with water, which is the symbol and sacrament, the vehiculum' and channel of its ordinary conveyance, I profess I cannot understand how to make a reasonable conjecture. But it may be they mean, that if by water and the Spirit be only meant Spiritus purificans,' the cleansing, purifying Spirit,' then this place cannot con

cern infants at all: but this loop-hole I have already obstructed by placing a bar that can never be removed. For it is certain and evident, that regeneration or new birth is here enjoined to all as of absolute and indispensable necessity; and if infants be not obliged to it, then by their natural birth they go to heaven, or not at all: but if infants must be born again, then either let these adversaries shew any other way of new birth but this of water and the Spirit; or let them acknowledge this to belong to infants, and then the former discourse returns upon them in its full strength. So that now I shall not need to consider their parallel instance of "being baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire." For although there are differences enough to be observed, the one being only a prophecy, and the other a precept; the one concerning some only, and the other concerning all; the one being verified with degrees and variety, the other equally and to all: yet this place, which, in the main expression, I confess to have similitude, was verified in the letter and first signification of it, and so did relate to the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in the likeness of tongues of fire; but this concerns not all, for all were not so baptized. And whereas it is said in the objection, that the Baptist told not Christ's disciples, but the Jews; and that therefore it was intended to relate to all it was well observed, but to no purpose; for Christ at that time had no disciples. But he told it to the Jews and yet it does not follow that they should all be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire; but it is meant only that that glorious effect should be to them a sign of Christ's eminency above him; they should see from him a baptism greater than that of John. And that it must be meant of that miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost, and not of any secret gift or private immission, appears, because the Baptist offered it as a sign and testimony of the prelation and greatness of Christ above him; which could not be proved to them by any secret operation which cometh not by observation, but by a great and miraculous mission, such as was that in Pentecost. So that hence to argue, that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire as through the water, is a false conclusion inferred from no premises; because this being only a prophecy, and inferring no duty, could neither concern men or children to any of the purposes of their

:

argument. For Christ never said, "Unless ye be baptized with fire, and the Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?" but of water and the Spirit' he did say it: therefore though they must pass through the water, yet no smell of fire must pass upon them.

But there are yet two things, by which they offer to escape. The one is, that, in these words, baptism by water is not meant at all, but baptism by the Spirit only; because St. Peter having said that "baptism saves us," he adds, by way of explication, "not the washing of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God," plainly saying, that it is "not water, but the Spirit."-To this I reply, that when water is taken exclusively to the Spirit,-it is very true that it is not water that cleanses the soul, and the cleansing of the body cannot save us; but whoever urges the necessity of baptism, urges it but as a necessary sacrament, or instrument to convey or consign the Spirit: and this they might with a little observation have learned; there being nothing more usual in discourse, than to deny the effect to the instrument when it is compared with the principal, and yet not intend to deny to it an instrumental efficiency. It is not the pen that writes well, but the hand; and St. Paul said, "It is not I, but the grace of God:" and yet it was "gratia Dei mecum," that is, the principal and the less principal together. So St. Peter: It is not water but the Spirit: or, which may come to one and the same, "not the washing the filth of the flesh, but purifying the conscience, that saves us; and yet neither one nor the other is absolutely excluded, but the effect which is denied to the instrument, is attributed to the principal cause. But however, this does no more concern infants than men of age; for they are not saved. by the washing of the body, but by the answer of a good conscience,' by the Spirit of holiness and sanctification: that is, water alone does not do it, unless the Spirit move upon the water. But that water also is in the ministry, and is not to be excluded from its portion of the work, appears by the words of the apostle; "The like figure whereunto, even baptism, saves us,' &c., that is, baptism even as it is a figure, saves us, in some sense or other; by way of ministry and instrumental efficiency, by conjunction and consolida tion with the other; but the ceremony, the figure, the rite,

VOL. VIII,

and external ministry, must be in, or else his words will in no sense be true, and could be made true by no interpretation: because the Spirit may be the thing figured, but can never be a figure. The other little xenopureroy is, that these words were spoken before baptism was ordained, and therefore could not concern baptism, much less prove the necessity of baptizing infants. I answer, that so are the sayings of the prophets long before the coming of Christ, and yet concerned his coming most certainly. Secondly: they were not spoken before the institution of baptism; for the disciples of Christ did baptize more than the Baptist ever in his lifetime: they were indeed spoken before the commission was of baptizing all nations, or taking the Gentiles into the church; but not before Christ made disciples, and his apostles baptized them, among the Jews. And it was so known a thing, that great prophets and the fathers of an institution did baptize disciples, that our blessed Saviour upbraided Nicodemus for his ignorance of that particular, and his not understanding words spoken in the proportion and imitation of a custom so known among them.

But then, that this argument which presses so much, may be attempted in all the parts of it, like soldiers fighting against cuirassiers that try all the joints of their armour, so do these to this. For they object (in the same number) that the exclusive negative of " nisi quis" does not include infants, but only persons capable: for (say they) this no more infers a necessity of infants' baptism, than the parallel words of Christ, "nisi comederitis," "unless ye eat" the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, infer a necessity to give them the holy communion, &c. With this argument men use to make a great noise in many questions; but in this it will signify but little. First: Indeed to one of the Roman communion it will cause some disorder in this question, both because they think it unlawful to give the holy communion to infants, and yet that these words are meant of the holy communion: and if we thought so too, I do not doubt but we should communicate them with the same opinion of necessity as did the primitive church. But to the thing itself; I grant that the expression is equal, and infers an equal necessity in their respective cases; and therefore it

z John, vi. 53.

is as necessary to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his blood, as to be baptized: but then it is to be added, that eating and drinking are metaphors and allusions, used only upon occasion of manna, which was then spoken of, and which occasioned the whole discourse; but the thing itself is nothing but that Christ should be received for the life of our souls, as bread and drink are for the life of our bodies. Now because there are many ways of receiving Christ, there are so many ways of obeying this precept; but that some way or other it be obeyed, is as necessary as that we be baptized. Here only it is declared to be necessary, that Christ be received, that we derive our life and our spiritual and eternal being from him; now this can concern infants, and does infer an ordinary necessity of their baptism; for in baptism they are united to Christ, and Christ to them: in baptism they receive the beginnings of a new life from Christ: it is a receiving Christ which is the duty here enjoined; this is one way of doing it, and all the ways that they are capable of. And that this precept can be performed this way, St. Austin affirms expressly in his third book" de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione a." In this thing there is nothing hard but the metaphors of eating and drinking. Now that this is to be spiritually understood, our blessed Lord himself affirms in answer to the prejudice of the offended Capernaites; that it is to be understood of faith, and that faith is the spiritual manducation, is the sense of the ancient church: and therefore, in what sense soever any one is obliged to believe, in the same sense he is obliged to the duty of spiritual manducation, and no otherwise. But because: infants cannot be obliged to the act or habit of faith, and yet can receive the sacrament of faith, they receive Christ as they can,and as they can, are entitled to life". But however, by this means the difficulty of the expression is taken off: for if by eating and drinking Christ are meant, receiving Christ by faith, then this phrase can be no objection but that St. Austin's affirmative may be true, and that this commandment is performed by infants in baptism, which is the sacrament of faith. To eat and drink do, with as great impropriety, signify faith as baptism; but this is it which I said at first, a Et in Serm. ad Infantes, apud V. Bedam in 1 Cor. x. John, vi. 63b See the disc. of the Real Presence, section 3.