every-where find Infant-Baptism receiv'd and continu'd as an Apostolical practice But I 'll not lead you too far into these Historical accounts which yet we must be oblig'd to or else we shall know but very little of the Acts of the greatest part of the Apostles for what they did into what Cities and Nations they Travel'd what Disciples they made whom they Baptiz'd is not written in Scripture But now Sir suppose some wild Theist or Atheist in pursuance of their Mischievous design to discredit the Apostles should come and tell you that the greatest part of them were a pack of Lazy Drones who though they were under the obligation of a Command to Disciple and Baptize all Nations yet never mov'd a Foot upon that great Errand did not the least Hand's-turn in all that weighty Business pray Good Sir what Answer would you make How would you vindicate the Apostles from so black a charge I am sure that all Scripture-Evidence would here fail you you could not quote Scripture in the defence of one half of them but how then would you stop the Mouths of their Accusers Why Sir You must be beholden to just the evidence we have for Infant-Baptism's being practis'd by the Apostles for by all the Authority whereby you could silence their Accusers and prove to 'em the Apostles Travels and the Conversions that they every where made all the wide World over even by all that Authority I say do we prove Infants to have been Baptized by them And further suppose an Atheist should fly in the face of our Blessed Saviour himself and Blasphemously tell you that he was a false Prophet who pretended to foretell such things concerning the Destruction of the Jewish Church and State as never came to pass though he positively prophesy'd that That very Generation should not pass away till all these should be fulfill'd Suppose I say an Atheist should say thus Good Sir I must beseech you to tell me what you would answer or how you would clear our blessed Lord and Saviour from the foul Aspersion you could not in this case have any help from Scripture No but you would be forc'd to appeal to the Historians of that and of the following Ages and particularly to that most admirable Historian Josephus to shew how these Predictions and Prophecies of our Saviour were accomplish'd and most wonderfully and punctually fulfill'd about forty Years after our Saviour's Crucifixion Well Sir and we have altogether as good evidence in the first Writers of the Christian Church for Infant-Baptism as we have for the Accomplishment of our Saviour's Prophecies and as you must prove our Saviour to have been a true Prophet in that Case even so do we prove Infants to have been Baptized in the Apostolical Ages Once more some deny that the Apostles Baptiz'd any Infants and suppose a Quaker who is against all Water-Baptism should deny that they Baptiz'd either Men or Women I know you would say that we have sufficient Proof of this in the Acts of the Apostles Oh but Sir You need not be told that these Quakers many of them are a sort of unmannerly fellows that disrespect and disparage the very Scriptures themselves and perhaps they 'll ask you Who writ that Book in the New Testament call'd The Acts of the Apostles Of what Authority is it Was the Author of it an Inspir'd Writer and what can you say why we are bound to believe what we find Written therein more than in any other Old Book And now pray Sir should a morose Quaker thus put you to 't to prove the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles how wou'd you do it Truly you must answer that we have the whole Primitive Church bearing witness to it that it was written by an Inspired Author viz. by St. Luke and that it has ever been receiv'd as Canonical Scripture throughout the Universal Church of Christ dispersed over the face of the whole Earth And this indeed is sufficient evidence to a Wise-Man But then we have the very same evidence for Infant-Baptism's being an Apostolical practice we have the Universal Church of Christ bearing witness thereto in all places yea and at all times for the first fifteen Hundred Years after Christ without exception Sir That Infant-Baptism was the Universal Practice of the Holy Catholick Church and that no time can be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began is so manifestly and clearly prov'd from the best and most Authentick Writers of all Ages that some of our learned'st Adversaries have had more Conscience than to deny it Menno One of the most Learned of the Anabaptists as the Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism tells us from Cassander acknowledg'd Infant-Baptism to be as Old as the Times of the Apostles and therefore he was forc'd in the defence of his cause to invent the Story That though Infant-Baptism was first taught in the Apostles Times yet that it was then taught by false Apostles and false Teachers which proof-less Story is Learnedly and largely answer'd by the said Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism pag. 47 48 49 50. And our excellent Dr. Falkner has these Words The Christian Church in the first Ages thereof and in a Continued Succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do And this he proves by several plain Testimonies out of St. Austin St. Cyprian Origen and from the famous African Council and concludes that divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the Universal Reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this saith he having been clearly and sufficiently evidenc'd by the Historical Theses of Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who wou'd have more large and ample Proof hereof Treatise concerning Reproaching c. pages 285.286 And now Good Sir have patience with me till I shall briefly summ up what I have said in this long Letter and I will conclude I have shewn you how little we read in Scripture of what The Apostles did in this Case of Baptizing after they had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations and likewise what clear hints we have even in that little of their Baptizing Infants but then I have added that as we find larger accounts of the Apostles Travels and of the Nations Converted by them in the primimitive Writers so that from the same Writers we are more fully assur'd that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Practice And you Sir I hope will not be so vain as to despise this Evidence without which you can never prove that the greatest part of the Apostles Baptiz'd either Man Woman or Child Without which you cannot prove to an Atheist that our Saviour was a True Prophet Without which you cannot prove to a Sullen Quaker the Authority of that very Book in which we have so may Proofs against them of Baptism in general viz. The Acts of the Apostles And thus I have
enquired into the Apostolical practice in this Case of Baptizing Infants and I thank God that the more I have enquir'd I have found the more and greater Satisfaction in the Case In the next place I am to enquire what Authority they had for this practice of theirs that is I am to enquire whether I can find in all the New Testament that Infant-Baptism was any where Taught or Commanded But I presume you 'll be Content to trust me for this till I may have a farther Opportunity and in the mean while I am Sir July 2. 1698. Your c. T. H. LETTER VI. Dear Sir THE Second part of your great Objection against Infant-Baptism is this You find not in Scripture that any Infants were COMMANDED to be Baptized Now to this I cou'd give you this short Answer When the Disciples of Christ made and Baptized more Disciples than John John 4.1 2. Let any Man living tell me where the Command is written in Scripture which gave these Disciples of our Lord Authority to Baptize at that time and I will undertake to shew you that the very same Command oblig'd them to Baptize Infants This I do affirm that they had then as much Command to Baptize Infants as they had to Baptize either Men or Women And do you Sir make the tryal if you please Go and learn from Scripture where these Disciples had any Command then to Baptize the Elder sort and if you do not find the same Command obliging them to Baptize Children also I do here freely tell you that I dare yield you the Cause But to give a more particular Answer to this as I have done to the former part of your Objection First I will enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time Secondly Whether it was Taught or Commanded by him after his Death and Resurrection before he Ascended into Heaven And Thirdly Whether it was taught by any of his Apostles after his Ascension 1. I will make it my business at this time to Enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time Sir The Sadducees cou'd not find in all the five Books of Moses so much as one single Text which taught the Doctrin of a Resurrection and therefore they Confidently deny'd the thing and warmly disputed it with our Blessed Lord and Saviour himself And you may be pleas'd to see how our Lord confuted and convinc'd them by a Text of Scripture which they had overlook'd Mark 12.26 Have you not read said he in the Book of Moses how God spake unto him Saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob to which he added But God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living And this was our Saviour's Scripture-Proof of a Resurrection and from these very words by just Reasonings and Consequences did he make the Truth of that great Doctrin appear to those very Sadducees themselves who had so long and so stiffly oppos'd it It must indeed be acknowledg'd that it requir'd a Piercing Eye to find out a Resurrection in these words I am the God of Abraham c. And yet so it was The Resurrection was a Consequence that our Lord Himself then drew from them and the Consequence was acknowledged to be good Scripture-Proof and the Sadducees were wiser than to Object against it This I have observ'd to let you see that there may be Scripture-Proof of a thing tho' every Eye cannot discern it and that tho' we cannot always produce plain and express words of Scripture in the defence of a Doctrin yet if we can prove it by right and genuine Consequence we do as much as our Saviour himself did in the Case of a Resurrection and I hope that in good Manners and Civility to our Great Lord you will allow such Proof as he made use of to be good and sufficient But further There were a sort of Hereticks of Old call'd Macedonians and a spawn of them we have still amongst us who deny'd the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and their great Cry was Where do you read in Scripture that the Holy Ghost is God And I do assure you Sir that it was truly Confess'd that there is no such Scripture-Text no such express words in the whole Bible it is not expresly asserted in terminis either in the Old or New Testament that the Holy Ghost is God But what then There are in Scripture such things said of the Holy Ghost as by undoubted Consequence prove him to be God as to give you but one Instance of an Hundred The Holy Ghost is said to be Omnipresent Psal 139.7 and from hence it necessarily follows as a very plain Consequence that he must needs be God because God only is Omnipresent And now Sir with a like manner of Proof I will fall upon the matter in hand Tho' we find not in Scripture any such express Command as this That Infants shall be Baptized yet we find such things given in Charge concerning them as necessarily Imply that they ought to be Baptized that is to say we find in Scripture that Children ought to be admitted into the Church of Christ and we there likewise find that there is no other ordinary way of admitting into that Church but by Baptism And to give you full satisfaction in this matter I will here undertake briefly to prove That our Blessed Lord and Saviour did in his Life-time teach both that Children are to be admitted into his Church and that they are to be admitted by Baptism That Children were admitted into God's Church of old is as well known as that they were then Circumcis'd And what I pray is the Christian-Church but that old Church Reform'd The Root and Stock are still the same tho' as for the Branches some viz. the Jews were lopped off and others viz. the Gentiles are graffed in as you may read at large Rom. 11.16 17 18. Christianity indeed as one speaks very well is Judaism explain'd into its Spiritual sense and meaning and hence it is that the Christians in the New Testament are called Jews that is Reform'd Jews Rev. 2.9 and sometimes the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 and sometimes the Children of Abraham Gal. 3.7 And hence it is that the Christian-Church is called the New-Jerusalem because it is the Old Jerusalem or Jewish Church renew'd and enlarg'd Rev. 3.12 But now Good Sir suppose that our Church should be taken down to the very Foundation and built again a great deal larger and more Glorious than now it is What think you Might we not then take our Children along with us to our Church as well as we do now Certainly the Re-building and Beautifying it wou'd take away no one's privilege of entring into it In a resembling manner there was indeed a great Reformation made by our Saviour in the Church of God a great deal taken away and a great deal added and almost the whole
is expresly said That last of all Died the Woman also Sir I should have despis'd to take notice of such Childish Reasonings as these had I not observ'd with what confidence they are written to impose upon Vulgar Understandings In the 33d verse of the same Chapter we read of the Jaylor that he was Baptized and all his The Original words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie all that were of him or in other words his Off-spring But 't is objected that they were not Children because 't is imply'd in the next verse that they were all Believers and rejoyced The Jaylor rejoyced believing in God with all his House To which Mr. Horn has answer'd that the Original words may be interpreted as speaking of none but the Jaylor himself and may signifie Word for Word that he rejoyced House-wholly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he having believed in God He rejoyced House-wholly that is upon the Account of his whole House that all were Baptized as well as himself And certainly his thus rejoycing upon the account of his House may perswade us that there were some in it that were very near and dear to him and These undoubtedly were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Off-spring or Children Baptized with himself See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants c. p. 58. Again Acts 18.8 We find some Corinthians Baptized and Acts 19.3 5. 'T is said of some who had been Baptized unto John's Baptisms that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And these last indeed were about Twelve Men but that all the Corinthians were Men and no Children will not so easily be prov'd 'T is true 't is said that they heard and believed and yet there might be Children among them for all that as I have just now shewn there will be Infants in the happy number at the Right-hand of the Judge when it shall be said to them I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat Tho' Infants I say cou'd not do this yet this will be said of the whole Blessed number whereof Infants will be a part And so the Scripture very frequently ascribes such things to Companies as are not within the power of Children to do and yet those very Companies may consist of Children as well as of Elder People All Judah stood before the Lord with their little Ones their Wives and their Children when Jahaziel said to them that they shou'd do yea and 't is also said that they did much greater things than cou'd be affirm'd of Children 2 Chron. 20.13 14 15 16 c. And thus I say again that Children may be in a Company even tho' such things are said to be done by that Company as the Children in it are not capable of doing Lastly St. Paul tells his Corinthians that he Baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1.14 16. And here I will observe that of all the Households that we find to have been Baptiz'd there is not the least exception as to Infants or Babes nor can I believe them to have been all Barren and Childless Families because there 's not the least Syllable or Circumstance denoting any such thing I know 't is said that there were no Children in this Houshold Baptized by St. Paul because no Children are mention'd and may not I as well say that here was no Faith no Repentance nor any such thing as some contend for to qualifie for Baptism viz. Because here is no mention made of any such thing and again for the same reason that some deny there were Children another may deny that there were Servants and another that there were any Relations and all by the same Rule and for the same reason still and so at length at this rate of Denying any Children to have been in it may the Houshold of Stephanas be deny'd into an Houshold of mere No-Bodies And this Sir is all that I find in the New Testament to have been practis'd by the Apostles in this Case of Baptizing after our Lord's Ascension into Heaven and in so short an account as this is we have as clear hints of their Baptizing Children as can well be expected For You Sir may venture to assure your self that the Scripture has acquainted us but with little very little in Comparison of what was really done by the Apostles in this Case even by those very Apostles who had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations Nay but as St. John tells us that over and above the Scripture-accounts there are many other things that Jesus did so I will add that there were many other things which his Apostles did which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Books that should be written John 21 25. As in this particular case of Baptizing we do not in all the New Testament find the Hundredth part of what the Apostles did so that if we must believe no more in this matter than what the Scriptures tell us of the Acts of the Apostles we must believe but very little and not a word of above two thirds of these Apostles not a syllable of St. Andrew or St. Thomas or St. Simon or St. Jude or St. James or St. Bartholomew or St. Matthias or St. Matthew for of their or of any of their going out into the world to Baptize we must not speak a word if we must say nothing but what we can quote Chapter and Verse for And yet Sir Notwithstanding this profound Silence of Scripture I verily believe that no Man who has read Books can doubt but a credible account has been and may be given of the Travels of these Apostles and of the Nations Discipl'd and Baptized by them The ancient Writers have some of them been pretty punctual in these matters and in the Histories of all Countreys 't is seldom or never omitted by what Apostle or by whom the Christian Religion was first planted among them And unless all these Historians who agree in these matters can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together tho' as far distant from one another as the East is from the West yet I say unless they can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together to Cheat and Impose upon the World we have no reason to disbelieve their reports But then Sir I add that we have no reason to disbelieve Infant-Baptism for we have the very same Histories and the very same Authors bearing witness to this who bear witness to the other matters For Instance 't is generally agreed among Writers that Christianity was first planted in the Eastern Indies by St. Thomas and 't is very well known that the Christians there are to this day call'd St. Thomas-Christians and 't is altogether as well known that they do as they have always done practise Infant-Baptism I cou'd trace the other Apostles into the many Cities and Nations whither they severally went Discipling and Baptizing and
every ways alter'd for the better but what is all this to any ones privilege of entering into it Nay but certainly as Children were admitted into the Church before that Reformation so are they to be admitted still unless it be a part of the Reformation to exclude them And thus upon the whole matter 't is very plain that unless our Blessed Saviour has FORBIDDEN Infants to be admitted into his Church they are still to be admitted whether he has COMMANDED their Admission or no. And here I might fix the Controversie and justifie their Admission till you can prove that our Lord has Forbidden it which I dare venture to say you will never be able to do Nay but our Lord has not only not forbidden their Admission into the Church but he has expresly Taught and Commanded it For First That Children ought to be admitted into his Church he has expresly taught in that Celebrated Text Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Which Text was spoken by way of Reprimand to his Disciples who wou'd have kept Children from him and therefore when he reprov'd them and said Suffer little Children to come unto me he must needs mean such Children as they wou'd have kept from him but these were such as were brought unto him and such as he took up in his Arms and were therefore little Children in a literal Sense The words indeed are Suffer little Children to come unto me and therefore say some let them stay then till they can come But if this was our Saviour's meaning might not his Disciples very readily have answered Lord we have not hinder'd any such from coming that cou'd come all that we have done was only to Rebuke those that brought their Children And thus if Children might not be brought to Christ but if they were to be kept back till they themselves cou'd come to him I cannot see what the Disciples had here done for our Lord to be displeased at and yet the Text says positively That he was much displeased and said suffer little Children to come unto me Mark 10.14 And therefore unless we have no more Grace or Wit than to say that he was displeas'd at nothing we must allow that the Children whom he wou'd have suffer'd to come to him were such as his Disciples would have kept from him and these were such as were brought unto him and such as he took up in his Arms. But perhaps you 'll say What then is the meaning of the words TO COME UNTO ME Suffer little Children to come unto me Sir I find an Answer made to this by Mr. Walker viz. That to come unto Christ signifies to become a Disciple of Christ for so when our Saviour saith Come unto me all ye that Labour his meaning is become Disciples to me Mat. 11.28 And again when it is said Behold Jesus Baptizeth and all Men come to him The meaning is that they all become his Disciples John 3.26 And again Ye will not come to me said our Lord That is ye will not become my Disciples John 5.4 The same excellent Author has observ'd from Dr. Hammond that we may read the word Proselyte in the very Original Text Mat. 19.14 For there the Original words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which turn'd into English do even Compose and make up the word Proselyte and so in St. Matthew I say the Original words are Suffer little Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be Proselytes to me or to be my Disciples For to be a Proselyte and to be a Disciple is the same thing As when our Lord said to the Scribes and Pharisees that they had Compass'd Sea and Land to make one Proselyte the meaning is that they had compass'd Sea and Land to make one Disciple And thus has our Lord very plainly taught us that little Children must be suffer'd to become his Disciples yea and he farther adds that they are not to be forbidden and then gives such a Reason for it as may put the matter beyond all Dispute For of such is the Kingdom of God That is little Children are not to be forbidden becoming his Disciples because of such even of such as were brought unto him is the Kingdom of God both the Kingdom of Grace which is the Church Militant here on Earth and the Kingdom of Glory which is the Church Triumphant in Heaven And thus we have a plain Scripture Text wherein our Blessed Lord has very clearly taught us that little Children are to be suffer'd and not to be forbidden being admitted into his Church And this is according to that ancient Prophecy foretelling the Conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity Thus saith the Lord God I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles and set up my Standard to the People and they shall bring thy Sons in their Arms and thy Daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders Isa 49.22 And this is no more than what our Lord himself did fortell when he so plainly intimated that there should be Lambs in his Flock as well as Sheep John 21.15 But Sir if you wou'd see more and larger Proof of this matter you may consult Mr. Baxter's Book called Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism wherein he has proved that Children ought to be admitted into Christ's Church by no fewer than Six and twenty distinct Arguments Well But then the next Question is How are they to be admitted I Answer by Baptism for ordinarily there is no other way of Admission as I shall prove by and by But here I will take notice of an Objection that I find has been often started upon this occasion If little Children are to be admitted into Christ's Church and if there be no other way of admitting them but by Baptism Why then did not our Lord Baptize those Children that were brought unto him I answer Because our Lord never Baptized any with Water But then it may be ask'd again Why did he not Command his Disciples to Baptize them I Answer again Because his Hour was not yet come for he never that we read of Commanded his Disciples to Baptize any or any to be Baptized by them till after his Death and Resurrection But Sir Give me leave briefly to remind you of what I have observ'd in my first Letter concerning the outward and the inward part of Baptism for I therein shewed you that the Ministers of Christ do but Baptize with Water which is the outward part of that Sacrament 'T is Christ himself who Baptizeth with the Holy Ghost or with the Spirit which is the inward part And here I will farther observe that our Lord has not so ty'd up himself to the use of outward means but he can if he pleases and will for just and wise Reasons perform the inward part without them For thus should an Infidel or a Jew be Converted to Christianity and earnestly desire Baptism and should
the Ministers of Christ to whom he has the opportunity of applying himself for that purpose be all so unfaithful as to refuse to Baptize him yea tho' he sought and begg'd of them so to do with Tears In such a Case as this where the outward Baptism with Water was so far from being slighted that it was earnestly desir'd and yet cou'd not be had upon any terms whatsoever In such a Case as this I say I cannot think that the unfaithfulness of Christ's Ministers in dispensing the outward part of the Sacrament would hinder our Lord from doing the inward part which is to Baptize with the Spirit And this seems to have been the Case of the little Children brought unto him His Disciples rebuked those that brought them and wou'd not by any means have had them come unto Christ or become his Disciples And for this our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was very much displeased And in this great displeasure he seems to have intimated thus much to them That tho' they or any other of his Ministers should at any time refuse to admit such for Disciples whom he would have admitted and should therefore refuse to do the outward solemn part of Admission as they ought to do yet this wou'd be no reason with him that he should refuse to do that inward part which he does himself perform And accordingly he took up those very Children in his Arms and blessed them viz. with Spiritual Blessings and may therefore in some Sense be said to have Baptized them I mean to have Baptized them with the Spirit which is the inward part of Baptism and the only part that Christ ever did or does But 2. As our Lord himself Received and Commanded Children to be receiv'd into his Church so likewise has he plainly taught us that they are to be admitted by Baptism yea and that ordinarily they cannot otherwise be admitted For except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 In which Text By the Kingdom of God taken in its lowest Sense must be meant the Christian Church for so is the Christian Church very frequently call'd in the New Testament The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven And this is that Kingdom of God viz. The Church of Christ into which there is no entrance ordinarily but through the Gate of Baptism The Text makes no exception for tho' the English words are Vnless a Man be born again yet by Man must be understood Mankind no Sex or Age excluded for the Original word Translated Man signifies any one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except any one be Born again c. Whosoever or of what Age soever they be except they be Born again of Water and of the Spirit that is except they be Baptized they cannot enter into that Kingdom of God which is the Christian Church And so says the Apostle very expresly Namely That we are all Baptized into that one Body of Christ which is his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 And so again we read of being Baptized into Christ that is into Christ's Body his Church Gal. 3.27 Yea it is there said that so many as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ that is are incorporated into that Body whereof Christ is the Head And accordingly I have observ'd that there is nothing more usual in Antiquity than for Baptism to be called Ecclesiae janua the Gate of the Church Baptism says our very Learned Bishop is the Door whereby we enter into the Church the Gate that lets us into Christ's Fold and the first step to Fellowship with God and with his People and hence it was that the Font was used to be placed at the Door or entrance of the Church to signifie that by this we come into the Congregation of Christ's Disciples Aqua Genitalis p. 447. But I 'll say no more of this both because it is so plain and because that it is not that I know of deny'd by our Adversaries Mr. Tombs wou'd not deny it in all that Controversie between him and Mr. Baxter Nay but in his Apology p. 58. I grant says he that Baptism is the way and manner of Solemn Admission into the Church and says Mr. Grantham in his Friendly Epistle Baptism is an Ordinance of Christ necessary to the Admission of all Men to the privileges of his Church p. 31. And the Author of your little Book notes upon 1 Cor. 12.13 that we are by Baptism added to the Bride the Lamb's Wife as he there calls the Christian Church And again in his Note upon Heb. 6.1 2. He says that Baptism is an Ordinance for the Solemnization of the Soul 's visible Marriage-Union with Christ that is we are united and wedded to Christ by Baptism as we are thereby incorporated into and United to that Church which is his Spouse But now it being so very plain our Adversaries themselves not denying it That there is no other visible way of Admitting into Christ's Church but by Baptism it necessarily follows that if Children ought as I have before prov'd to be admitted into that Church then they must be Baptized into it Sir Should the King Command you to carry your pretty little Child into his Presence-Chamber you wou'd not I think once ask or question whether you must carry him in at the door you wou'd not I am sure be thought over-wise shou'd you say My Lord O King Your Royal Command is that I shall bring my Son into your Presence-Chamber but pray does your Majesty mean that I shall bring him in at the Door Just so Our Lord having Commanded that Children shall be received into his Church shou'd any one question whether they must be received in at the Door which is acknowleg'd to be Baptism what Answer could he reasonably expect but to be laugh'd at And thus Sir wonder not that there is no such express Command in Scripture as this That Infants shall be Baptized For Christ's Command to receive them into the Church is sufficient and there was no need of any such second Command to receive them in at the door or to Baptize them In short Our Lord has plainly taught us that little Children must be admitted into his Church Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 And he has plainly taught us that there is no other way of being admitted into his Church but by Baptism Except any one be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And from hence I frame this Argument There is no other way of Admission into Christ's Church but by Baptism But little Children must be admitted into Christ's Church Therefore they must be Baptized And this I am perswaded is very good Proof because 't is such Proof as our Lord made use of against the Pharisees to convince them of a Resurrection and such