{"number":27,"title":"Of Baptism","part":null,"questions":[],"paragraphs":["27.1"],"clauses":[],"items":[],"text":"> Baptism is not only a Sign of Profession and Mark of difference, whereby Christian Men are discerned from others that be not Christened; but it is also a Sign of Regeneration or New Birth, whereby as by an Instrument they that receive Baptism rightly, are Grafted into the Church. The Promises of the Forgiveness of Sin, of our Adoption to be the Sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly Signed and Sealed, Faith is confirmed and Grace increased by virtue of Prayer to God. The Baptism of Young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the Institution of Christ.\n\nWhen St. *John Baptist* began first to Baptize, we do plainly see by the first Chapter of St. *John*’s Gospel, that the *Jews* were not surprised at the Novelty of the Rite, for they sent to ask *who he was*; and when he said he was not the *Messias,* nor *Elias,* nor that *Prophet,* they asked, *Why Baptizest thou then?* Which shews not only that they had clear Notions of Baptism,[^1] but in particular that they thought that if he had been the *Messias,* or *Elias,* or that *Prophet,* he might then have Baptized. St. *Paul* does also say that the *Jews were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea*; which seems to relate to some Opinion the *Jews* had,[^2] that by that *Cloud,* and their passing through the *Sea,* they were purified from the *Egyptian* Defilements, and made meet to become *Moses*’s Disciples. Yet in the Old Testament we find no clear Warrants for a practice that had then got among the *Jews,* which is still taught by them, that they were to receive a Proselyte, if a Male, by *Baptism, Circumcision, and Sacrifice*; and if a Female, only by *Baptism and Sacrifice.* Thus they reckoned that when any came over from Heathenism to their Religion, they were to use a Washing; to denote their Purifying themselves from the uncleanness of their former Idolatry, and their entring into a Holy Religion.\n\nAnd as they do still teach that when the Messias comes, they are all bound to set themselves to repent of their former sins; so it seems they then thought, or at least it would have been no strange thing to them, if the Messias had received such as came to him by Baptism. St. *John* by Baptizing those who came to him, took them obliged to enter upon a course of Repentance, and he declared to them the near approach of the Messias, and that *the Kingdom of God was at hand*; and it is very probable that those who were Baptized by Christ, that is, by his Apostles; for though it is expresly said that he Baptized none, yet what he did by his Disciples he might in a more general sense be said to have done himself; that these, I say, were Baptized upon the same Sponsions, and with the same Declarations, and with no other; for the Dispensation of the Messias was not yet opened, nor was it then fully declared that he was the *Messias*; howsoever this was a preparatory Initiation of such as were fitted for the coming of the Messias; by it they owned their expectations of him, as then near at hand, and they professed their Repentance of their Sins, and their purposes of doing what should be enjoined them by him.\n\n*Water* was a very proper Emblem, to signify the passing from a Course of Defilement to a greater degree of Purity, both in Doctrine and Practice.\n\nOur Saviour in his state of Humiliation as he was subject to the Mosaical Law, so he thought fit to fulfil all the Obligations that lay upon the other *Jews*; which by a Phrase used among them he expresses thus *to fulfil all righteousness.* For tho’ our Saviour had no sins to Confess, yet that not being known, he might come to Profess his Belief of the Dispensation of the Messias, that was then to appear. But how well soever the *Jews* might have been accustomed to this Rite, and how proper a Preparation soever it might be to the Manifestation of the Messias, yet the Institution of Baptism as it is a federal Act of the Christian Religion, must be taken from the Commission that our Saviour gave to his Disciples;[^3] *to go preach and make disciples to him in all Nations* (for that is the strict signification of the Word), *baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.*\n\nBy the first *Teaching* or making of *Disciples,* that must go before Baptism, is to be meant the Convincing the World, that *Jesus* is the *Christ,* the true *Messias,* anointed of God, with a fulness of Grace and of the Spirit without measure; and sent to be the Saviour and Redeemer of the World. And when any were brought to acknowledge this, then they were to Baptize them, to initiate them to this Religion, by obliging them to Renounce all Idolatry and Ungodliness, as well as all secular and carnal Lusts, and then they led them into the Water; and with no other Garments but what might cover Nature, they at first laid them down in the Water, as a Man is laid in a Grave, and then they said those words, *I baptize or wash thee in the Name of the Father,*[^4] *Son and Holy Ghost:* Then they raised them up again and clean Garments were put on them: From whence came the Phrases *of being baptized into Christ’s death,*[^5] *of being buried with him by baptism, into death:* Of *our being risen with Christ,* and of *our putting on the Lord Jesus Christ*; of *putting off the Old Man and putting on the New.* After Baptism was thus performed, the baptized Person was to be farther instructed in all the Specialities of the Christian Religion: And in all the Rules of Life that Christ had prescribed.\n\nThis was plainly a different Baptism from St. *John*’s; a Profession was made in it, not in general of the Belief of a Messias soon to appear, but in particular, that *Jesus was the Messias.*\n\nThe Stipulation in St. *John*’s Baptism was *Repentance*; but here it is the Belief of the whole Christian Religion: In St. *John*’s Baptism they indeed promised Repentance, and he received them into the earnests of the Kingdom of the Messias; but it does not appear that St. *John* either did promise them *Remission of Sins,* or that he had Commission so to do: For *Repentance* and *Remission of Sins* were not joined together till after the Resurrection of Christ;[^6] that he appointed that *Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations, beginning at Jerusalem.*\n\nIn the Baptism of Christ, I mean that which he appointed, after his Resurrection (for the Baptism of his Disciples before that time was no doubt the same with St. *John*’s *Baptism*), there was to be an Instruction given in that great Mystery of the Christian Religion concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which those who had only received St. *John*’s Baptism knew not: *They did not so much as know that there was a Holy Ghost*;[^7] That is, they knew nothing of the extraordinary Effusion of the Holy Ghost. And it is expresly said, that those of St. *John*’s Baptism, when St. *Paul* explained to them the difference between the Baptism of Christ, and that of St. *John,* that *they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.* For St. *John* in his Baptism had only initiated them to the belief of a Messias; but had not said a word of *Jesus* as being that *Messias.*[^8] So that this must be fixed that these two Baptisms were different; the one was a dawning or imperfect beginning to the other, as he that administred the one was like the *Morning Star* before the *Sun of Righteousness.*\n\nOur Saviour had this Ordinance (that was then imperfect, and was to be afterwards compleated when he himself had finished all that he came into the World to do) he had I say this visibly in his eye when he spake to *Nicodemus,* and told him, that *except a man were born again he could not see* (or discern) *the Kingdom of God:* By which he meant that entire change and renovation of a man’s mind, and of all his powers through which he must pass, before he could discern the true Characters of the Dispensation of the Messias; for that is the sense in which the Kingdom of God does stand, almost universally through the whole Gospel. When *Nicodemus* was amazed at this odd expression, and seemed to take it literally; our Saviour answered more fully, *Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.* The meaning of which seems to be this, that except a man came to be renewed, by an ablution like the Baptism which the *Jews* used, that imported the outward profession of a change of Doctrine and of Heart, and with that except he were inwardly changed by a secret power called the *Spirit,* that should transform his nature, he could not become one of his Disciples, or a true Christian; which is meant by his entring into the *Kingdom of God,* or the Dispensation of the Messias.\n\nUpon this Institution and Commission given by Christ, we see the Apostles went up and down Preaching and Baptizing. And so far were they from considering Baptism only as a carnal Rite, or a low Element, above which a higher Dispensation of the Spirit was to raise them, that when St. *Peter* saw the Holy Ghost visibly descend upon *Cornelius* and his Friends, he upon that immediately Baptized them; and said,[^9] *Can any man forbid* (or deny) *water that these should not be baptized; which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?* Our Saviour has also made Baptism one of the *Precepts,* tho’ not one of the *Means,* necessary to Salvation. A *Mean* is that which does so certainly procure a thing, that it being had, the thing to which it is a certain and necessary *Mean* is also had; and without it the thing cannot be had; there being a natural connexion between it and the End. Whereas a *Precept* is an Institution, in which there is no such natural efficiency; but it is positively commanded, so that the neglecting it is a contempt of the Authority that commanded it: And therefore in obeying the *Precept,* the value or vertue of the action lies only in the obedience. This distinction appears very clearly in what our Saviour has said both of *Faith* and *Baptism.*[^10] *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.*\n\nWhere it appears, that Faith is the *Mean* of Salvation with which it is to be had, and not without it; since such a believing as makes a man receive the whole Gospel as true, and so firmly to depend upon the Promises that are made in it; as to observe all the Laws and Rules that are prescribed by it, such a *Faith* as this gives us so sure a title to all the Blessings of this New Covenant, that it is impossible that we should continue in this state and not partake of them; and it is no less impossible that we should partake of them, unless we do thus believe. It were not suteable to the Truth and Holiness of the Divine Nature, to void a Covenant so solemnly made; and that in favour of wicked men, who will not be reformed by it: So *Faith* is the certain and necessary Mean of our Salvation; and is so put by Christ, since upon our having it we shall be *saved,* as well as *damned* upon our not having it.\n\nOn the other hand, the nature of a Ritual Action, even when commanded, is such, that unless we could imagine that there is a Charm in it, which is contrary to the Spirit and Genius of the Gospel, which designs to save us by reforming our Natures, we cannot think that there can be any thing in it that is of it self, effectual as a Mean; therefore it must only be considered as a Command that is given us, which we are bound to obey; if we acknowledge the Authority of the Command. But this being an Action that is not always in our power, but is to be done by another, it were to put our Salvation or Damnation in the power of another, to imagine that we cannot be saved without Baptism; and therefore it is only a Precept which obliges us in order to our Salvation; and our Saviour by leaving it out when he reversed the words, saying only, *he that believeth not,* without adding, and is not Baptized, shall be *damned,* does plainly insinuate that it is not a Mean, but only a Precept in order to our Salvation.\n\nAs for the Ends and Purposes of Baptism, St. *Paul* gives us two; the one is, that *we are all baptized into one body, we are made members one of another:*[^11] We are admitted to the Society of Christians, and to all the Rights and Priviledges of that Body, which is the Church. And in order to this, the outward action of Baptism▪ when regularly gone about, is sufficient. We cannot see into the sincerity of mens Hearts: Outward Professions and regular Actions are all that fall under mens Observation and Judgment. But a second End of Baptism is Internal and Spiritual. Of this St. *Paul* speaks in very high terms, when he says that *God has saved us according to his mercy,*[^12] *by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.* It were a strange perverting the design of these words to say that somewhat Spiritual is to be understood by this *washing of regeneration,* and not Baptism; when as to the word *save,* that is here ascribed to it, St. *Peter* gives that undeniably to Baptism; and St. *Paul* elsewhere in two different places,[^13] makes our Baptism to represent *our being dead to sin, and buried with Christ*; and our being *risen and quickned with him, and made alive unto God*; which are words that do very plainly import Regeneration. So that St. *Paul* must be understood to speak of Baptism in these words; here then is the inward effect of Baptism: It is a death to sin, and a new life in Christ, in imitation of him, and in conformity to his Gospel. So that here is very expresly delivered to us, somewhat that rises far above the Badge of a Profession, or a Mark of difference.\n\nThat does indeed belong to Baptism, it makes us the visible Members of that one Body, into which we are Baptized, or admitted by Baptism; but that which *saves us* in it, which both deadens and quickens us, must be a thing of another nature. If Baptism were only the receiving us into the Society of Christians, there were no need of saying, *I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.* It were more proper to say, *I Baptize thee in the Name, or by the Authority of the Church.* Therefore these august words, that were dictated by our Lord himself, shew us that there is somewhat in it that is Internal, which comes from God, that it is an admitting men into somewhat that depends only on God, and for the giving of which the authority can only be derived by him. But after all, this is not to be believed, to be of the nature of a Charm, as if the very act of Baptism carried always with it an inward Regeneration. Here we must confess that very early some Doctrines arose upon Baptism, that we cannot be determined by. The words of our Saviour to *Nicodemus* were expounded so, as to import the absolute necessity of Baptism in order to Salvation; for it not being observed that the Dispensation of the Messias was meant by the Kingdom of God, but it being taken to signifie Eternal Glory, that expression of our Saviour’s was understood to import this, that no Man could be saved unless he were Baptized; so it was believed to be simply necessary to Salvation: A natural consequence that followed upon that was to allow all Persons leave to Baptize Clergy and Laity, Men and Women, since it seemed necessary to suffer every Person to do that without which Salvation could not be had. Upon this these hasty Baptisms were used, without any special Sponsion on the part of those who desired it; of which it may be reasonably doubted whether such a Baptism be true, in which no Sponsion is made; and this cannot be well answered but by saying that a general and an implied Sponsion, is to be considered to be made by their Parents while they desire them to be Baptized.\n\nAnother Opinion that arose out of the former, was the mixing of the outward and the inward effects of Baptism: It being believed that every Person that was *born of the Water,* was also *born of the Spirit*; and that the *renewing of the Holy Ghost,* did always accompany *the washing of Regeneration.* And this obliged St. *Austin* (as was formerly told) to make that difference between the *regenerate* and the *predestinated*; for he thought that all who were Baptized, were also *regenerated.* St. *Peter* has stated this so fully, that if his words are well considered, they will clear the whole matter. He, after he had set forth the miserable state in which Mankind was, under the figure of the Deluge, in which an Ark was prepared for *Noah* and his Family, says upon that, *The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us:*[^14] Upon which he makes a short digression to explain the nature of Baptism, *not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer* (or the Demand and Interrogation) *of a good conscience towards God; by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into Heaven.* The meaning of all which is, that Christ having risen again, and having then had *all power in heaven and in earth* given to him, he had put that vertue in Baptism, that by it we are *saved,* as in an Ark, from that miserable state in which the world lies, and in which it must perish. But then he explains the way how it saves us; that it is not as a Physical action, as it washes away the filthiness of the flesh, or the body; like the Notion that the Gentiles might have of their *Februations*; or which is more natural, considering to whom he writes, like the Opinions that the *Jews* had of their *Cleansings* after their *Legal Impurities,* from which their Washings and Bathings did absolutely free them. The Salvation that we Christians have by Baptism is effected by that Federation into which we enter, when upon the Demands that are made of our renouncing the *Devil,* the *World* and the *Flesh,* and of our believing in Christ, and our *Repentance* towards God, we make such *Answers* from a *good Conscience,* as agree with the end and design of Baptism; then by our thus coming into Covenant with God we are saved in Baptism. So that the Salvation by Baptism is given by reason of the federal compact that is made in it. Now this being made outwardly, according to the Rules that are prescribed, that must make the Baptism good among Men, as to all the outward and visible effects of it: But since it is the *answer of a good Conscience* only that *saves,* then an answer from a bad Conscience, from a hypocritical Person, who does not inwardly think or purpose according to what he professes outwardly, cannot save; but does on the contrary aggravate his Damnation. Therefore our Article puts the efficacy of Baptism, in order to the forgiveness of our sins, and to our Adoption and Salvation, upon the vertue of Prayer to God; that is, upon those Vows and other acts of Devotion that accompany them: So that when the seriousness of the mind accompanies the regularity of the action, then both the outward and inward effects of Baptism are attained by it; and we are not only *Baptized into one Body,* but are also *saved by Baptism.* So that upon the whole matter, Baptism is a federal admission into Christianity; in which on God’s part all the Blessings of the Gospel are made over to the Baptized: And on the other hand the Person Baptized takes on him by a solemn Profession and Vow, to observe and adhere to the whole Christian Religion. So it is a very natural distinction to say, that the outward effects of Baptism follow it as outwardly performed; but that the inward effects of it follow upon the inward acts; but this difference is still to be observed between inward acts and outward actions; that when the outward action is rightly performed, the Church must reckon the Baptism good, and never renew it: But if one has been wanting in the inward acts, those may be afterwards renewed, and that want may be made up by Repentance.\n\nThus all that the Scriptures have told us concerning Baptism seems to be sufficiently explained. There remains only one place that may seem somewhat strange. St. *Paul* says that *Christ sent him not to Baptize, but to Preach:*[^15] Which some have carried so far as to infer from thence that Preaching is of more value than Baptism. But it is to be considered that the Preaching of the Apostles was of the nature of a Promulgation made by Heraulds: It was an act of a special Authority by which he in particular was to convert the World from Idolatry and *Judaism,* to acknowledge *Jesus to be the true Messias.*[^16]\n\nNow when Men by the Preaching of the Apostles, and by the Miracles that accompanied it, were so wrought on as to believe that *Jesus was the Christ*;[^17] then according to the practice of *Philip* towards the *Eunuch of Ethiopia*; and of St. *Paul* to his Jayler at *Philippi,* they might immediately Baptize them; yet most commonly there was a special Instruction to be used, before Persons were Baptized, who might in general have some Conviction, and yet not be so fully satisfied, but that a great deal of more pains was to be taken to carry them on to that full assurance of Faith, which was necessary. This was a work of much time, and was to be managed by the Pastors or Teachers of the several Churches: So that the meaning of what St. *Paul* says was this, that he was to publish the Gospel from City to City, but could not descend to the particular labour of preparing and instructing of the Persons to be Baptized, and to the Baptizing them when so prepared. If he had entred upon this Work he could not have made that progress, nor have founded those Churches that he did. All this is therefore misunderstood when it is applied to such Preaching as is still continued in the Church; which does not succeed the Apostolical Preaching, that was inspired and infallible; but comes in the room of that Instruction and Teaching which was then performed by the Pastors of the Church.\n\nThe last Head in this Article relates to the Baptism of Infants, which is spoken of with that moderation, that appears very eminently through the whole Articles of our Church, on this Head. It is only said to be most agreeable with the Institution of Christ, and that therefore it is to be in any ways retained in the Church. Now to open this, it is to be considered, that tho’ Baptism and Circumcision do not in every particular come to a Parallel; yet they do agree in two things: The one is, that both were the Rites of admission into their respective Covenants, and to the Rights and Privileges that did arise out of them; and the other is, that in them both, there was an Obligation laid on the Persons, to the observance of that whole Law to which they were so initiated. St. *Paul* arguing against Circumcision, lays this down as an uncontested Maxim, That if a Man was Circumcised, *he became thereby a debtor to the whole law.*\n\nParents had by the *Jewish* Constitution,[^18] an Authority given them to conclude their Children under that Obligation; so that the Soul and Will of the Child was so far put in the power of the Parents, that they could bring them under federal Obligations, and thereby procure to them a share in federal Blessings. And it is probable that from hence it was, that when the *Jews* made Proselytes, they considered them as having such Authority over their Children, that they Baptized them first, and then Circumcised them, though Infants.\n\nNow since Christ took Baptism from them, and appointed it to be the federal Admission to his Religion, as Circumcision had been in the *Mosaical* Dispensation, it is reasonable to believe, that except where he declared a change that he made in it, in all other respects it was to go on and to continue as before; especially when the Apostles in their first Preaching told the *Jews* that the Promises were made to them and to their Children;[^19] which the *Jews* must have understood according to what they were already in possession of, that they could initiate their Children into their Religion, bring them under the obligations of it, and procure to them a share in those Blessings that belonged to it. The Law of Nature and Nations puts Children in the Power of their Parents; they are naturally their Guardians, and if they are entitled to any thing, their Parents have a right to transact about it, because of the weakness of the Child; and what Contracts soever they make, by which the Child does not lose but is a gainer, these do certainly bind the Child. It is then suitable both to the constitution of Mankind, and to the dispensation of the *Mosaical* Covenant, that Parents may dedicate their Children to God, and may bring them under the obligations of the Gospel; and if they may do that, then they certainly procure to them with it, or in lieu of it, a share in the blessings and promises of the Gospel. So that they may offer their Children, either themselves, or by such others of their Friends, to whom for that occasion they transfer that Right which they have, to transact for and to bind their Children.\n\nAll this receives a great confirmation from the decision which St. *Paul* makes upon a case that must have happened commonly at that time; which was, when one of the Parties in a Married state, *Husband* or *Wife,* was Converted, while the other continued still in the former state of Idolatry, or Infidelity: Here then a scruple naturally arose, Whether a Believer or Christian might still live in a married state with an Infidel. Besides the ill usage to which that diversity of Religion might give occasion; another difficulty might be made, Whether a Person defiled by Idolatry, did not communicate that Impurity to the Christian, and whether the Children born in such a Marriage, were to be reckoned a *holy seed,* according to the *Jewish* Phrase, or an *unholy,* unclean Children, that is, Heathenish Children; who were not to be Dedicated to God, nor to be Admitted into Covenant with him: For *unclean* in the Old Testament, and Uncircumcised, signify sometimes the same thing; and so St. *Peter* said that in the case of *Cornelius* God had shewed him, that he should call no Man *common* or *unclean*;[^20] in allusion to all which St. *Paul* determines the case, not by an immediate Revelation, but by the Inferences that he drew from what had been Revealed to him; he does appoint the Christian to live with the Infidel, and says, that the Christian is so far from being defiled by the Infidel, that there is a communication of a Blessing that passes from the Christian to the Infidel; the one being the better for the Prayers of the other, and sharing in the Blessings bestowed on the other: The better part was accepted of God, *in whom mercy rejoices over judgment*; there was a communication of a Blessing that the Christian derived to the Infidel; which at least went so far, that their Children were not *unclean*; that is, shut out from being dedicated to God, but were *holy.* Now it is to be considered that in the New Testament *Christians,* and *Saints,* or *Holy,* stand all promiscuously. The Purity of the Christian Doctrine, and the Dedication by which Christians offer up themselves to God, makes them *Holy.*\n\nIn Scripture *Holiness* stands in a double Sense, the one is a true and real Purity, by which a Man’s Faculties and Actions become Holy; the other is a dedicated Holiness, when any thing is appropriated to God; in which sense it stands most commonly in the Old Testament. So Times, Places, and not only Persons, but even Utensils applied to the Service of God, are called *Holy.* In the New Testament, *Christian* and *Saint* are the same thing; so the saying that Children are *Holy,* when one of the Parents is a Christian, must import this, that the Child has also a right to be made *Holy,* or to be made a Christian; and by consequence that by the Parents Dedication that Child may be made *Holy,* or a *Christian.*\n\nUpon these Reasons we conclude, That though there is no express Precept or Rule given in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants, yet it is most agreeable to the Institution of Christ, since he conformed his Institutions to those of the *Mosaical* Law, as far as could consist with his Design; and therefore in a thing of this kind, in which the just tenderness of the human Nature does dispose Parents to secure to their Children a Title to the Mercies and Blessings of the Gospel, there is no reason to think that this being so fully set forth and assured to the *Jews* in the Old Testament, that Christ should not have intended to give Parents the same Comforts and Assurances by his Gospel, that they had under the Law of *Moses:* Since nothing is said against it, we may conclude from the nature of the two Dispensations, and the proportion and gradation that is between them, that Children under the New Testament are a *holy seed,* as well as they were under the Old; and by consequence that they may be now Baptized as well as they were then Circumcised.\n\nIf this may be done, then it is very reasonable to say what is said in the Article concerning it, That *it ought in any wise to be retained in the Church:* For the same Humanity that obliges Parents to feed their Children, and to take care of them while they are in such a helpless state, must dictate, that it is much more incumbent on them, and is as much more necessary, as the Soul is more valuable than the Body, for them to do all that in them lies for the Souls of their Children, for securing to them a share in the Blessings and Privileges of the Gospel, and for Dedicating them early to the Christian Religion. The Office for Baptizing Infants is in the same words with that for Persons of Riper Age; because Infants being then in the power of their Parents, who are of Age, are considered as in them, and as binding themselves by the Vows that they make in their Name. Therefore the Office carries on the supposition of an internal Regeneration; and in that helpless state the Infant is offered up and Dedicated to God; and provided, that when he comes to Age he takes those Vows on himself, and lives like a Person so in Covenant with God, then he shall find the full effects of Baptism; and if he dies in that state of Incapacity, he being Dedicated to God, is certainly accepted of by him; and by being put in the Second *Adam,* all the bad effects of his having descended from the First *Adam,* are quite taken away:[^21] Christ, when on Earth, encouraged those who brought *little Children* to him, *he took them in his arms, and laid his hands on them and blessed them,* and said, *suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God*: Whatever these words may signify mystically, the literal meaning of them is, that little Children may be admitted into the Dispensation of the Messias, and by consequence that they may be Baptized.\n\n[^1]: John 1.25.\n[^2]: 1 Cor. 10.2.\n[^3]: Matth. 28.19.\n[^4]: Rom. 6.3, 4, 5.\n[^5]: Col. 2.12. Col. 3.1, 10. Rom. 13.14.\n[^6]: Luke 24.47.\n[^7]: Acts 19.2, 3, 4, 5.\n[^8]: Joh. 3.3, 5▪ 6.\n[^9]: Acts 10.44, 47, 48.\n[^10]: Mark 16.16.\n[^11]: 1 Cor. 12.13.\n[^12]: Tit. 3.5.\n[^13]: Rom. 6. Col. 2.\n[^14]: 1 Pet. 3▪ 21.\n[^15]: 1 Cor. 1.17.\n[^16]: Acts 8.26, to the end.\n[^17]: Acts 16.31, 32, 33.\n[^18]: Gal. 5.3.\n[^19]: Acts 2.39.\n[^20]: 1 Cor. 14.\n[^21]: Matt. 19.13, 14."}