indeed where this Principle is neglected many Innovations are introduced and many Truths are neglected under as fair shews of Antiquity as can be pretended for Infant-Baptism The Doctor then had little reason to call this a slavish Principle which is indeed the Principle which delivers us from Slavery to Jewish Fables Mens Inventions and Traditions Pag. 53 54. the Doctor to support Infant-Baptism tells us how he builds many Points of Faith and Practice nor upon certain Evidences of the Scripture otherwise than as interpreted so or so by the Catholick Church as 1. That Christ is of one Substance with the Father 2. That there are three Persons in the Trinity 3. That it is necessary for Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day 4. That the Church be governed by Bishops 5. That Women have the Lord's Supper 6. That Infants are to be baptized And these things he makes necessary no otherwise but as the Catholick Church has interpreted divers Scriptures to justify them to be so Sure this is strange Doctrine for a Protestant But were a Man disposed to trace him in all these Particulars it might appear that the Churches in most Ages have been divided in all or the most of these Points that so that he makes the Catholick Church as it is commonly taken so great a Foundation of his Faith as he here pretends to make her will meet with many Difficulties to discourage and take off his Confidence And particularly if I desire him to resolve me but this one What sort of Christians are this Catholick Church But he adds We can prove Infant-Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the ancient Primitive Church But this is a vain Boast and I demand what Church or what Apostle did interpret any part of the Doctrine of Christ or of the Gospel to such a sense The Doctor replies It is unreasonable to presume that the Gospel would not extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism But I answer if this be granted yet the Doctor gains nothing for 1. The Jewish Church had no Baptism at all of Divine Institution and therefore could not extend that she had not 2. Her Circumcision was limited to Abraham's Family and perhaps not extended to much above a third part of that Family neither seeing all Females and all Males that died before the eighth Day were debarred of it Whereas the Gospel extends holy Baptism to all Nations to the End of the World to both Male and Female as they are qualified for it Thus for his Argument from the Scope Let us now see his particular Passages to prove Infant-Baptism P. 55. The Doctor gives us these Texts as interpreted by the Catholick Church for Infant-Baptism John 3. 5. Mark 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. 15 33. 1 Cor. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Good Reader look upon these Scriptures and thou wilt not find one word of Precept or Example for Infant-Baptism in them all The first Place shews that none can be Church-members lawfully under the Gospel except they be regenerate and have the washing of Regeneration by Water but Infant-Regeneration is a Secret no Man can know it God will fit them for Heaven if they die in Infancy this David knew for his Child which was begot in Adultery and died without Circumcision yet he nothing doubted its Salvation The second Text our Saviour pronounceth unbaptized yea I say unbaptized Infants to belong to Heaven how unwise then was the Doctor to bring it for Infant-Baptism If these very Infants which were brought to Christ's own Person yet were not by him appointed to be baptized it can never prove that other Infants are to be baptized And seeing our Saviour declares that unbaptized Infants belong to Heaven therefore that Place John 3. 5. cannot by any means be understood of Infants Look well also upon 1 Cor. 1. 16. and compare it with 1 Cor. 16. 15 16. and thou wilt find tho the Catholick Church say nothing that the Houshold of Stephanus were such as had been converted and were the first Fruits in Achaia and had addicted themselves to the Work of the Ministry and then these could be no Infants As for the two Housholds Acts 16. it's admirable that wise Men should bring them to prove what they do sufficiently confute For Lydia had no Husband we read of And there is no Infant found in her House but the Persons of her Family received Instruction from Paul and Silas Acts 16. ult therefore no Infants And of the Jaylor's Houshold it is expresly said that Paul spake the Word to all that were in his House and that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House And they went out about Midnight to be baptized All which being well weighed no Man no Church can honestly interpret this Text for Infant-Baptism And for that Place 1 Cor. 7. 14. the Doctor does injure it as he did before in thrusting in the word common And it is ill done to make any distinction of common and unclean from holy which God has not made but rather taken away as we proved from Acts 10. 15. No Man as such is now to be called common or unclean and therefore no Infant is to be called common or unclean but being born according to God's Ordinance they are as such a holy Seed or a Seed of God. See the learned Diodate upon the Place Mal. 2. 14. Marriage ought to be of one with one and two in the same Flesh God's chief End in this Proceeding was that the Posterity might be sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunction And to concude I wish that my self and the Doctor my Opposâ—â—â— in this case be found at last as holy as a dying Infant of a Jew or poor Indian and we shall be sure to go to Hea-Heaven for I could never find that it is the Will of our Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish We come now to his last Text 1 Cor. 10. 2. where we find and the Doctor does ingenuously acknowledg that the Baptism here meant was but an Vmbrage or Shadow of Baptism not a real Baptism Nor does the Text speak of Infants being baptized in this umbratical Baptism it seems as clearly restrained to the Fathers in the case of Baptism as the eating and drinking spiritually of Christ is restrained to them ver 3. So that nothing can be urged from this Text for Infant-Baptism which will not with equal Truth and Reason conclude for their coming to the Lord's Table Read Mr. Diodate upon this place he was for Infant-Baptism yet does not infer Infant-Baptism from this Text as indeed there is no reason so to do For it is certain that all that passed through the Sea were not baptized to Moses
TRUTH and PEACE OR The Last and most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING Infant-Baptism Being a brief Answer to a late Book intituled The Case of Infant-Baptism Written by a Doctor of the Church of England In which Answer is shewed I. That the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was not the Covenant of Grace for the Salvation of Mankind many being not bound to observe it II. That Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor but a part of the Yoke of Bondage III. That the Jews had a Tradition to baptize Infants is either a Fable or destructive to the Christian Baptism if grounded thereon IV. The Doctor 's five comprehensive Questions particularly answered V. From the whole it is made evident that the Restoration of Sacred Baptism in respect of the true Subject and due manner of Administration is the only true method to revive the Ancient Christian Religion in all Nations where it has been corrupted by humane Innovation Whereunto is annexed A brief Discourse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism and of the use of the Ring and bowing at the Altar in the Solemnization of Marriages By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Custom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ Curcelleus Disserta of Orig. Sin n. 56. London Printed for the Author 1689. The PREFACE THAT Prophecy of St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 4. That Men shall turn away their Ears from the Truth and shall be turned unto Fables had too much of its Verification in the early Times of Christianity and as in other respects so in the case of sacred Baptism both in respect of the Time and Order in which it should be performed 1. From a Fear that Sin committed after Baptism should hardly if at all be remitted many did delay their Duty being desirous to have the full remission of their Sins near their Death This scandalous delay of Baptism proved pernicious to the Church of Christ as well as to the Persons thus neglecting their Duty and seems to have been the occasion of altering the manner of the Administration of Baptism For many of these Delayere being surprised with Sickness and afraid to die without Baptism requested that it might be administred to them in their sick Beds which was endulged to them without any Warrant from Heaven which in such cases should always be enquired for Yet this Custom was so doubtful to them that did allow it that they required such Chinicks that in case they recovered their Sickness they should be had to the River and there be baptized Cyprian Epist ad Magnum 2. Others did as much outrum the Rule of this Duty in preposterous haste even to baptize Infants as soon as born and sometimes before and this Error sprang from this apprehension that God had tied the Solvation of all Flesh to Baptism that even Infants dying without it could not be saved Yea so powerful was this Error that its Assertors did Anathematize all that held the contrary The Council of Afric decreed That all that affirm young Children receive eternal Life albeit they be not by Baptism renewed they are accursed Sure a more unreasonable Decree was never made by Men. Now this Leaven of false Doctrine has so prevailed that scarce any but Infants came to be concerned in obeying Christ in Baptism nor could poor Infants obey him therein for Austin confesses they did not willingly receive Baptism but strove against it with great Crying So that neither Young nor Old in a manner were found in some Ages to put on Christ in Baptism seeing that cannot be done without the free Consent of an Heart enlightened by Faith Gal. 3. 26 27. Acts 2. 40. It is therefore the work and proper business of the Restorers of holy Baptism to do what they possibly may to remove this Stumbling-block out of the way I mean this Doctrine which would damn to Hellish Torments all Infants dying unbaptized Concerning which I have wrote several Treatises and could be content still to be an Advocate for all dying Infants as being through the Grace of God in our Lord Jesus Christ discharged of the condemning Power of Original Sin and having no Actual Sin the Infirmity of their Nature shall not damn them but the Mercy of God shall save them all And were Mens Judgments clear in this Point the Controversy about Infant-Baptism would naturally cease and all Men would see it the only safe way to refer Baptism to the time wherein through Repentance and Faith it might according to the Will of God interess them in the remission of their Sins and in the Priviledges of the Church of the Living God in order to Life eternal I shall therefore once more endeavour to take away this false Covering which is not of God's Spirit I mean the Doctrine of Infant-Damnation by proposing a few things to this Generation as an Introduction to my Reply to the Case of Infant-Baptism And 1. Seeing it cannot enter into the Heart of any Christian I hope that God does create Infants on purpose to damn them and to shew them no Mercy seeing he is very merciful to the chief of Sinners if we can find out a just cause for the damning of them it must be either 1. From themselves from their Parents from the Devil or from Christ's not loving them so as to redeem them from the Fall which they had in Adam But none of these things can be the cause of Infants Damnation 1. They cannot damn themselves by sinful Courses and it is certain our gracious God will damn none who do not first destroy themselves by their Wickedness This is evident by his unwillingness to destroy those who had destroyed themselves Hosea 13. 9. O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thy Help How then can it enter into any Christian to think that God should have no pity for innocent Babes who never offended him Is he thus compassionate towards great Sinners and is there no Help in him for poor Infants 2. No Man can damn Infants because if any have power to damn his Infants all Men have it it 's no Man's peculiar Power whether good or bad to do this and if any say all Men have this Power he reflects upon the Goodness of God for giving such power to Men and contradicts the Word of God Jer. 31. Every one shall die for his own Iniquity the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father This is only true in the case of eternal Death for Children even Infants often die for their Fathers Sin a temporal Death as in the old World in Sodom yea and in Jerusalem too Lam. 2. 11. Yet who can think that our just and merciful God should now after their swooning in the Streets cast them into Hellish Torments It was not the Iniquity of the Infants but of the grown Persons which cried for Vengeance 3. The Devil cannot damn Infants because they are out of the Reach of his Temptations They know
the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
saith the Doctor undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but never drew such absurd Consequences from them c. And did they not as well read the History of Communion in the Acts of the Apostles and yet drew these absurd Consequences for 600 Years together that Infants should be communicated But to this the Doctor tells us That God might suffer all the Church to fall into such a harmless Practice as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious Fondness of the People as we do saith he in bringing them to Prayers Now as this may be well guessed so we likewise may conjecture and it 's not improbable but Infant-Baptism came stealing so too upon the Churches at the first but after these Errors had got root they were both defended by the Fathers as if they had been Oracles drop'd from Heaven And such a Necessity laid upon them as if Infants could not be saved without them Thus did Augustine teach both concerning Infant-Baptism and Infant-Communion The Doctor demands What account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Infants under the new Testament But we may with more reason demand of the Doctor seeing the Jews were so offended at the Neglect of Circumcision why did not the Apostles quiet this discontented People by telling them you need not be offended seeing instead of Infant-Circumcision you have now Infant-Baptism and if indeed there had been any such thing it had been the most pertinent means to quiet them to refer them to that for Satisfaction But seeing the Apostles make no use of this Argument it 's clear they had no such thing to argue from for where they could use it they did as in the case of baptized Believers themselves Coloss 2. 11. which is a sufficient Argument that Infant-Baptism had no being in the Church in St. Paul's time seeing he never mentions it at all no not then when he had the greatest occasion for it that could be given The Doctor observes that the Jews always looked upon the Children of Pagans as common or unclean but upon their own as separate and Holy. And then he tells us that St. Paul makes the same Distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But this is so expresly against the Word of God that I admire the Doctor should write it was not this Distinction between Jew and Gentile the one being common and unclean the other Holy taken quite away Acts 10. 15 18. What God hath cleansed call not thou common which the Apostle expounds thus ver 28. God hath shewed me that I should not call any Man common or unclean And why should the Doctor so much as think that St. Paul should count the Infants of Jews or Gentiles which do not yet believe common and unclean The Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. says not a Word to that Purpose but is an Answer to the Scruple which some Christians had about continuing in Marriage-Union with their Yoke-Fellows who were Unbelievers supposing them to be unclean but St. Paul perswades them to continue in that Relation for that they were both sanctified to that Relation of Husband and Wife else saith he your Children were unclean Now this Text is greatly abused by Poedobaptists and the learned Muscullus who had abused this Text as they do at last did confess as much Now this place Acts 10. 15 18 28. does so fully explain St. Paul that no Man can with any shew of Truth or Reason make a Distinction between a Christian's Infant and the Infant of an Indian to call the one common and unclean the other separate and Holy for if we may call no Man as such common and unclean much less may we call an Infant so If they be born according to the Law of God they are called by the Prophet Malachi a Seed of God chap. 2. v. 15. And though this Mercy of God towards all Infants equally might perhaps gaul the Jews as it does the Doctor and his party yet it 's Evangelical Doctrine and shews evidently that God is no Respecter of Persons and Infants being all equally the same as Objects of his Pity he despises none of these little ones The innocent Babes in Nineveh were as dear to him as the innocent Babes in the Land of Israel and yet for all this it is certain that the Children of faithful Men have many Blessings which the Children of evil Men have not being Children of many Prayers and under early Advantages to know the Lord and to cut short the Days of Iniquity whilst on the other side the Children of Unbelievers are in danger by an evil Education to be kept from the Truth and brought up in Error and as such they as their Fathers for the same cause become defiled not by Birth but by Sin Tit. 1. 15. For as born according to God's Ordinance they are his Offspring Acts 17. 28. and so Holy. And to this agrees the Sentence of Muscullus Vnless Marriage were Holy and clean even between Vnbelievers what other thing would follow than that all the Children are Bastards and unclean But far be it from us to say so they are Holy for they are born of lawful Marriage CHAP. V. Answereth the Doctor 's third Question Whether it be lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be baptized THat the Church or People of God ought to be a People separated from them that live in Wickedness and are professed Adversaries to the Truths of the Gospel in things essential to Church-Communion will not be denied I suppose by any Christian Now there are two Causes besides that of the want of true Baptism which does warrant the present Separation maintained by the present baptized Believers from the Parochial Church-Communion The first is that great Impiety and ungodly living which is every where to be seen in such Churches for the worst of Men to be sure will croud into those Churches as their Sanctuaries let the most vigilant Magistrates and the well-minded Persons in National Churches do what they can in their present Constitution for there will they be yea and in places of Preferment too Secondly The many Innovations and continual Alterations in Religion not to be avoided in National Church-Constitutions by reason of the Influence of Interest and of the Revolutions which National Government has always upon them does necessarily enforce at least some Distinction in Communion between such Churches and those whose professed Principles are constantly to adhere to Apostolical Institutions only in all things essential to the Constitution and Government of the Church of God which must ever be the same or should be however the Government of Nations do alter or suffer Revolutions And to this agrees that excellent Sentence of a Divine of the Church of England in
pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath to a State of Adoption of Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God p. 64. But is the Doctor sure that Infants are now Children of Wrath that is liable to Condemnation Sure whatever their state was in the first Adam yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the second Adam for the Lamb which was slain from the the Foundation of the World has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes so that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy see Jonah 4. 11. Who would think that so wise a Man should believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptism or that it must needs wait on him when he sprinkles an Infant for saith he By that Solemnity they may pass from a State of Nature c. Now we teach and believe thus that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptism And so taught the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 26 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And then it follows As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papists opus operatum in what he here asserts concerning Infant-Baptism His fourth Benefit That Infants have Baptism for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlasting-Life That Baptism washes Infants clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the Assurance of God's Mercy unto them and being cleansed by the Washing of Regeneration from the Guilt of that natural Vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the Displeasure of God they become reconcil'd to him and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Justification as any Believer in the World. Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God I should have thought him the finest Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptism but when he puts me off with Origen Irenaeus c. I am displeased and must only take him for a very Bold Man but no certain Oracle However he is pleased to add which was very needful for him in this place That he cannot deny but Infants may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well here is some comfort for unbaptized Infants But who can think that the Covenant of Grace should not reach poor Infants in the case of Salvation without Baptism but if any of them that are not baptized be saved it must be by extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercy These are new and strange Doctrines and so let them be The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants without their own consent or any act of their own and without any exterior Solemnity contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin and so are liable to all the Punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any Solemnity or Act of their own or any other Men for them by the SECOND ADAM by the Redemption of Jesus Christ by his Righteousness and Merits applied either immediately or how or when he pleaseth to appoint Dr. Taylor His fifth Benefit That Infants are by Baptism admitted into Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body to acquire a present Right to all Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the Promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist initiated Persons This the Primitive Christians he durst not say Infants found true by Experience c. He quotes no Scripture for all this but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants let the Reader consider I am perswaded the Doctor was so sensible of the Unapplicableness of these things to Infants that he durst not name them but Persons all along but seeing he must mean Infants the very recital of his Sayings is the Confutation of them For can he give so much as one Instance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized And why then does he presume to speak what neither he nor any Man else can ever prove to be true Nay he tells us in this very page for he is too wise a Man I hope to face out a Fable he confesses that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural Incapacity And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall it 's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page 66 67. at last concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff saying No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sense of Honour or any tollerable Degree of Conscience within him can without Shame and Horror break these sacred Bands asunder by which he was bound to God in Infancy But good Sir consider we do not spurn against the good Intentions of our Parents in designing us to the Service of God tho we justly disallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in so doing Your Predecessors had their Consecration in Infancy by Spittle Salt Candles Exufflations c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify these Follies when they came to Years And truly so neither can we ratify your Sprinklings Crossings Gossips c. in your Consecrations though so far as you mean well we may not despise but commond and also do now that part of God's Will which our Parents mistake would have prevented A due Regard to Vzzah's case and David's Reformation thereupon obliges us to this But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptism brings to the Church of God. The first he says it prevents those Scandals and shameful Delays of Baptism which otherwise grown Persons would be apt to make c. To this I must needs say If any thing without the Word of God would induce me to baptize Children this Consideration of the Doctor would as soon prevail as any thing for God knows this Duty is shamefully neglected by many whose Duty it is to hasten to it But we must not do Evil that Good may come We may not do what God does not command because Men will not do what he does command And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized and perhaps more than to come to the Lord's Supper yet all this must not discourage us nor force us to innovate Methods of our own and leave what God has prescribed If the faithful Minister labour in vain some times yet his Work is with the Lord Isai 49. 4. But I cannot as the Doctor does applaud the Wisdom of those who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptism ran into another Extream by which the Church however she may be more numerous yet by this means the Grace of Baptism is destroyed or made unnecessary to Baptism because