not to be dis-joined viz. the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of a Numerous off-springs Is it not evident that in Gen. 17. ther is speciall mention of the Covenant of Grace viz. I will be the God of thee and thy seed after thee and then followeth Thou shalt therfore keep my Covenant thou and thy seed This is my Covenant Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Why should Circumcision be restreyned to the Promise of a Numerous of-spring when the text doth not restrein it If any reply That in Gen. 15. wher the Righteousnes of Faith is mentioned to which the Apostle alludeth ther is only mention made of a Numerous of-spring promised Be it so But that of Calvin is sound who saith That whatsoever promises God did give to Abraham Jn dubium est axioma apud Christianos quascunque promissiones Abrahae dedit Deus prâ—mae illius fuisse appendices Ergo cum audiret Abraham Erit semâ—n tuum siâ—ut arena mâ—â—is in hoc verbo non substitit sed ipsum potius includebat in gratia Adoptionis tanquam partem in toto Calv. in Câ—l 3 6. they were Appendices of that first promise made to Him and so this of a numerous of spring was by Faith received as a fruit of that first Grace he bestowed on Him viz. His Adoption Nay more That Promise of a Numerous of-spring that he should be the Father of many Nations Was it fulfilled in the children of the flesh only or in the children of the Promise also And how came he to be the Father of those children but by Faith in the Covenant of Grace Conclude therefore That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace A Remedy of that Dis-ease which is derived from Father to Sonn by Propagation Which being in the Posterity of Beleeving Christians no less than in the Posterity of Beleeving Jewes It followeth that these have as much need as the other And being Holy by virtue of their Parents interest in the Covenant are as capable of this Benefit as the other were Consequently that the implantation of Infants into that Mysticall Body of Christ by a Sacrament is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament And if not so Since it is not repealed by Christ and his Apostles we conclude That ther is a Precept virtuall and implicit And tho it be not said in direct terms Go and baptise Beleevers and their Children yet in that it is said Circumcise them their Baptism is included so much the more Because it will appear that ther is also for the Baptising of Infants Pattern virtuall and Implicit This is in the Baptising of whole Families upon the conversion of the Masters ther-of The whole Housholds of Lydia Crâ—spus Cornelius and others were baptised To say that in them ther might be no children because none are mentioned is to speak against all sense and reason As well may it be said ther were no servants and so make up a Family of I know not how few What say we to those three thousand souls mentioned Acts 2. which were added to the Church in one day Is it probable that they were all present at the Sermon and converted to the Faith by that Sermon it being in a private House Is it not more probable that the Men being present and converted they brought also their Families to be baptised which they might well do because they heard St. Peter say The Promise is made to you and to your children So that the totall summe of men women and children might be 3000. souls Some such thing doubtless is intimated in that phrase 3000. souls answerable to that in the story of Gen. 46. ver 27. Act. 7.14 All that came down into Egipt with Jacob were 70 souls Souls i. e. persons men women and children And here doubtless the course and practice of the Converts was answerable to that in Gen. 17. No sooner is the Covenant made with Abraham but he circumciseth all the Males in his house both young and old So doubtless No sooner is the Covenant of Grace ratified betwixt Christ and the Beleeving Parents by Baptism but the Houshold is also accounted Holy and so baptised Doubtless what St. Peter said to them in Act. 2. The Promise is made to you and to your children The same did St. Paul preach to the Gentiles when they were converted that they might know the large bounty of God to them and theirs in the Covenant of Grace And how should they confirm this to them but by baptising their children Take away this and you leav open a wide gapp to an Objection which is not easily answered For they might object What tell you us of the Grace of God in Christ of the super-abundance of that Grace Do we not see the contrary This is nothing answerable to that of Abraham and Israel They by their Faith received a Benefit for their children yea their servants Not so here We our selves per-aduenture may be the better for our Faith But our children remain still as they were strangers to the Covenant Will you imagine the Apostle to reply Nay but the Promise is to you and your children So that when they come to beleev they also may be admitted How justly might the Objector rejoin what great priviledge is this So may the very Heathen all that are afarr of when they beleev If this be all that we gain Our children notwithstanding our Faith are in no better condition than the Heathen themselves Nothing so good as the children of the Jews And so the great boast of super-abundant Grace falls to the ground Thus we see good Reason to acknowledge this Custome of baptising Infants to be warranted both by Precept and Pattern tho not formall and explicite yet virtuall and implicit And that with so great light and evidence from Scripture that greater in that kind cannot be expected Before I proceed to an other Argument Let me improve this further That Custome and Practise of the Church may well be presumed to be Apostolicall which is so consonant to the text of Scripture that it doth readily illustrate the text and openeth a door of light to understand the same Such is the Custome of Infants Baptised therfore That which being granted giveth light and which being denyed doth leave the text under such a cloud of obscurity that it is not easily understood how it may pass for Truth This must be granted to open a door of light to understand the text of Scripture Now then suppose this Act of the Apostles baptising Infants we easily see how 3000. souls may be added to the Church in one day notwithstanding the Sermon were in a privat house We see how St. Peter might confirm their Beleef in this The Promise is made to you and to your children even the Promise of super-abundant Grace We see how St. Paul might urge this your children are Holy But take away the supposition of this Custome and
act of the Parents corruption of Nature is propagated their act it is tho not voluntary in them So by the act of the Parents in this it is a voluntary act by Faith laying hold upon the Promise of God in that Sacrament is obtained for the Infant and bestowed upon him the Grace of Regeneration This to be the root and spring of future holines and righteousnes as the other was the root and spaun of wickednes and profaness Ob. It is said That every man must live by his own faith not by anothers Sol. By his faith indeed it is said that the just shall live Hab. 2.4 It is not said Not by anothers this is not in the text of the Prophet Nor doth the text speak simply of the Benefit it self gained by Faith but of the Pre-assurance ther-of No pre-assurance of Salvation but by Faith But this doth not prove That by his faith the Parent may not obtain for his child this benefit of Baptism the Remedy for that Malady We read in the Gospell That the woman of Canaan obtained mercy for her daughter The man for his lunatick sonn the Centurion for his servant the friends and neighbours for the Palsie-sick man Which instances have been alleged by Divines to manifest this point in hand viz. The Benefit of Baptism obtained for the child by the Faith of the Parents Bernard Seâ—m 66. in Cantica Ecbertus contra Cathacos Serm. 7. Remigius on Mat. 15.21 Calvin Harmon on MÃ t 9. That note of Remigius is worth the noting She saith not Help my daughter but help me and have mercy on me and so Mar. 9.21 The father of the Lunatick saith If thou canst do any thing have compassion on us and help us He puts himself in as a Co-partner of his childs misery Say the same here It is a mercy to the Father that he can prevail for his child who if he do rightly understand himself suffereth in his child yea not only by the way of compassion but as feeling the smart and punishment of himself And therfore hath need to sue unto God for the Removing of that punishmâ—nt which lyeth upon himself in his child Yea he hath this reason to châ—llenge it at the hand of God by the prayer of Faith that so he may obtain the fulnes of the Promise made to the faithful in the Covenant of Grace Infants are part of their Parents So that the promise of Grace mentioned in the Covenant betwixt God and the Faithfull Gen. 17. is not ratified to the whole Parent except also it do extend to his Infants So then it is the Faith of the Parent laying hold on the Promise which qualifieth his Infant for the Grace and good effect of Baptism Nay yet more This text on which the Argument was grounded Mat. 19. cometh yet neerer to the point For first the blessing of Christ which the Parents sought and found for their children was not terminated in an externall and corporall Benefit as per-adventure it might be replyed touching those former Instances Doubtless the Blessing of Christ extended to the good of their souls and yet procured by the Faith of the Parents without any concurrence of Faith in the Infants I will not per-emptorily affirm it But probable enough it is that these Parents having been by Johns Baptism directed to Christ when they knew him brought their children to Him to receiv a further blessing from him even that which John told them he could not give but they must expect it from another even from Christ Next it may be worth the noting That our Saviour saith Suffer little children to come unto mee To come not To be brought The act of the Parent is reputed the act of the child That none may deride the saying of the Ancient Credit in alio sicut peccavit in alio He beleeveth and cometh to Christ in and by his Parent as formerly he had sinned in the loins of another Corollary To conclude this first Argument Since by that text of our Blessed Saviour we have ground to believ That Infants presented to him are accepted Since what persons might be brought to him may be presented to his Ordinance There being no barr put in by any word of Christ to keep them of Nay more Since the Faith of the Parent doth lay hold upon the promise of Grace not only for himself but for his Infants yea ther is ground to believ the imputation of the Parents faith to the Infant I conclude ther is sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant Parents to present their Infants to this Ordinance and that with expectation to obtain the Grace and Benefit of the same The second Argument THis I ground upon the words of our Saviour Mat. 28.0 A charge given to the Apostles to instruct the Nations whom they should convert to the Faith to instruct them I say in the observation of all such Ordinances as Christ had commended to them This Observation enjoyned hath speciall reference to matters of Discipline for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches and Assemblies of Christians in which he instructed his Apostles no lesse than in matters of Faith and Doctrine as it is evident out of Act. 1.2 where is mention made of some Commandements which Christ gave to his Apostles touching things pertaining to the kingdom of God And it is no less evident by some passages in the New Testament ex gr Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 2 Tim. 2.2 that some things were delivered to the Churches and particularly to the Ministers ther-of which were not then committed to writing but delivered from Hand to Hand called therfore Traditions These were not matters of Doctrine especially not Articles of Faith None such do we acknowledge but what are delivered and set down in the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists But matters of Discipline and Rules of good order in the Church These Ordinances sett up and practised by th'appointment of the Apostles are equivalent in Authority to what Christ himself hath immediatly ordained Hence that of St. Paul Cor. 14.37 Consequently a Ground on which Conscience may build and therby may assure it self that ther-in it doth not sinn against God Of the which we cannot doubt if reading that of Cor. 11.16 we note what is the Question and what is the Resolution The Question is Whether it were indifferent for men and women to be covered or not covered in the Church-assemblies as they listed St. Paul saith No it is not but the Men must do so and the Women so Now saith he If any man be contentious q d if he will presumptuously contend against all reason that the thing is indifferent and so he may in this use his own liberty What then why saith he We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God q d The Custome of the Church which is establisht must over-rule mens froward fancies and stand for a law to quiet the conscience of him that is willing to be satisfied So
Males in his house that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him and the practise of Israel who did the like by all the male-children and infants which they bought with their money Whence I say that Custome should come except from this president I see not That they did so is evident by the story of their Acts and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes No Revelation had they for it that is recorded This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Testament we find in others and therfore conclude this also Now them The issue of all returns to this text Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars and only fail in this point of Baptising Infants I leav for them to give a reason who know what difference ther is betwixt reason and absurdity Especially since it is plain enough by the Testimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles That this also was a Custome establisht by the Apostles In Pamâ—lius notes on Cyprian Epla 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apostolicall Tradition So also doth Augustiâ— lib. 4. De Baptismo câ—ntra Donatist cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum speaking of the 59 epistle of Cyprian the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptisandis he saith Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decâ—etum condens novum â—ed Ecclesiâ—e fidem firmissimam seâ—â—ans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante octavum dâ—â—m nitivitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum mox natum rite baptisari cum suis quibussdam coepissopis censuit The Breviat of all this discours is this Every Commandement of Christ is to be observed Mat. 28. Infants-Baptism is the Commandement of Christ Every Apostolicall Institution is the Commandement of Christ Infants Baptism is an Apostolicall Institution therfore The Major is proved Cor. 11.25 and 14.37 and must be acknowledged except we would suspect them of fals and faithless dealing The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients And ther is great reason for it because it doth as do the rest of the Rules for Order and Discipline delivered to the Church carry in its face and fore-head the stamp of Christs Ordinances viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Israel So then To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced against Infants Baptism That it being presupposed that the Testament of Christ is so perfect and he so faithfull that nothing ought to be practised of Christians which is not therein warranted either by Precept or Pattern And it being assumed that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Custome Therfore it may not be practised To them I say we see what Answer may be returned 1. To the Major Flourished with that text of Heb. 3.2.6 as Moses So Christ was faithfull Nay more Moses only as a servant but Christ as a Sonn And therfore his Testament as perfect nay more perfect than that of Moses True indeed But know we not that the faithfulness of a man in his office is to be measured according to the intent and scope of his Office imposed In which if he fail and faulter then is he unfaithfull if not then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things ex gr The Minister may be faithfull tho he meddle not with the Sword of Justice The Magistrate tho he fight not with the sword of the Spirit So then what was the office of Moses and what of Christ The Office of Moses was to settle the Common-wealth and the Nationall Church of Israel The Office of Christ was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man to work out the Redemption of Mankind It was fitt that Moses should sett down particular laws for the Common-wealth and Ordinances for the Church Neither of these did pertain to the Office of Christ yet by his Apostles and their successors in severall Ages doth he provide whatsoever is necessary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Testament But in his own person and by himself he established the Covenant of Grace ordained the Seals ther-of sett up a Ministery gave to them the word of life and salvation and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government and so was faithfull in his house as a Sonn and worthy of more honour than Moses This for the Major 2. To the Minor We grant That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Testament for Infants baptising i. e. There is no Precept that saith Go and baptise Infants no more is ther any Precept to baptise Women nor to observ the Lords day as a Christian Sabbath Ther is no text that saith The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptised Nor is ther any text that saith Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we say that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it The which if found is not to be neglected Precept Virtuall and implicit Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Custome in Israel to present their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation and we frame the Argument thus What was instituted in the Old Testament and not repealed in the New nor is any way incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament that is understood to be continued and commended to the practise of the Christian Church But that Infants should be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament was commanded in the Old Testament neither is it repealed in the New nor incompatible with the state of the New Testament therfore That it is not repealed is thence confirmed Because in the Substitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation ther is no particular exception taken against Infants as before was noted in the first Argument That it is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament is thus further confirmed 1. The Infants of Christians are as capable of present incorporation into Christ and of admission into the Covenant of Grace as were the infants of the Jews And if so who shall barr them whom God hath not barred from the Seal of the Covenant 2. The Infants of Christians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort as touching the Remedy of that which maketh them stand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewish Infants If so who shall think that God hath not provided for them so well as for the other If he hath not how hath Grace abounded in the New Testament when in this particular it is much restreined both to Beleevers and to their Infants But if he hath who shall forbid them
that which God hath provided for them 1. That the Infants of Christians are as capable is proved by that of Cor. 7.14 They are holy And what is that Ther be who gloss upon the text and say That â—hildren are Holy indeed but how As the wife not otherwise viz. As she is sanctified to the use of her Husband so the children to the use of their Parents But they falsifie the text For the text saith not of the wife She is sanctified to her husband but by her Husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of the children it is said as of the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified but they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy which is more full and more emphaticall Others shift it of with this That the children are said to be Holy because Notwithstanding the difference of Religion in the Parents yet the children are legitimate This is further of than the former Nor can it stand except this be presupposed That all the children of Heathens are illegitimate No more than the former can stand without this being presupposed That neither wife nor children of Pagans are sanctified to their use Wherfore ther is nothing left but that they are said to be Holy by the Holines of the Covenant and sanctified with a federall sanctification The which is so much the more manifest because it appeareth by the context That the pretence of them who did repudiate their wives for their infidelity was a fear lest the infidelity of the wife should deprive the Husband of his interest in the Covenant of Grace which hee had imbraced and that his conjunction with her should rend him of as did the Sinn of Fornication cap. 6.15 from Communion with Christ St. Paul denyeth this and sheweth that rather the Faith of the Beleevers should so farr preponderate and prevail as to draw the other parties also after a sort within the Covenant So that the unbeleeving wife is sanctified and accounted as one interressed in the Covenant by the Husband His reason is because otherwise the children of such should be accounted Vnclean or altogether barred from the Covenant wher-as now they are Holy i. e. Heirs of the Covenant and admitted to the Seals ther-of Admitted I say For this is worthy our observation That suppose any of the Corinths would have been so wilfull to doubt of this Medium and deny th' Argument of St. Paul what is ther to convince the Gainsayer but only the practise of Israel continued in the Christian Churches viz. That the children of one beleeving Parent are admitted to the Seals of the Covenant This must of Necessity be presupposed else doth the Argument fall to the ground and overthrow it self To say That it resteth upon the Authority of th'Apostles affirmation is not sufficient in as much as he doth not positively set it down as a thing to be learned as he had done the former point The wife is sanctified but brings it in as a Reason to confirm that former point And we know that the Reason of a Position is alway presupposed as a thing already yeelded and confessed 2. That the Infants of Christians have as much need of partaking in the Covenant of Grace as had the Jewish Infants is thence confirmed Because That which is born of the Flesh is flesh Naturall corruption is common to all Why was Circumcision ordained but that ther-by the Uncircumcision of the Heart might be taken away that the Corruption of Nature might bee cured and the Guilt of that first sinn cut off from the Israel of God That Abraham by Faith apprehending the promise of God might ther-in have a Ground of comfort to himself in respect of his Sonn viz. That tho he had begotten him in his own likeness and had been a mean to convey unto him the Guilt and Filth of Originall sinn yet now by the mercy of God he was provided of a Remedy for that Malady of his child and using that Sacrament in Faith he might comfortably assure himself that the Remedy should prevail against the Malady And is not this Ground of comfort needfull also for Christians Surely they are deceived who either deny the propagation of originall sinn to Infants or dream of any Universall Demolition of it by the Death of Christ without the particular Application of his Blood by the Sacrament of the Gospell If there be no such Malady no such Guilt in our Infants how cometh it to pass that they dy Is ther any place for Death in Mankind wher ther is no sinn at all If the Beasts decay and dy by reason of their naturall mortality yet we know that sinn it was which brought Death upon Adam and his Posterity Where ther is no sinn inherent Death can claim no interest in that party Wher Death seizeth upon man we must not deny sinn some sin ther must be Actuall ther is none in these Infants Not yet have they sinned after the Similitude of Adams transgression viz. by listening to the Tentation of Satan and therfore it is Originall Guilt and corruption which is in them If the Disease be in their Nature Is ther not need of a Remedy Had the Infants of the Jews a Remedy and is ther none provided for the Infants of Christians Is ther a Remedy provided for them and a ground of comfort for their Parents and shall it be denyed and they debarred Objection The force of this Argument some think to elude by denying Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and consequently no Remedy against that originall Malady wher-of we speak We oppose that honourable Elogie of it Rom. 4 11. The Apostle termeth it A Seal of the Righteousnes of Faith They answer it was a seal of Abrahams Faith not in the Promise of the Messiah and the Covenant of Grace but in the promise of a Neumerous Off-spring That he should be the Father of many Nations This was say they that part of Gods Covenant with Abraham which was sealed by Circumcision A fleshly Covenant had a fleshly Seal But in this Answer we find a twofold ignorance bewrayed 1. The mis-interpretation of the Phrase The Righteousnes of Faith A phrase peculiar to St. Paul by which is intimated not the Act of Faith but the Benefit ther-of The phrase is equivalent to and to be expounded by that of Rom. 9.30 10.6 The Righteousnes which is by faith and that also Rom. 3. 21. 10.3 The Righteousnes of God Both which are joined in one Rom. 3.22 The Righteousnes of God which is by Faith and therby is signified the Benefit of imputed Righteousnes which God bestoweth on Beleevers for their Justification This benefit God having bestowed upon Abraham did seal it up to Him afterward by Circumcision which is therfore called Not the Seal of his Faith but the Seal of the Righteousnes i. e. of Justification which cometh by Faith and not by Works 2. Another point of ignorance is in dis-joyning those things which ought
confess their sins before they were baptised And who knoweth not that the Spirit doth sometime prevent the Water of Baptism 3. Nor yet Act. 8.36 This indeed proveth the affirmative viz. That He who beleeveth may be bâ—ptised But from thence to conclude the Negative That He who beleeveth not may not be baptised is against all Rules of reasoning which will yet more plainly appear by this Philip saith If thou believe with thy whole heart thou maist Will any man thence conclude That whoso beleeveth not with his whole heart may not be baptised And so take liberty to barre all such as presenting themselves and professing their faith may yet perhaps justly be suspected of Fiction and Dissimulation You see then the texts do not prove the Proposition Nay suppose that not by inference but in direct terms some of these texts should say He that beleeveth not shall not be baptised ought we not to understand it as true only in those persons of whom the text speaketh viz. Of them that have been taught and yet do frowardly refuse and profess a dislike and misbeleef of what hath been taught them And so it will be too weak an Argument to prove that universall Proposition and much less to draw on the desired conclusion Without faith none may be baptised None Ergo Not Infants ex gr That text of Mark saith He that beleeveth not shall be damned q. d. Without Faith none shall be saved Will any man understand this in that Universality as to include Infants Will he assume Infants beleeve not have no faith therfore They shall not be saved God forbid The Proposition hath it's latitude of Truth beyond which it may not be extended So then these texts do shew what is required of the Apostles and their successors What of the Nations and Heads of the Families in the Nations persons that are Sui juris not under the command of another But determineth nothing of inferiours and much less concludeth against Infants Baptism 2. Good reason against it For why First a profession of Faith is enough to entitle men to Baptism Tho there be no soundness and sincerity in the heart at all Witness the admission of Simon Magus True indeed except there be soundnes in the heart God may justly deny man the Benefit which otherwise he might expect But if he make profession to bâ—leeve in Christ who shall dare to dâ—ny him the Sacrament 2. That which is presupposed to assert the necessitie of Faitâ— understanding it of the grace it self is doubtful viz. That without Faith no man hath wherâ—with-all to râ—ceiv the Benefit of Baptism This I say may well be doubted if not denyed especially if we intend to comprehend Infants and little childâ—en They have a passive capacity which is enough to receive that Grâ—ce and Benefit which we conceiv is reached forth to them in that Sacrament And what is that Not s ch a fulness of Grace or the Habits ther-of as may be expected by them who have formerly been prepared by the Discipline and information of the Word But rather initiall and seminall Grace that seed of God wher-of the Scripture speaketh Pet. 1.23 1 Joh. 3.9 The which doth not presuppose Grace in the Heart but is it self the seed and root of Faith and all other actuall Graces whatsoever To men and women converted by the Word and then coming to Baptism viz. To Crispus Cornelius Lydia c. we beleev that Baptism doth as to Abraham Circumcision did convey a super-addition of further Grace to what they had formerly received in and by the Word But to their children Baptism conveyeth as did Circumcision to Jsaac the beginning and first seeds of Grace And consequently calleth for no previous dispositions and preparations in the Recipient only a passive capacity not cross-barred with obstinacy and infidelity It is the property of preventing Grace to be the first mover in the Heart and to make way for it's own Reception Is this acknowledged to be done in the ministry of the Word upon the Parents as it is said of Cornelius and Lydia and shall it seem unreasonable to grant it to be done by this first Sacrament in their children For why Did we conceiv the Spirit who is the chief Agent and efficient working in and by the ministry of the Word and Sacraments and with-out whose operation and assistance they are but as empty vessâ—ls and edgless tools the Spirit I say did we conceiv him working only as a morall Agent to stand at the door and knock as only ready and willing to enter if the door be opened to proffer Grace if man will receiv it Then were it reason indeed to require Faith in Children no less than in their Parents But it is not so We conceiv him in the Baptising of Infants working as a Naturall or rather as a super-naturall Agent viz. opening the door and entring putting Grace in the Heart and working it in the Will conferring upon them such a Grace as for the present they are capable of viz. initiall and seminall as before was said Add this also That in the Baptising of Infants ther is not Baptism altogether without Faith Ther is presupposed the Faith of the Parent And this sufficeth to qualify the Infant for Baptism yea for the Grace and Benefit of that Sacrament What is the Benefit of Baptism Is it not Remission of sin and spirituall Regeneration To the obtaining of which why may not the Faith of the Parent suffice In the child as yet corruption of Nature which he brought into the world is not active it hath produced neither thoughts words nor deeds against the law and therfore calleth for no personall Act of Grace to remove the Guilt ther-of Guilty he is and polluted but guilty only by iâ—putation and polluted not by any consent of his own but by the act of another viz. of his Parents * Quantò magis prohiberi non dâ—het infà ns qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd sâ—cundum Adam carnaliter natus qui adrâ—mâ—ssam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso saciliis acced t quòd illi remittuntur non propria sid aliena peccata Cyprian Epla 59. Is it any wonder that the imputation of anothers faith should procure for him Remission and removall of that which cometh by the imputation of anothers act That as he sinned in another so he may be said to beleev in another Here is then the equity of Gods proceedings that what Malady and mischief was contracted without his will shall be cured and remedyed without him and any act of his It is by the ordinance and institution of God that the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed to the Infant and the Corruption of Nature propagated And it is by the Ordinance of God that the Guilt of that sin is remitted and a Remedy against that Native disease provided and both these are done in and upon the Infant without any concurrence of his own will And as by the