Testainent Ergo Infants ought not to be Baptised Mr. Fort. What do you mean by the general duties of the new Testa ent T G. I mean Prayer hearing the Word and Communion at the Lords Table according to Acts. 2. 41. 42. Mr. Fort This is spoken of grown Persons and not of Infants T. Grantham This is spoken of all that were baptised in the first Church whose pattern we ought to sollow rather then the innovations of Men. Mr. Fort. Your way is an innovation not much above two hundred years old Tho. Grantham Not so for our way of baptising began in the days of John the Baptist and for our opposing Infant baptism 't is very antient for as soon as we hear it mentioned we find it opposed by Tertullian who lived in the third Century Mr. Fort. Tertullian is conceived to oppose only the Baptising of the children of unbelievers T. G. That is a great mistake his words are indefinite for he saith veniant ergo dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant decentur fiant Christiam cum Christum nosse potuerint Mr. W Mr. Wright who was one of the other Priests stood up and said let the business be put to that issue for you only have Tertullian for the Antients and he was a Mantanists T. Grantham If he must be lightly looked at because he was in some errour as that of Montanus then you must lay aside most of the antient Fathers who also had their errours but you are mistaken Tertullian was not the only person among the Antients that opposed Infant baptism for Greg. Nazianzene did likewise disswade from it Mr. Wright We have Irenaeus before Tertullian who speaks for Infant baptism for he saith Infantes pueris senis T. Grantham You act his words amiss for it is not senis but seniores Mr. Wright It is senis it is senis T. Grantham You mistake it is sâ—niores and beside Irenaeus speaks not of baptism only he useth the words renascunter in dâ—um Mr. Fort The Antients understood by them words to be baptized T. G. It is inconvenient so to interpret Irâ—â—eus in this place for then it would follow that unless Infants be baptised they cannot be saved which is absurd but I desire you to answer to the Argument Mr. Fort seemed not disposed to give any surther answer then T. Grantham said I have propounded and prosecuted 7 Arguments against your pretended way of baptising and 7 against your Infant subject of what weight they are and how you have answered them we are no proper Judges but must leave that to the Auditors now because I would not take up the whole time I desire you to be Opponent and I will answer you I conclude with the words of Augâ—stine Nec ego te nec tu me sed ambo audiamus Christi in Scripâ—â—res Mr. Fort Opponent I am now to prove our way of baptising to be the right way of baptising and that Infants ought to be baptised Arg. 1. If our way of baptising doth signifie that which ought to be signified in baptism then it is the right way of baptising But our way of baptising doth signifie that which ought to be signified in baptism Ergo it is the right way of baprising T. Grantham If you mean that your way of baptising doth signifie all that ought to be signified in baptism then I deny the minor and we have before shewed how short it comes of the true and full signification of baptism Mr. Fort. Our way of baptising signifies the washing away of sins and it agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to wash therefore it is sufficient T. Grantham The contrary to this hath been shewed and I now deny that every kind of washing agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when used to express the sacred act of baptising and I desire you to shew one text where that word is taken for a washing the Fore-head only when the sacred act of baptising is expressed by it Mr Fort. The Jaylor was baptised at midnight and do you think he had a River in his house T. Grantham You are much mistaken the Jaylor went out to be baptised Mr. Fort. You cannot make that appear T. Grantham Yes the reading of the text is plain to that purpose for it is said he was baptised he and all his straightway and then it follows and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them Mr. Fort. That may be meant of carrying them out of one room into another T. Grantham This is contrary to common sence you cannot speak your conscience in this Mr. Fort. I have shewed our way of baptizing is sufficient I will now prove that Infants ought to be baptised Arg 2 If Infants are within the Covenant of grace then they ought to be sealed with the seal of the Covenant and by consequence to be baptised But Infants are within the Covenant of grace and ough to be sealed c Ergo they ought to be baptized T. Grantham Before I answer your argument give me leave to ask you a Question How many Seals belong to the Covenant of grace and what be they Mr. Fort. There are two Seals of the Covenant to wit Baptism and the Lords Supper T G. Then I deny your minor proposition from your own practice for you deny Infants one of these Seals to wit the Lords Supper though you confess them to be within the Covenant and we by as good reason deny the other Seal to belong to Infants Mr. Fort. Yes we have better reason for the one then you have for the other for it is said let a man examine himself and so let him eat T. Grantham 1. It is also said Repent and be baptised every one of you Acts 2. â—8 if thou believest with all thine heart thou maist 2. I might answer your instance out of your own mouth by saying this is meant of persons of years and not of infants which as it is true so it shews the weakness of your answers to many of my Arguments Mr. Fort. I say infants being in the Covenant they ought to be sealed with the Seal and I pray tell me plainly whether you hold them in the Covenâ—nâ— or no T. G. I say being in the covenant you mean the grace of Eternal Life by the death of Christ then I say all infants are so in the covenant of say but if by covenant you mean the duties of the covenant then I 〈◊〉 infants are not so under the covenant Mr Fort. You cannot prove that all infants dying in infancy shall be saved T. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were my business I could and would prove it but I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Mr. Fort. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove it if you can T. Grantham Then I prove it by the testimony of the Apostle who saith as in Adam all dye so in Christ shall all be made alive and again as
the Baptising of Infants SOlomon the wise hath told us there are many devices in Mans heart The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of devices old and new which Men have found out to darken the Counsell of God teaching the sacred institution of the Baptism of Repentance for the remision of sins Nevertheless the Counsell of God that shall stand and therefore neither shall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail nor be found â—o much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant Baptism albeit divers Persons are perswaded that he hath out-done others that have undertaken to defend that innovation 1. First Therefore we shall consider the two Texts John 3. 5. Act. 2. 38 39. which he says according to the interpretation of the Fathers and the antient Church and the Papists themselves do evidently assert Infant Baptism It were answer sufficient to tell hâ—m that what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers c. yet according to the interpretation of the Protestants the grounds of whose Religion he presents to give an account off these Texts doth not hold forth such a necessity of Infant Baptism as by some of the Antients was imagined seeing the Protestants do not say as the Papists and some before them no Baptism no salvation but they more truly teach that this place is to be understood even as some of the Fathers also expounded it of such as refuse or contemn Baptism and yet saying withall to your confutation that it is not necessary by water John 3. 5. To understand the external rite of Baptism See Fulk Ans to the Rhemists Annot. John 3. so Dr. Willit Synops Papis However it is evident to them that will not shut their eyes that in John 3. 5. Christ is shewing the way of Life and the duties of regeneration to such as came to him for instruction and speaâ—â— nothing there of the case of Infants who as one well observes cannot overcome the World by reason of their natural incapacity to know either good or evil and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new birth to wit repentance faith and Baptism for whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world and this is the victory that overcometh the world even our faith And hence it is evident that John 3. 5. cannot be understood of Infants who are wholly uncapable of the duties of regeneration And as evidenâ— it is that Acts â— 38. 39. intends not Infants seeing the persons there to be baptised even every one of them are required first to repent a duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable and the promise there mentioned is clearly meant of the giâ—ts of the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of promise in a special manner according to the Prophesie of Joâ—l the extent of which promise is only to the called of the Lord vâ—rse 39 and this interpretation also is avouched by learned Protestants See Diodate on the Text and Erasmus on the same Dr Jer. Taylor in his book of confirmation doth fully expound this place of the promise of the Spirit both to the Parents and to the Children as they are the called of the Lord and not to infants in that capacity Lib. Prophâ—cy So then the pretended evidence of Infant Baptism from this place is taken away because this trâ—th is hence very evident that calling by the word of the Gospel regeneration â—y Faith and repentance are the true antecedents to the Baptism of every sinner 2. Secondly Dr Stâ—lling-fleet states the Qâ—estion between the Baptists and the Paedâ—-Baptists after this manner Whâ—ther our blessâ—d Savioâ—r hath by a positive precept so determined the subject of baptism viz. Adult persons professing the faith that the aâ—teration of the subject in baptising Infants be not a deviation from aâ—d a pâ—rversion off the institution of Christ in a substantial part of it 〈…〉 short whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of baptâ—sm as to exclude infants This done he tells us that taking in only the help of Scripture and reason it were no difficult matter to â—rove directly that infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the institution of Christ that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature to prove that the baptising 〈◊〉 is â—uitaâ—le to the institution of â—hrist and agreeable to the 〈◊〉 of the Church under the Gospel So then Scripture and reaâ—on â—nly must now deside the controversie Let us hear therefore 〈…〉 Stâ—llâ—ng fleet brings from thence and thâ—s he speaks If there were any ground to exclude them it must be either the incapacity of the subject or some express precept and institution of our Saviour but neither of them can be supposed to do it But I answer for both these cauâ—es Infants are not to be baptiâ—ed and sith their incapacity depends upon the nature of the institution these two reasons are resolved into one Now the institution of baptism whether we consider it as delivered by God to his Servant John and by him to us or as it is established by precept from Christ for a perpetual Ministry in his Church to the end of the world we shall find it delivered by both in such sort as it is exclusive of infants for in the first place it is deliâ—ered as the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins Mark 1. 4. and every sinner who is said to be baptised by him is said to be baptised confessing their sins verse 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants The precept of our Saviour for the perpetuity of Baptism so expresly requires the making every subject a Disciple in order thereunto and that by actual teaching or preaching the Gospel to them Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16 15 according to Christs own example who so made Disciples before they were baptised that no Infant with any shew of Scripture or reason can possibly be brought within the reach of baptism according to it's institution In a word Dr. Stâ—llâ—ng-flâ—et seems in so many words to grant in his first state of the Question that to bring Infants to Baptism is an alteration of the subject and therefore not agreeable to the institution of Christ in which to admit of alterations is very dangerous But saith Dr. S. The rule and measure as to the capacity of divine Institutions must be fetched from the end of them for this was the ground ef the Circumcision of Proselites under the Law Answer That the ground of the circumcision of Proselites was fetched from the end of the institution is not true And indeed had it been left to that Mens various conceits about the ends of such institutions might have made as ill work as we see yours do now wherefore the wisdom of God to prevent those dangers gave express order in that case as appears Gen 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44. 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passeover let all his Males be circumcised and
uncapable as of the Lords Table What the Dr. says further of the ends of baptism to represent and exhibit the nature of the grace of the Gospel and to confirm the truth of the covenant on Gods part We have considered before and to what you here add saying It instates the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God I answer That though the Dr. speaks right according to the right administration of baptism yet according to his way of infant baptism it is not so seeing we all know infants while such though sprinkled have no more priviledge in your Church then those who are not sprinkled for the priviledges next following baptism is to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded and to continue in fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and prayer Acts 2 42. Ma. 28. 20. Now to tell us that infants are instated in these things and yet whilst infants have nothing at all to do with them is too gross a vanity For If you say they are instated in these priviledges upon future contingences viz. Repentance Faith and newness of Life according to the Gospel I answer when this comes to pass they are no infants nor as infants partake of these priviledges but as those that are now the Sons of God by faith and thus truly all infants are instated in Church priviledges as soon as born seeing by the death of Christ they have a right upon the conditions of the Gospel when capable to perform them thus you mislead the world with a specious pretence of instating their infants in Church priviledges when 't is only an empty sound of words But the Jews Infants as they were instated in the priviledges of their Church by circumision so they entred upon the enjoyment of their priviledges in infancy appearing by Gods commandment three times a year in the Temple with the offerings accustomed and to partake of the Passeover with the congregation or family where it was eaten The Dr. saith nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism in respect of Infants but that which seems most cerimonial which is the personal restipulation which yet may reasonably be supplyed by Sponsors c. That there is much wanting beside this restipulation in your infant baptism is shewed before and it is unadvisedly said that the restipulation of the person baptised is the most ceremonial thing in baptism seeing it is the moral and substantial part being indeed our covenanting with God and in truth the external washing is far more ceremonial as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your saying that the personal restipulation in baptism may be reasonably supplyed by Godfâ—thers is very much below the reason of any Christian to affirm But is it so that Sponsors may supply the personal restipulation which is the greater then let them also supply the lesser to wit sprinkling with water which they can better perform then the covenant they make for the infant and then the whole business will appear to have the same reasonableness in every part viz wholly unreasonable Thus much touching the capacity of infants c. Next the Dr tells us That in the Institution of Baptism there is neither direct nor consequential prohibition of Infants to be baptized and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the 〈◊〉 comission Mat. 28. 19. But here is a mistake and its strange he never observed that it hath often been demonstrated that as when Circumcision first appeared in the world it clearly took in the Infants of those to whom it was first given so accordingly it was propagated But when Baptism first appeared in the world it as clearly left out the Infants of those to whom it was first ministred and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apostles insomuch that of the many thousands and famous Churches that were baptised all the world is not able to shew so much as one Infant to have been baptised in any one of them nor one word of precept for so doing and if this be not so much as a consequential prohibition of Infant baptism I shall never believe that the Dr. or any else can shew me so much as a consequential prohibition of Infants receiving the Lords Supper the imposition of hands c. And though the Dr. consider never so much what apprehensions the Apostles had concerning the Church state of such as were in external Covenant with God yet he cannot rationally imagine that they should measure the state of the Gospel Churches by the reason of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed according to the flesh Seeing it is expresly said from henceforth to wit from the vanishing of the old Covenant know we no Man after the flesh But now if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church because they are Abraham s Seed but they are accounted Abraham s Seed by being in the Church of Christ Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are you Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to promise Neither is it true that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather whole Nations into Churbes as the Dr. affirms neither did the Apostles gather any one whole Nation or City into a Church Sâ—ate that we read of therefore Churches consisting of whole Nations Men Women and Infants are not Apostollical But this the Apostles did they taught many Nations 1. v. their sound went through many Nations not that they taught all manner of Persons in the Nations for they taught no Infants and the persons by them gathered into the Church were only such as received their Doctrine as appears by those Families where their Gospel was received the Husband sometimes opposite to the Wife and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband Servants and Masters likewise differing in the same Family about christianity 1. Cor. 7. If then the Apostles did not gather whole Families into a church state unless they did wholly believe Act. 16. how-should any Man imagine they gathered whole Nations the greatest part whereof by all experience are wicked persons yea in those very Nations which Men pretend to have made into churches of Christ of which would God England were not so full an evidence as it is this day The Dr. grants that the order of words Mat. 28 19. Teach all Nations baptising them was necessary for those who were then to be proselited to Christianity And we say they are as necessary for the generations following who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance or the first principles of Christianity in order to their being Christians as them that went before and it is a pernitious alteration of the order of Christs commission to out-run itâ—s direction so as to make persons to be Christians before they do or can know the least title of Christianity The case which the Dr. puts about going to Disciple the Indians Baptising them is not at all rational
verse 49 One Law shall be to him that is home born and unto the strager that sojourneth among you Thus we see the Law is as express for the circumcising Proselites and their males as for Israel themselves Diodate also expounds the first place by the second The servant that is born meaning saith he the Proselite who of his own free will shall add himself to the Church by the profession of Gods true worship But now if we admit Dr. S. his rule that the measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions must be fetched from the ends thereof yet will he be so farr from gaining that he will quite lose his cause For if by the ends of Baptism he means the things signified in Baptism as that he does for he said they who are capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the sign then we shall certainly gain one thing out of two and either of them will serve our turn to shew his mistake viz. either Infants are not capable of Baptism becauâ—e not capable of all things signified thereby or else that the Protestants do violate their own rule in denying Infants some other holy signs as general as Baptism when yet they are capable of some of the things signified thereby and this shall evidently appear â—y running the parralell between us as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the priviledge of the Lords Table and we deny them Baptism And first 1 The things signified by the Lords Table as the ends of that Institution is Christ Crucified for us and to câ—me again to receive us to himâ—elf of these mercies Infants are capable because they shall be saved by the death and comming of the Lord Jesus thus they have the thing signified yet you deny them the sign because they understand not the thing represented by the sign Answerable to this we say by Baptism is signified the death and resurection of Christ and our salvation thereby of this mercy signified in Baptism Infants are capable but yet the sign is not given to them because they understand not the thing signified thereby 2. The ends or things signified by the Lords Table on our part are the profession of our faâ—th the manifestation of our union with the Church c. of these ends Infants are not capable therefore then do not admit them to the Lords Taâ—le Answerable to this we say the things signified in baptism on our â—â—rt are the profession of oâ—r faith and manifestation of our union 〈◊〉 the Saints c. of these ends â—nfants are not capable therefore 〈…〉 them not to baptism 3. Our coming to the Lords Table holds forth abstainence fâ—om the Levened bread of malice and wickedness and our feeding upon the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth of these ends as they are duties Infants are not capable therefore you admit them not to the Lords Table Answerable to this we say baptism holds forth our death to sin and the newness of life from our baptism to the end of these ends of baptism Infants are not capable and therefore we admit them not to baptism for the rule and measure as to the capacity of divine Institutions is to be fetched from the ends of them The same might be said concerning the imposition of hands with prayer for the Spirit of Promise seeing it was practised by the Apostles upon the newly baptised indifferently yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Institution though you suppose them to be baptised although according to Protestant Doctrine they are capable of the promise Act. 2. 38 39. And the benediction signified and obtained thereby by which your inconsistancy with your own rule is further manifested and hence I infer according to your own words by a parity of reason built on equal grounds you ought not to baptise Infants because the rule and measure as to Divine Institutions or the capacity of the subjects therâ—of are to be fetched from the ends thereof Not from some ends only and those too only which we please as Dr. S doth unadvisedly teach for so there would be no Man or but very few but might be brought to Baptism or other ordinances seeing they are capable of several things signified therein as the death of Christ for the sins of the world and his Resurection by which all shall rise again and whether they believe it or no yet he is the Lord that bought them and a mediator between God and them that his long-suffering might lead them to repentance Wherefore your instance of our Saviours being baptised without repentance avails you nothing unless you were a le to prove a special case to be a general rule for the practise of ordinances which yet you cannot but know is pernicious many ways nor can you rationally believe that because Christ who was no sinner was baptized without repentance that therefore you must baptise sinners without repentance also if otherwise then why may not Persons be admitted to the Lords Table without self examination seeing Christ did partake of it without self examination having no need to do so certainly though Christ did this it shall never be demonstrated that the Members of his Church may do it without self examination and yet thus went the matter in old time for hundreds of years together so true is the maxim admit one absurdity and more will follow But to make an end of this its evident Christ in being baptised did his duty to God and had he not been baptised he had not fulfilled all righteousness Let it now be shewed that itâ—s the duty of infants to be baptised or that they or any body else commits sin in refusing infant baptism and then we shall stand upon no further capacity on their part nor oppose this instance as to the end for which it is brought but till this be done we justly reject such Argumentation Neither is it true that what we say of the incapacity of infants c. reflects upon the wisdom of God in appointing circumcision for infants for Gods command made them fit subjects for it together with the nature of the covenant which he made with Abraham and his according to the flesh which covenant he also ordained to be in their Flesh by circumcision Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore when it shall appear that the covenant of the Gospel I mean it as established by Christ in his Church is made with any Man and his seed according to the Flesh and that God hath required the Gospel covenant should be in their Flesh by baptism and so every infant born of them or servant bought with Money to be baptised we shall then grant that to insist on the incapacity of infants would reflect upon the wisdom of God but sith this neither is nor can be done all these pretended reflections falls really upon Dr. S. for denying infants the Lords Supper because of their incapacity who yet were admitted to the Passeover of which they were as
but upon the pre-supposition that the person so doing to have seen or known them that gives him his authority to Baptise infants and then indeed it 's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words Disciple the Indians Baptising them would exclude infants But yet I must also say that his ground to believe so could not arise from the words themselves but from the practice presupposed Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations Baptising them without the least knowledge of any Infants Baptized by any Baptists which were before them or from whom they received their authority here is no place for the Drs. suppositions at all As little cause hath he to think that had any one said to Abraham he that believeth and is circumcised shall be saved it ought so to have been interpreted as that infants ought to be circumcized For if this had been all the rule given for circumcision it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only and unless the Dr. know how from good ground to satisfie his conscience that Infants are believers of that which is taught or Preached according to Mark 16. which place he aludes unto he must so limit the diversion for baptising But if indeed he take Infants to be such believers then he is answered by Dr. Hammond in his Let. of Resol p. 297. who saith as for the Question whether Infants have faith I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it I freely confess to believe Faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding that they that have not understandisg cannot have faith whethe actual or habitual The conclusion therefore is sith in the case you put the word believe cannot concern infants and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation though they believe not it is every way safe to think them unconcernâ—d in the other duty that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding Finally the Dr. proposes five considerations about the suitableness of Inâ—ant baptism to the administration of things under the Gospel and first he saith 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants there had been far greater reason for an express prohibition then for an express command if his intention were to admit them because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before Answer Here is little said but what hath been answered before and may be answered by saying had it been Christs intention that infants should not be admitted to the Lords Table there had been more need of an express prohibition c. then of an express command c. because suitable to Gods dispensations among them before Thus Argumentum ad hominem But I answer further it is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments from Gods dispensations among the Jews seeing the state of the Church and the diâ—pensation is so much altered as that the former was but carnal in respect of the Spirituality of the other 2. The Dr. saith it is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ when after Christs ascention they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customes even when they had baptized many thousands Answer It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customes because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel which is the mark you ought to hit or you say nothing but the reason why they did observe such Customes for a time was the weakness of the Jews and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customes as they could Acts 15. 24. to 32. Acts 1645. which clearly shews Jewish Customes was not suitable to things under the Gospel and here circumcision one of the chief of Jewish rites is clearly abolished among the rest so that a man would think infant baptism should never have been built upon it 3. The Dr saith If admission of infants to Baptism were a meer relique of judaism it seems strange that none of the judaizing Christians should be charged with it who yet are charged with the observation of other judaical râ—tes Answer I find no man saying that Infant baptism was a relique of judaism save Dr. Hammond and some from him and he indeed would make believers baptism also a jewish relique whiles he teaches that the jews baptising Proselites and their Children was the Original and the baptism â—f the Christian Church but the Coppy by which device he hath opened a gap to our late Nâ—tionists to deprive the Church of sacred baptism altogether and hath done more to weaken the cause of infant baptism then any other of its favourites in laying its foundation in jewish ceremonies for which they had no clear command from God But great is this truth of believers baptism and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond for it was no jewish rite the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was from Heaven Mat. 21. 25. and the Pharisees who â—ere â—ealous enough for jewish rites rejcted holy baptism which Christ asfiâ—ms to be the counsel of God Lu. 7. 30. and testifies out of the consciences of his enemies that he that tâ—aches otherwise denyes John to be a Prophet This then is the thing that truly seems strange that no mention is made of infant baptism if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church either as a jewish rite or otherwise but not strâ—â—â—e at all that none is charged with it seeing none can be named that held it 4. Since theie wish Christians were so much offended saith the Dr. at the neglect of circumcision Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their children being wholly thrown out of the church as they would have been if neither admitted by circumcision nor baptism Answer Since the false Apostles was so earnest to have the christians circumcise their children it 's strange that none of the true Apostles could or would quiet them by saying instead of infant circumcision you have infant baptism if indeed there had been any such thing practiced For this way went the Apostle Paul to still them vvhen they would have brought the believers themselves under circumsion Col. two Telling the chriffians they vvere circumcised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried vvith him in baptism vvherein ye also are â—isen with him through the Faith c. And why might not the jews as quiâ—tly take the non-admission of infants to baptism as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lords Supper seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover nor iâ— it necessary to say that though they were not admitted to either of these that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church For If by church be meant the whole number of the saved then are infants of the churchs for Christ hath told us the kingdom of God belongs to infants and thus were infants of the church before circumcision was for some thousands of years But if by church be meant those only vvho are concerned in the actual profession of the gospel in this respect I grant infants are not of the church God having no vvhere required this of infants in his gospel Infants are novv as vvell as before the Flood vvithin the covenant of the gospel in respect of the grace of eternal Life but are not under the duties of the Covenant to vvit Repentance Faith baptism perseverance c. Nor can my calling the whole number of the saved the church and thus making infants a part thereof offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant doctrines seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine p. 73. upon Art 19. of the Church of England doâ—h affirm there is an invisible Church and takes all within the compass of â—his Church who are elect tryumphing or that shall tryumph in Heaven Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church all the Elect of Men or Angels caled or not yet called l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these defiâ—itions of the churcâ— infants are not thrown out of the Church though not of the number of the called and consequently not that cause for the jews to complain nor any other which the Dr. doth imagine unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the covenant of Gods grace in Christ Iesus our Lord. Five The doctor lastly tells us That had it been contrary to Christs institution to baptise infants we should not have had such evidence of it's early Practice in tâ—e Church and here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us Answer This is altogether unlike a Protestant What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture that vve knovv not vvhen and to vvhom they belong vvithout Tradition but vvhen shall vve see this Tradition Apostolical I think doctor Taâ—lor expresly denies there is any Tradit apostolical lib. prophâ—si p. 117. 120. But the doctor cannot but knovv there be errouâ—s â—vhich crept into the Church even in the apostles days vvhich also continued in some of them notvvithstanding all endeavours to purge them such vvere circumcision and keeping the Lavv. Or if we list to reckon vvith records of antiquity 't is easiâ— o show some things held by Papists and opposed by the doctor are better proved by tradiâ—ion then infant baptism for example the Lent Fast ond prayer for the dead this is not denyed by Mr. Perkins demonst prob What then shall be gained to the protestant Religion by such Traditional arguments It is a notable saying of Irenaeâ—s according to Dr. Fulk Wsen the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures they â—all to accusing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition And saith Tertul according to Dr. Fulk Take away those things from the Hereticks which they hold with Ethnicks that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only FINIS ERRATA P. 3. l. 5. r. is right p. 4. l. 25. r. of a Midwife p. 5. l. 34. for these r. those p. 7. l. 27. for others r. overs