although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sort of Christians upon great grounds of Reason WE say That denying Baptism to Infants is justly condemned by all true Christians we cannot understand them to be such who renounce their Saviour Christ by a pretended Baptisme in their rebaptizing never warranted by preâ—â—pâ— or example in holy Scripture or those who by their Doctâ—â—◠〈◊〉 and make void their Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say That to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptâ—sts upon great grounds of Reason seems to lay too narrow a ground and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession specially if we consider what is here said Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Reason and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him Or which is all one he that follows his own Reason c. which guidance by Divine Revelation and I know not what other good means he meaneth he saith hath great advantages But to leave ambiguities of words and confusion of senses we affirm That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority and undervaluers of holy Scriptures do acknowledge in their soberer fits and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he calleth guideth and enableth to obedience against the dictates of carnall reason and the corrupt affections of flesh and blood If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold then to find them following their own reason and putting their salvations upon pretended revelations our faith is on Gods truth not humane Reason which in this life is not so absolutely purged from the contagion of sin ignorance and error since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit but that it is subject to some errors and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith adoring his Truth which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine Moreover we say seeing that only may and can be the ground of our Faith which cannot erre or be false and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. â—0 we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason or any thing lesse known certain and infallible then the holy word of God which we know cannot deceive us It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side c. Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment and to play with holy things for so this plea must be except you are in earnest for the Anabaptists or for â—ear or favour of men so to temporize as thereby to endanger as much as you can the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian which displeaseth God or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned I confesse I understand not Possibly Ioash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea Will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vâ—â—cible To say an impudent error is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impropriety of speech which in more exact expression I suppose you would render they are not impudent in defence of their error If so I onely appeale to experience As for that which you say They have so great excuse on their side that their error is not vincible seems a contradiction in the adject who believes any error to be invincible who believeth that Christ the Truth Iohn 14. 6. hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel which though God permit it sometimes to be clowded shall shine clear and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error specially in things pernitious and about the foundation I say not to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions thaâ— they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved but to the Goshen and Israel of God appointed to salvation How else should it be that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him who hâ—th overcome the world Iohn 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comâ—reâ—enâ—eth leth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect specially those falsehoods and errors which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith See Heb. 11. 1 c. Mat. 16. 8. The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse If that were true your plea for Aâ—abaptists were lesse condemnable but the contrary will appeare in due place But whether they have originall sin or no Indeed the Pelagians an old Sect of Hereticks denied that Infants were born in originall sin And Celestius affirmed That Adams sin hurt onely himself but not mankind And others that Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie See Iob 14. 4. Psalm 51. 5. Iohn 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. 5. 12. 1 or 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratiae stat peccati Besides woful experience teaching us that children die demonstrateth that they brought that guilt into the world with them which subjected them to the sentence of death and participation of the punishment of Adams sin which could not be except they were partakers of his guilt because God is just That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin you confesse pag 230. Num 16. Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation which men of reason and choyce may by acts of vertue and election Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves but the gift of God Eph. â— 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason how God applieth the merit of Christâ— to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret uâ—known to me and therefore I do neither anxiously enquire nor rashly determine That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts
are to be excused from it we have answered in the â—oregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative faith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although they be not yet formed in them yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seed of either lieth hid in them and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth That the Iews are sanctified of their parents so in another place he teacheth That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers Also in the same chapter he saith not that I mean rashly to affirm that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves or that they have at all knowledg of faith which I had rather leave in suspence c. but concerning imputative faith I find neither device nor approbation of Calvins Why did you not rather say that this device was P. Lombards who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of or some of the following Schoolmen Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention saying Seeing infants by reason of their age cannot testifie their own faith as Cyprian saith it was providedâ— from the beginning that they should profess their faith by oâ—hers that aâ— anothers fault to wit Adam â—ur first parents sin was evil to them in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin so others endeavour might be good to them who therefore as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles believe and are baptized by anothers confession Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Iustin Martyr who living long before any of these saith They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism by their faith who present them to be baptized The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith and if he had affirmed any such thing yet how untrue it is that Calvin or any of his invented it But the pleader saith further Can an infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man then if he had not been baptized Pag. 241. Yes caeteris paribus for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect though for causes ever just though most unknown to us it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient It is true that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit though the inward may save without the outward as hath been noted but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized and so carried away you must grant that God whose election can by no means be defeated or made voyd will give and make effectuall the means to the end that is salvation whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him or by his secret work within him if he will take him away in infancy in the adult coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ and of his own sealing in infancy it must make him more confident of his implantation into Christ then if he knew that he never had been baptized What then Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely or the externall ministration thereof No but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordinance and accomplishing his own decrees do we follow your supposition dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years from the precedent seal Truly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art without Scripture reason or authority I would say as is your argument here alledged against infant-baptism but that you call it Demonstrative and Vnanswerable but consider how to overcome before you cry victory To answer your supposition suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an infant come to fit years that he be taught the doctrine of faith repentance c. which we constantly affirm what makes this against infant-baptism We unanimously confess and solemnly profess that the infant so soon as it shall be able to learn ought to be and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question We affirm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sacrament whereof new-born infants are capable but that the word is to be preached to them they are to be instructed in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion so soon as they shal be able to learn I only add hereto what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against infant-baptism which might not as reasonably and religiously have been urged against infant-circumcision Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition have been more disposed to an actual belief without a new Master yet they had and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves bâ—â— through the merits of our Saviour the free mercy of God and the right of our Fathers with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and posterity Next you say To which also this consideration may be added That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of infants upon whom is the imposition laid Concerning Baptism in generall 't is considerable which Tertullian saith The Lord himself who owed no repentance was baptized and was it not necessary to sinners his reason will reach possibly beyond his opinion to infants also except we should say with Pelagius that they are not sinners Further we say that Baptism the â—aver of regeneration is necessary to the salvation of infants yet in case of privation or impossibility they are saved by the peculiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God So that the necessity of Baptism as hath been avowed is not absolute as if none could be saved without it but necessary on our part who are to obey the ordinance of God God is not tied to his ordinance but we are he can otherwise save but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God saith Tertullian hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism therefore Cornelius and those that were with him after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost were yet baptized neither
Gods blessing give both end and means that we may be so Or spake Christ onely concerning the carnall seed of Abraham and not of the spirituall when he said Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Surely if Christ adjudge and give the Kingdom of heaven which himself onely can give and in which none but the elect shall be to an infant it must be no less then impious in man to abridge abjudge and bar him of admission into the visible Church of Christ by baptism which sinfull and ignorant man can administer and which reprobates as wel as the elect may and do receive But what follows The conclusion would be with more probability derived thus Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore infants are not to be baptized 'T is a pretty argument wherein both Antecedent and Consequent are lame 't is true and granted that Christ in his own person baptized them not but how prove you that he baptized them not by some one of his Disciples What because 't is not written The Apostle may give you satisfaction herein who saith There are also many other things which Iesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books How invalid is the Moderators Agument à non scripto ad non factum Can there be a sound conclusion from rotten premises Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them nâ—t therefore Infants are not to be baptized Antonii gladios potuit contemnere si sic omnia dixisset Would it not as well follow à non scripto Jesus granted the Centurions request and cured his servant and so for ought we read dismissed them but baptized them not Mat. 8. 10 3. Christ healed the sick of the palsie and dismissed him but for ought we read baptized him not Matth. 9. 2 6 7. Mâ—rk 2. 23. 5. 11 12. He healed the woman of the bloody issue but for ought we read baptized her not Mat. 9. 22. Mark 5. 34. So the Ruler of the Synagogues daughter Matth. 9. 25. Mark 5. 4 42. So he dismissed the man out of whom he had cast many Divels Luke 8. 38 39. we read not that he baptized him So he pronounced pardon accepted the repentance and dismissed the penitent sinner in peace Luke 7. 50. It were too long to repeat all So he cured the lame at Bethesda Iohn 5. 8. Where though so neer the convenience of water we read not that he so much as once spake of Baptism to him neither when finding him in the Temple he said to him thou art healed sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee can any therefore reasonably conclude those men and women of years whose bodies Christ cureth whose repentance he accepteth whose faith his self testifieth who cannot be deceived were not and therefore are not though of years to be baptized He that had his time of doing those favours to them was free to take his time of enjoyning their baptism And how could you prove that these children were not baptized before or after they were brought to Christ Before you censure our Arguments as invalid and weak do your self the right to cosider your own As we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized True God hath not given the command to the Infant himself but to others whom it concerneth we are sure he hath if you mean the first you trifle if the second you do upon the matter beg the question Quid ego festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum was the question of Tertullian lib. de Bapt. he knew no such danger from their originall guilt as to drive them to a laver of which in that age of innâ—cence they had no need as he conceived Whether infants can make haste to baptism I appeale to experience Whether they are innocent and have no need of baptism as Pelagius affirmed I appeal to your own conscience Do you think there is no danger from infants original guilt which maks them stand in need of the laver of regeneration for the remission of their sin If you do not why do you urge against us an authority which your self consenteth not unto To let pass what Tertullian meant when he affirmed such a necessity of baptism as that he said It is prescribed that no man shall be saved without baptism which he inferreth from Iohn 3. 5. pray teach me what he meant when he said Man from his beginning circumvented so as that he would transgress Gods command therfore was condemned to death whereby he also made all mankind being infected from his seed a traduction or derivation from one to another of his own damnation Think you damnation no danger or did not Tertullian know what he wrote How he forgat himself and the truth when he would have children come to Christ onely then when they could learn and know Christ whereas Christ said Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not I can give no better account then for other his errors onely let the Reader note that in the same place he affirmeth that the unmarried also are to be deferred and not baptized untill they are married or setled in continency but I spare this We look for truth and shall be glad to own and embrace it in what Author soever we find it but against the truth we are bound to none onely we may note that if Tertullian spake in the fore-cited place concerning Infanâ—â— that Pedobaptisme was in his time in use in the Church and so it must appear most false which you before said that it was Augustines device What need all this stirre As infants without their own consent without any act of their own and without any exterior solemnity contracted the guilt of Adams 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 c. What need this stirre you make to trouble the peace of Christs Church Why trouble you your self with our stir to do that which Christ commandeth us Shall we suffer the wolf quietly to take away sheep from Christs flock as we daily see by the sleepy cowardize and dangerous silence of some temporizing Pastors who possibly have learned from that old Courtier Crispus qui nunquam direxit brachia contra torrentem nay but we know there is a dangerous silence See Ezek. 3. 18. Ester 4. 14. But to the matter we say that as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive 1 Cor. 15. 22. which being restrained according to the Apostles intention to the faithfull and elect might reasonably conclude that as all men even the faithfull and elect were by naturall propagation condemnable in Adam God justly imputing to his whole posterity that
be admitted into the same by the initiatory seal thereof which is baptism that they may be externally known to be of the Church but Infants of Church-priviledged persons are members of Christs body the Church ergo they ought to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatorie seal thereof which is baptism c. The major is thus confirmed such persons as were circumcised under the Law that they might be known to be of the Church ought to be baptized under the Gospel for the same end for baptism answereth circumcision and is called by the same name Col. 2 11 12. as having the same end effect to seal up the same grace unto faith mortification remission of sins admission into the visible Church If it be excepted that under the Law there was an express command for Infant-circumcision on the eighth day but there is none for Infant-baptism We say 1 Because there was an express command under the Law never repealed in the Gospel and the same end and use still remain therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers in taking away the stop of the partition wall by that which is said Baptize all Nations None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law none but male children at eight days old but now go baptize all nations without exception to nation age sex or condition 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition neither caâ— any by any sound consequence imply it The assumption is thus confirmed Those whom Christ saveth are members of his body for he is the head of the Church and Savior of the body Eph. 5. 23. But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church The major is evident for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church The minor is as evident it being granted that any Infants are saved which is apparent from the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ of such is the kingdom of God as also by this argument Those whom Christ loved and for whom he gave himself to death those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church and be made partakers of the benefits of his death but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years but also for Infants therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word c. 2 All Infants were by 〈◊〉 capable of sin and the expressions of Gods justice punishing the same by death sickness 〈◊〉 but Infants are not leâ—â— capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof then they were of his justice in Adam Therefore Infants are capable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism The major is evident Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded grace did much more abound that is Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visible remedy then his justice inflicting the denounced puâ—ishment which could not be if Infants visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof should be excluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ which in them can be no other external means but baptism the laâ—er of regeneration it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace mercy of God in Christ to suppose that the sin of man is more powerfâ—l to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save 3 If we ought not to baptize Infants then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto either on Gods part prohibiting or on the Ministers part or in the Sacrament it self or in the incapacitie of the receiver but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part or in any of these therefore there is none at all 1 There is no impediment on Gods part for God no where expresly or by good consequence saith Baptize not Infants or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part for he can as easily baptize Infants as persons of years 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children profession of faith repentance c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years and effects of it which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants those therefore are not of the essence of baptism nor so much as universal conditions thereof â—or the presâ—â—â— sprinkling washing or dipping in water in the name of the Father the Son and the H. Ghost are the essence of baptism so are not faith repentance or newness of life for it may be a true baptism where these graces do neither precede nor fâ—â—low it though without these preceding or following baâ—tism cannot be effectual to salvation which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Iudas 〈…〉 and many who were and now are truly 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 â—â—ved 4 Neither can the lâ—t be in the 〈◊〉 who cannot by any actual hardnes of heart impenitency or positive unbelief or contempt of the ordinance of God refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently undeniably capable which is the external seal at least which is all that man for present can administer or we will contend for being most willing to leave secret things to God and to hope the best where the contrary cannot appear unto us only add hereto if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the Infant with relation to any condition so mucâ— insisted on let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel covenant of grace in Christ have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ wherof circumcision for the time was the seal 4 That which without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations belongs to Infants as well as persons of years for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars therefore baptism belongs to Infants of believing Parents as well as to persons of years 5 No man may forbid water that is the outward administration where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit which maxim the Apostle built on in that then difficult question whether the Gentiles might be sealed into
before the word 5 Christ doth not in the cited place in one syllable prescribe or limit the Apostles whom they should baptize and whom not but only enjoineth that they baptize all Nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the H. Ghost teaching them to observe all those things which he had formerly taught them his principal end being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the Gospel-covenant mentioning no particulars but intimating that all those that were of capacitie should be taught and that those that were not of present understanding yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ ◠should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ that they might be instructed when and as they were able to learn There are two conditions of Baptism Beleeve and Repent which seeing Infants as such cannot do their baptism ought to be deferred until they can We answer 1 These are the conditions If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised but it is concerning Infants on whom no such condition is or can reasonably for the present be laid 2 The argument is impious and ridiculous as if one should say the condition of eating is labouring which seeing Infants cannot do let their eating or feeding be defered till they can The Apostle saith If there be any that will not labour let him not eat 2 Thess. 3. 10. Who of any sense doth not understand that of those that can and will not and why not so in believing and repenting seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual 3 As in the baptism of those who are of years a previous faith is required so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants which if they afterward have not they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received 4 Though Infants as such cannot have actual faith yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace which Christ both can and doth work in them Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred effect all things which they figure or represent yea a dilatory paction hath place when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith repentance and obedience to the Gospel unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Christ was not baptized in his Infancie although the Deitie hypostatically united dwelt in him fully but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretended to for infants they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do We answer 1 Christ requireth not that we should imitate him in all that he did which is proposed to us for doctrine but not for imitation for example he was both circumcised as being of the seed of Abraham under the Law the righteousness whereof he was to perform Mat. 3. 15. and also baptized if we should be so Christ should profit us nothing Gal. 5. 2. 2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel and accomplishing the great work of our redemption in his bloud therefore he that was Saviour both of Iews and Gentiles was circumcised in his Infancie and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted 3 They that herein require imitation of Christ intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years which our Antagonists that I know of do not practise 4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation Christ administred the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same we believe we are not bound by that example 5. There was neither neglect contempt nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism Christ had no sin but we have both Original and Actual he not only foreknew but foreordained as God the manner and time as of his nativity so also of his death We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism they may suddenly dye 6. Christ would not before that age be baptized and enter into his publike Ministry among other causes for this also that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old Numb 4. 3. The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants by reason of their incapacity On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament We answer That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants is because God hath given an express command Let a man examine himself 〈…〉 let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup And there followeth a dreadful reason For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body Now Infants can neither examine themselves nor discern the Lords body because they cannot understand the institution end use and condition of that Sacrament Therefore we do not administer it unto them until they can be instructed therein No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins and Salvation to persons of years yet the case is far otherwise with Infants◠who though they cannot as such actually believe and repent yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation neither could those Infants who were circumcised actually believe and repent yet that barred them not from the Seal of the same Righteousness of Faith Again that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable as hath been noted He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years who may believe or obstinately reject the Gospel which Infants as such cannot do and therefore it cannot for present concern them without involving them all in the sentence of damnation which