the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
soever the Covenant of Circumcision made betwixt Abraham's Family and the rest of the World It is certain it could not separate them nor any Persons in the World from the Covenant of Grace there was nothing but Sin could do that otherwise it had been a dismal Separation indeed And can the Doctor once think that Let was now separated from the Covenant of Grace because he was not in the Covenant of Circumcision Sure he was a righteous Man for all this Yea and other Holy Patriarchs were yet living as Heber Salah Sem and so was Melchisedec if he were not one of them being Priest of the most high God. And as these and doubtless many more were good Men so it 's not to be questioned but they had their Holy Societies and Congregations Melchisedec being then the most eminent Type of the Son of God that ever was as he was King of Peace and Priest in which Offices he must needs be serviceable to many as is well observed by Mr. Cox on the Covenants p. 154. The Doctor is greatly out in making the Infants of Unbelievers to be in as ill case as the Vnbelievers themselves seeing Unbelievers must perish Mark. 16. 16. But it is not revealed yet to be the Will of God that so much as one dying Infant shall perish And as to the rest of Mankind Mr. Baxter says very well That as the Jews had by Promises and Prophecies and Types more means to know God than any other Nations so they were answerably obliged to more Knowledg and Faith than other Nations were that had not nor could have their means More Proof p. 95. And why may not this be true That the Effects of the Evangelical Promise to Abraham to be a Father of the Faithful in all Nations had very little Relation in a Gospel-way to the Age in which he lived nor indeed till the times of the Gospel or till Christ the Seed to whom the Promises were made did come And then indeed it was graciously verified When by the Commandment of the everlasting God even Christ who is here so called the Gospel was made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. Nor shall the Doctor 's Allegations p. 7. of the great Numbers of divers Nations which turned Jews prejudice that which we have said seeing St. Peter affirms that the Mystery of the Gospel was hid from these Nations and Ages notwithstanding their Circumcision For it is not to be supposed that these who turned Jews were better skill'd in the Mystery of the new Covenant or Covenant of Grace than the Jews themselves who God knows were generally Strangers to the Steps of Abraham's Faith and therefore little better in our Saviour's Judgment for being Abraham's Children John 8. 37 39. Nay so ignorant were the believing Jews themselves of the true Seed of Abraham according to the Nature and Extent of the Covenant Gen. 12. 3. That when Peter preached to the Gentiles they contended with him as doing that which was not lawful for they yet understood not that the Grace of Repentance unto Life did belong to the Gentiles nor did Peter till a Miracle convinc'd him understand this Grace himself Acts 10. The great Accession therefore of other Nations to the Jews Religion is no Proof that they were in the Covenant of Grace or that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance though there might be many among them that so feared God and wrought Righteousness as to be through his Mercy accepted of him and the like in other Nations even all Nations too Acts 10. 34 35. Yet these Accessions did contribute much to the Fulfilling God's Promise to Abraham in other Respects as to make the Name of the God of Abraham to be great in the Earth and also to advance the Name of Abraham the Friend of God. The Doctor tells us p. 3. That Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers But considering what we have proved before with respect to Abraham's peculiar Interest in the Covenant we may well enquire what Covenant and Faith the Doctor means seeing it could not be the Gospel-Grace and Faith which was the Condition of the Covenant of Circumcision as that Covenant belong'd to all that were circumcised Because St. Paul tells us whilst the Law was in force a part of which Law Circumcision was as we have proved the time of Faith was not yet come And that the Jews were shut up to the Faith which was afterward to be revealed Gal. 3. 23 25. And that the Law a part whereof was Circumcision was added because of Transgression till the Seed to wit Christ should come And shews likewise that there was no Law as yet given which could give Life The Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. And the Promise to Abraham Gen. 12. And the Renewal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah between them both must of Necessity be here excepted And therefore Eternal Life could not be had by the Covenant and Law of Circumcision as made to Abraham's Posterity otherwise than as it served as a Type or Figure to direct them to look for the Messiah to be born of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh And therefore the Promise so much celebrated Gal. 3. can by no lawful means be referr'd to the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken and then all that the Doctor has said to make the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance will come to nothing and consequently his whole Book because it is mainly built upon this Foundation And that the Promise mentioned by St. Paul Gal. 3. may and ought to be distinguished from the Covenant of Circumcision will appear from the Date of the Promise which was 430 Years before the Law Gal. 3. 17. but the Covenant of Circumcision wants 25 Years of this account This is plain to such as will consider that that great and blessed Promise that in the Seed of Abraham all the Families of the Earth shall be blessed Gen. 12. 3. was at least 25 Years before the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. And this is granted by the Learned Willit who in his Hexapl. in Gen. p. 145. writes thus From this Promise Gen. 12. made to Abraham are we to count the 430 Years which St Paul saith were between the Promise and the Law Gal. 3 and hereunto agreeth the Computation of Moses Exod. 12. 40. that the Israelites dwelt in Egypt 430 Years not in Egypt only but in Egypt and Canaan as the Septuagint do interpret the place Now how this Promise had its Effect in the Ages before Christ's Incarnation or how all the Families of the Earth were blessed in this promised Seed then God only knoweth for though the World had a Promise of a Saviour from the Beginning Gen. 3. 15. yet that he should be born of the Seed of Abraham was not revealed till now And
the Law and to nail them to his Cross as we have shewed not to establish them in his Church But the Truth is whoever revives them pulls down his Church And it were the false Apostles that would have conformed the Church of Christ to the Platform of the old Jewish Church Acts 15. 5. But the true Apostles withstood them and decreed that the new Church should observe no such things but they establish what the Light of Grace and the positive Law of God had made necessary before to all Mankind Acts 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9. 4. Thus far were the Apostles from building the Church of Christ with Jewish Materials That as the great Curcellaeus says The Apostle writ that Epistle to let the Gentiles know they were freed from Moses's Law lest by their hearing him read every Sabbath they might think they were bound to obey his Laws And it is strange that the Doctor should now make Christ and his Apostles Anabaptists as he does for he will have them to have been baptised as well as circumcised to initiate them into the Jewish Church and he will have that very Baptism consecrated by Christ instead of Circumcision to initiate into his Church sure he has little reason to write against Anabaptism when he is one of the greatest Asserters of it that ever was but more of this pretended Baptism anon St. Paul above all the rest rejects the old Materials and builds all with new Old things are passed away behold all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. There is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakness and Vnprofitableness thereof Heb. 7. 18. He calls the whole Mass of Jewish Ceremonies Beggarly Elements And is it like that he would build the Gospel-Church with such Materials much less with that supposed Baptism of Jewish Proselytes or of Jews themselves which the Doctor knows was at best but of Mans Institution Let us view the old Jewish Church and the new Gospel-Church in a few Particulars briesly The Members of the Jewish Church were Natural called natural Branches Rom. 11. that is they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh The Members of the Christian Church are spiritual grafted contrary to Nature into the good Olive and born of God. The Circumcision of the Jewish Church was outward in the Flesh made with Hands The Circumcision of the Gospel-Church is that of the Heart in the Spirit made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Their Sacrifices were carnal carnal Ordinances Heb. 10. Our Sacrifices are Spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 2 3 4. Their Ministers were chosen of one Family or Tribe and did succeed by natural Descent and were Ministers of the Letter Ours are given by Christ as the Fruit of his Ascension into Heaven and are Ministers of the Spirit Ephes 4. Their two Sacraments served chiefly to seal their Right to the Land of Canaan and that the Messiah should come of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and to commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt Ours seal Remission of Sins by Faith in the Blood of Jesus and our Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven to all Eternity In short Their Services made nothing perfect Heb. 10. Ours present every Man perfect in Christ Jesus Col. 1. 28. But let us come to this pretended Insant-Baptism among the Jews which is so much made use of by the Doctor as if it were the very thing that must give Life to Insant-Baptism in the Christian Church And indeed Dr. Hammond from whom this Doctor seems to borrow much makes the Jewish baptizing of Proselytes the Original and ours but the Copy That our Saviour should thus highly approve of a Jewish Ceremony as to consecrate it to be the initiatory Sacrament into his Church is no way to be believed For he condemned all such Ceremonies of their own devising to be but vain Worship Mat. 15. 9. and will he then establish this their Tradition if indeed they had any such The Baptism of John was that which he established both by his own Submission to it and Divine Testimony concerning it Matth. 3. 15. 21. 25. Nor did John take up his Baptism from the Jews as many Learned Men of the Church of England do teach of late For he was a Prophet immediately sent of God to baptize with Water John 1. 33. And he that says John's Baptism was originally of the Jews as this Doctor and Dr. Hammond do teach denies John to be a Prophet and does dissent herein from many Learned Protestant Writers whose Testimonies I will therefore here bring against them who with one Mouth bear witness that John's Ministry and Baptism was Evangelical and not Ligal Jewish or of his own devising Diodate on John 1. 6. Divine Light being now extinguished the Son of God himself came into the World to light it again by the Gospel whereof John the Baptist was the first Preacher And on Matth. 11. 13. John's Prerogative above the precedent Prophets is they have only foretold and described things to come but he declared the present Salvation and in him began the Evangelical Ministery and the Legal and figurative Ministery ceased This could not be true had he taken his Baptism from the Jewish Church Dr. Willit in his Synopsis John preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins which was all one with the Baptism of Peter Act. 2. 38. And it is absurd that Christ the Head and the Church the Members should not have the same Baptism And that John ' s Baptism was not of John ' s devising but of God's Appointment Dr. Fulk on Mat. 3. Dr. Fulk John by his Doctrine and Baptism prepared a way to Christ not to the Baptism of Christ for he preached not his own Baptism but the washing away of Sins by Christ Therefore he also was a Minister of the Baptism of Christ This new Device of founding the Christian Baptism upon Jewish Baptism is dangerous opening a Gap to the Quakers and other Notionists to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony Yet the Doctor boldly tells us That Christ was obliged to lay by Circumcision and consecrated this Ceremony used by the Jews instead of it The Enemies of Christ durst not say as Dr. Hammond and this Doctor does say that the Baptism of John was of Jewish Original They knew such a Speech must deny John to be a Prophet And yet these Learned Men have not Learning enough to consider this We know the Pharisees were very zealous for the Traditions of the Jewish Church but it 's certain they had no Zeal for the Baptism of Repentance for they rejected it against themselves Luke 7. 20. And here this holy Ordinance is expresly called the Counsel of God which shews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of humane Institution or Jewish Ceremony But now let us see whether the Doctor may not possibly be mistaken in asserting that the
quoting the Text thus In whom also they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Having been buried with him in Baptism Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text assert the thing which he would deny or else denies what Paul asserts for St. Paul does make Circumcision a Shadow or Figure of the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands why else does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumcision as he also doth Rom. 2. 29 But the Doctor does refer this Circumcision to Baptism having been buried with him in Baptism but then if this be his meaning Circumcision must needs have something in it umbratical of Baptism which yet he denies and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot who affirms even Baptism to be the Circumcision made without Hands The Truth is this Text can never be made serviceable to Infant-Baptism as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it seeing no more are here said to be baptized than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh Nor as we have it Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Christ in Baptism than were dead with him And this alone might serve to shew that God expects not that Infants should be baptized seeing they can neither die to Sin nor rise to Newness of Life and to what purpose they should be buried before they be dead no good reason can be shewed Here we are told again that Circumcision was a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism is now It is only called a Seal in the special case of Abraham And if it was every way as real and substantial as Baptism is now to what end were the Circumcised baptized also in the Jewish Church as the Doctor says they were And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage or the Obligation to it and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of Bondage and of this Evangelical Baptism is a real and substantial Consignation where the Subject is qualified for it Had Circumcision been such a real and sustantial Ordinance to consign the Covenant of Grace it would not have ceased if St. Paul's Argument hold Heb. 10. 1 2. But it is abolished as well as other Ceremonies of the Law which is a sign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect any more than the other Legal Ceremonies Whereas had it consign'd the Covenant of Grace more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Gospel as we have shewed before but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor 's first Question is answered viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Baptism and saith Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the Practice of the Jewish Church And the Sum of what he brings to prove them capable of Baptism is to repeat what he has said before about the Identity of the Covenant of Circumcision and that which is made with us in the Gospel and concludes that because Infants were admitted to Circumcision therefore they are to be admitted to Baptism and affirms that Circumcision was as spiritual an Ordinance as Baptism yea that it was a Gospel-Ordinance If therefore I repeat the same things which I have said before the Reader will I hope hear with that for Answer then I say though we deny not but that the Covenant of Circumcision did comprehend all those Dignities which pertain'd to Abraham for the Greatness of his Faith to be the Father of many Nations yet every Man that reads and considers the Tenor of the Covenant as set down Gen. 17. may easily see these things belonged to none but him and therefore Circumcision could seal the Righteousness of Faith in those peculiar Promises whether we consider the numerousness of his Seed or that Christ should be born of his Seed and so the Nations blessed in his Seed but to Abraham only because none of these Promises were made to any but to him We have also shewed how and in what respects the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace because none but Abraham ' s Family was bound to keep it nor damned no nor blamed if they did not enter into it but the case is otherwise with the Gospel for now God commandeth by the Gospel all Men every where to repent and he that believeth not the Gospel when made known to him shall be damned Can it enter into the Doctor 's Heart to think that all the World was now left under Condemnation without Mercy except Abraham and his Family Surely it was not in the Days of Abraham as it was in the Days of Noah as if God had only found Abraham righteous before him in all the Earth No we have proved there were other righteous Men and some superiour to Abraham himself wherefore God's peculiar Kindness to Abraham did not argue that God had rejected and taken the Covenant of Grace from all the World besides but it is certainly a presumptuous way of arguing that because God made Infants of eight days old capable of Circumcision by his Command to circumcise them that therefore we ought to take them to be capable of Baptism tho we have no Command to baptize them and then fly to the Identity of the Covenants to make it good when there is no Identity at all to be found between them But to concess a little Let us now suppose for Argument sake that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it yet it will not follow that an Interest in the Covenant of Grace does infer an immediate Right always either to Circumcision or Baptism and this the Doctor must grant because Infants of five six or seven days old had an Interest in the Covenant made with Abraham and yet had no right to Circumcision till the eighth day Also the Infants of the other Patriarchs had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace yet had no right to Circumcision at all Nor could they nor the Patriarchs themselves be cut off from the Covenant of Grace tho they were not circumcised And all the Females of Abraham's Family had Interest in the Covenant of Grace but had no right to Circumcision and the reason was God did not appoint them to be circumcised And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circumcise Females without any command from God and therefore it s less strange that Men now force on their Superstition of Infant Baptism without God's Command also But what if all the Infants in the World be under the Mercy of
Ends of Baptism They have Remission so far as they need it and Eternal Life upon other Terms even the free Mercy of God in Christ Rom. 5. 18. And the good will of God towards them Mat. 18. 14. And if Infants are uncapable of these as they are the Ends of Baptism so they will be uncapable of all other Things which are annexed to Baptism as the Ends of that Ordinance As we will propose two viz. the washing of Regeneration and incorporating into Christ Infants are capable of neither of these as they are the Ends of Baptism For Baptism is but demonstrative or a sign of the New Birth because God will have those that come to be baptized therein to testify that they have and therein symbolically do put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh which Work had its Effect from the Word and Spirit of God. And 2. to be incorporated with Christ as it is an End of Baptism does necessarily presuppose a being taken out of the Tree that is wild by Nature or out of our degenerate Estate and planted contrary to that Nature by a willing resignation of Soul and Body to Christ in that solemn ministration of Baptism And how incapable Infants are of this all Men must needs see To be short if it could be proved by the Word of God or found true by Experience that Infants are capable of any Good or that the Will of God was wrought by baptizing them I could yield to the Doctor but the Truth is they are capable of none of the Ends of Baptism as God hath annexed them to Baptism and therefore his Argument must come to nothing And how easy were it to turn this Argument against him in the Case of the Lord's Supper but that may be more sitting in another place But the Doctor says p. 28. That Infants are capable of all the Ends of Baptism as Baptism is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his gracious Favour and to consign unto us the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace Now if this Doctrine be true then either Baptism is a sure Sign of all these Things to all Infants or to some few of them only The former the Doctor will not allow and yet he cannot but know when Christ said Teach all Nations baptizing them he makes no difference between one Person and another all are equally to be taught and baptized equally upon the same Terms And if the Doctor will have some Infants only to have an Interest in the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and therefore but some only have right to Baptism which consigns the Covenant of Grace we shall desire him to prove this well and therewithal to let as know how he knows one sort of these Infants from another He says indeed That Infants may be Members of a Church their Childhood notwithstanding as well as of a Family c. But to be of a Family is equally natural to all Infants so that if this Argument prove any thing it proves all Infants Church-Members as much as any Nor saith he does Childhood hinder or incapacitate them for being adopted the Children of God more than the Children of any other Person But God is not like Man to adopt or receive into favour some poor Infants and let all the rest perish without favour We affirm that God has in Mercy taken care of all Infants as we have proved But this does not teach us to do that to some of them which he never commanded and to reject the rest as if God had no Mercy for them These Notions are so partial and so uncertain that no solid Comfort can be taken from them And let my Infant whom I confess I have not baptized but only devoted him to God's Mercy and Protection by Prayer and the Doctor 's Infant whom he has crossed and sprinkled be laid together I am perswaded the Doctor would tremble to say this Infant is an adopted Child of God and in his Favour that Infant is rejected and out of God's Favour And truly I cannot but think such Discourses as these proceed not from the bottom of the Heart but Men please themselves to dream waking of I know not what Favour Almighty God has for their Infants above what he has for others The Doctor 's next way is to make use of Similitudes as thus Should a Prince adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Ceremony or Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief thing signified thereby Surely such flourishes as this may soon deceive those that rest upon them For 1. here is no qualification in this Child nor any required of it in this case but every Beggar 's Child is as capable of this Favour as this Child and consequently this makes no more for the Infant of an English Man than of an Indian God may be as kind to the one as to the other 2. Here 's the King's Act of Grace peculiar to this Child and to no other 3. Here 's the King's express Command to cut off a bit of the Child's Flesh or to wash it with Water And thus the whole of the Matter is begg'd but not any proof for Infant Baptism ministred from hence for we grant that the Things here supposed to be done do sufficiently capacitate the Beggar 's Child for the Mercy and Favour of the Prince but then it as much incapacitates other Children to whom the King has extended no such pity and concerning whom he has given no such order for should the Doctor now without any Order from the King fetch all the Beggars Children in the City and Country and pass all these Solemnities upon them that they all may be received into the Royal Family c. I suppose he would have but little thanks for his labour even so to cross sprinkle or dip all the Infants in the World and either all or none have right to it and to adopt them thus to be of the Family of Heaven without Heaven's Authority to make them capable of it and God's Direction in the Business of the Solemnity will not please God. We therefore content our selves to commit our Infants to his Mercy and Protection in the way of humble Prayer for his Blessing and for this we have his own Son our Lord to go before us who thus does suffer little Children to come unto him without rejecting so much as one of them The Doctor 's next Similitude proceeds thus Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traitor's Child and say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Father's Treason by Law he has forfeited all right to his Father's Estate My Bowels of