the Learned Buxtorf explodes with such Indignation Whence saith he was the Talmud sent to us that from thence we should think that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel which they were prefessed Enemies unto And yet now this is become one of the chief Refuges of this Doctor and of Dr. Hammond before him for the Support of Infant-Baptism And it 's strange that the Doctor should hope by such Arguments to bring any Credit to the cause of Infant Baptism He might as well have referred us to the Turkish Alcoran where divers Washings are also mentioned Page 32 33. Upon this tottering Foundation the Doctor builds divers Suppositions as first That if Christ had not changed the Seal of the Covenant but had said Go make all Nations my Disciples circumcising them I appeal saith he to any impartial Mans Judgment whether the Apostles would not have presumed that it was Christs Intention that the Infants of adult Proselites should be circumcised And in a Word saith he there lay no Obligation upon our Blessed Lord to lay aside the Practice of Infant Baptism as being inconsistent either with the free or manly or universal Nature of the Christian Church I answer 1. The case which the Doctor puts is not at all rational but upon this Presupposition that the Disciples had known the Law before given to Israel and their Practice in that case but they knew no such Law to have been given to any Nation in the case of Baptism so that they must only keep to the Words of their Commission and the Practice of their Master who made and baptized Disciples and none else John 4. 1. 2. I must needs tell the Doctor that Christ was obliged to disapprove and make void the Custom of the Jews in baptizing Infants if they did so seeing it was but their own Tradition and that from the Tenor of his own Doctrine Matth. 15. 9. Mark 7. In vain do ye worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. For it was their divers Traditional Washings which he was here opposing And seeing the Doctor grants their Infant Baptism was but a humane Institution the Pharisees might have replied to our Saviour Why dost thou reprove our Washings Dost not thou also allow the Doctrine of Men in the case of Infant-Baptism Teachest thou another and teachest not thy self And now the Doctor 's Suppositions will tumble down of themselves for seeing the Apostles knew no such Practice as baptizing Infants by God's Appointment in the Jewish Church and they having heard their Master condemn all Washings in Religion founded only on humane Authority as being but vain Worship and now receiving no Commandment as the Doctor must also confess to baptize Infants Matth. 28. 20. they were sufficiently forbidden to baptize any Infants by Christ's severe Censure against the Jews for worshipping God after their own Tradition And therefore though the Doctor thinks he has given some reason why he stated the Question as you have heard yet I humbly tell him he was therein very unreasonable in that he would beg the whole Controversy whilst he will suppose nay conclude that Infant-Baptism had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church and approved or not censured by our Saviour And then indeed if this were true his Suppositions might beguile a wiser Man than I am But all this being meer sophistical beggarly and presumptuous Insinuations it is to me a great Evidence against Infant-Baptism But now the Doctor p. 34 35. will shew that Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Heb. 6. 1 2. does not so much as consequentially prohibit Infant-Baptism And because we think these places do evidently shew that Christ in the two first could not impose any such thing upon his Apostles as to teach Infants and so not to baptize them because all that he commands them to baptize he commands them first to teach or preach the Gospel to them And Heb. 6. 1 2. shews very plainly that Baptism does not go before but follows Repentance and Faith and therefore cannot with any shew of Truth or Reason from hence belong to Infants but the contrary I fay because we thus think and teach from these Scriptures the Doctor says we are grievously mistaken because these and the like Texts do of themselves no more prove that grown Persons are the only Subjects of Baptism than the Words of the Apostle 2 Thess 3. 10. proves that grown Persons only are to eat From whence in their sophistical way it may be argued thus It belongs only to grown Persons to eat because the Apostle requires that Persons who eat should first work But I reply The Doctor does here greatly wrong both the Apostle and us 1. The Apostle does not say Any that does not work shall not eat for he knew that grown Persons who are sick and weak as well as Infants cannot work But he says If any would not work these only are they who shall not eat i. e. such as are able and yet being idle would not work Is this fair for the Doctor to pervert the Words of the Text 2. He abuses us for we do not baptize any grown Persons meerly as such No all that we baptize are or at least profess to be new-born Babes in Christ Now our Saviour designing Baptism to be the Laver of Regeneration must needs prohibit those of whose Regeneration no Judgment can be made nor Demonstration given by any Man whatsoever Surely the Doctor has little reason to talk of his discovering the fallaciousness of our Arguing But he says he will further shew the Weakness and Fallacy of our Argument Let us hear him do that Suppose saith the Doctor there were a great Plague in any Country and God should miraculously call an eleven or twelve Men and communicate to them a certain Medicine against this Plague and say unto them Go into such a Country and call the People together and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Vpon this Supposition I demand of these Dissenters if the words of such Commission would be sufficient to conclude that it was God's intention that they should administer his revealed Medicine to none but grown Persons because they only could be called together and taught the Virtues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man c. I answer This Similitude is very fallacious and deceitful supposing what is not to be supposed in our Case no I think not in the Doctor 's own Judgment For 1st no Infant is under the Disease or Plague here meant or intended by the Similitude For seeing Christ has taken off their original Pollution they are just Persons that need no Repentance they are to be distinguished from Infidels Whoremongers Drunkards Swearers Idolaters superstitious and
not to chuse them nor refuse them they know not their right hand from the left they know neither Good nor Evil whom the Devil cannot tempt them he cannot damn A learned Protestant tells us God will not damn any Person for that which they 〈◊〉 help This Sentence must needs be as true in the case of Infants as any 〈…〉 World. And indeed the Equity of that merciful Law Deut. 22. 25 26. may suffice to convince any Man that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation seeing what Sin soever is upon them it was impossible for them to avoid it They therefore shall not be damned for it When Christ puts the Question How can ye escape the Damnation of Hell He speaks to incorrigible Sinners that the Fear of Damnation should not overwhelm weak Persons but never did he speak a Word against poor Infants He never told them they were of the Devil Satan is not the Father of Infants Ergo they are not his Children 4. Christ loved and gave himself for all dying Infants therefore not one of them shall be damned Christ gave himself a Ransom for all He loved and dyed for the chief of Sinners Therefore he loved and died for the poor innocent Babes He bought them that deny him 2 Pet. 2. 1 2. How should he despise the helpless Infant Object If God be so good to all Infants why then is he not so good to let them be baptized I answer God is good to Infants in that he accepts them without Baptism And I appeal to any considering Man whether he was not as good to the Infants of the Righteous before Abraham as he was to the Infants of Abraham and whether God was not as good to an Infant in Israel of 7 days old as to an Infant of 8 days old And whether God be not as good to us in that he accepts us in the use of a very few Ceremonies as he was to Israel accepting them in the use of many Ceremonies And whether if he had pleased to accept of us upon Repentance and Faith without Baptism he had not been as good to us as now that together with Repentance and Faith he does require Baptism The Truth is Baptism is therefore good because it is commanded It is not good in it self no more was Circumcision nor indeed any Ceremony Now Repentance and Faith are good in themselves it 's absolutely necessary that those that sin be humbled for it and forsake it It 's absolutely necessary for the Creature to believe and to depend upon the Creator Now Baptism though it be not good in it self yet Heavens Authority enjoyning it and Divine Mysteries being contained in it and Priviledges conferred by it it is therefore good to those to whom it is appointed But where God requires is not but extends his Goodness without it it is a like Vanity in us to give it where he does not appoint it as it would have been in Abraham to give Circumâ—â—â—â—â—â— to every Male Child as soon as it was born or at 6 or 7 days old 〈◊〉 to his Females also because it was a sign of a great Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom it did belong by Appointment And therefore I consider further that as those had no Loss of any Priviledg that was necessary for them in Israel who by the Law were not required to be circumcised as in the case of all Females So neither shall any lose God's Favour for not being baptized when he requires it not The Danger lieth on the other side For had Abraham out of a conceit of making Infants Male of 7 days old and all his Females also Sharers in the Covenant equally with those of 8 days old circumcised them he had hazarded both his own and their Loss of the Covenant In like manner whoever will presumptuously at least baptize any Person whom God does not require to be baptized is so far from bringing him into Covenant that he runs the hazzard of losing his own part in the Covenant Rev. 22. For I testify unto every Man. If any shall add unto these things God shall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book But 4. All dying Infants are under the Blessing of the Covenant of Grace therefore no dying Infant shall be damned This how strange soever it may seem must be a Truth or else poor dying Infants are the worst of Creatures When therefore we say all dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace we mean it as God hath vouchsafed to interess them in his Mercy by Christ That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin so Justification of Life has abounded towards them by the Obedience of Christ and he himself that best knew God's Design concerning them has declared without excepting so much as one of them that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven And what then is he that should except them as the manner of some is and in their cruel Judgment send them by Millions to Hell Torments Now either Infants even all of them are thus in or under the Blessing of the Covenant through the Mercy of God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all for the Covenant of pure Nature as made with Adam in Innocency concerns not Infants but as the Breach of it is imputed to Mankind but here they are lost The Covenant of Works concerns them not it cannot be said of them the Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say that Infants are under the Blessing of no Covenant is to rank them with the vilest of Men yea which the Devils themselves who are therefore most accursed because there is no Saviour no Mercy for them They are shut up in Chains under Darkness to the Judgment of the great day Now far be it from all Christians to have such Thoughts of God whose tender Mercies are over all his Works The very Devils had a State wherein they might have been happy but presumptuously fell from it Jude v. 6. But poor Babes before they had a being were exposed to Condemnation through the Offence of another Shall these Objects of Pitty perish eternally too without Remedy O God forbid let them be pressed with all the Inconveniences consequent to Original Sin yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants so as to be sufficient to condemn them or if it could yet the Mercy and absolute Goodness of God will secure them if he takes them away before they can glorify him with a free Obedience Dr. Taylor 5. No Man is able to prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned to hellish Torments therefore none of them dying such shall be damned We should hold nothing as a Point of Faith but upon clear Proof and especially things of so high a Nature as this is Some Men talk of some Infants as if they were little better than Devils But could never yet bring a just
his Sermon before the Court of Aldermen Aug. 23. 1674. We have an Obligation to the Laws of God antecedent to those of any Church whatsoever nor are we bound to obey those any further than they are agreeable with these Separation from a Church is lawful 1. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an Acknowledgment and Profession of that for a Truth which we know to be an Error 2. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion the joyning with her in some Practices which we know to be against the Law of God. In these two cases to withdraw our Obedience to the Church is so far from being a Sin that it is a necessary Duty Now this being our very case in the point of Baptism it would justify that Distinction which we hold needful between the Church of England and those of the baptized Believers but much more when there are some other things as pressing perhaps as this But now let us hear the Doctor Considering saith he what I have said upon the former Questions this Question must be answered in the negative whether we consider Infant-Baptism as a thing lawful or allowable only or as a thing highly requisite and necessary to be done And as a Foundation on which to build Infant-Baptism as a thing at least lawful and allowable he directly denies this Principle That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept and Example in the Word of God accounting this Rule an Absurdity and inconsistent with the free and manly Nature of the Christian Religion and that it is an impracticable Principle c. p. 49 50. But that this great Principle well understood should be spoken against by a Protestant is something strange and especially that he does not suffer it to take place in that which is essential in a Church-state as who are and who are not to be baptized is such a case but he will have Infant-Baptism to be admitted as lawful and allowable tho it be not warranted by Precept nor Example To free this Principle from Abuse as here suggested against it we will explain it as we hold and maintain it 1. Then we do not say that every thing which is naturally or meerly accidental and circumstantial in the Worship of God must have Precept and Example in the Word of God. 2. Nor do we hold that things which are meerly indifferent if not imposed as Boundaries of Communion are therefore to be esteemed sinful because not expresly warranted by Precept or Example in the Word 3. But we apply this Rule always and so in our present Question to such things as are essential to Church-membership and Church-Government as true Baptism is to the first and cannot be admitted only as a thing indifferent and as such allowable or lawful only for it 's either necessary in the Constitution of a Church or it 's nothing and who are of Right and who are not to be baptized is of the Essence of Baptism and can admit of no lower a Consideration The Principle thus explained is clearly justified by the Word of God and if Protestants part with this Principle they will lose themselves Now thus saith the Lord Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God Deut. 4. 2. What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish ought from it Deut. 12. 32. Every Word of God is pure add thou not unto his Words lest he reporve thee and thou be found a Liar Prov. 30. 6. And it is observable that our Lord as he was sent to be a Minister of the Gospel claims no Authority to speak of himself John 12. 5. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me so I speak How ought this to put an awe upon all that speak in the Name of the Lord about Religion Neither does the holy Spirit it self as sent to supply the personal Absence of Christ take upon himself to give or abrogate Laws but to bring things to the Apostles Remembrance John 14. 26. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth FOR he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And this is the Rule also by which the Spirit of Truth is known namely by his advancing the Things delivered by Christ and his Apostles He shall take of mine and shew it unto you he shall glorify me 1 Tim. 6. 3 4. If any Man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome Words even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud knowing nothing 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error Rev. 22. 18. If any Man shall add to these things God shall add the Plagues which are written in this Book and if any shall take away from the Words of the Prophecy of this Book God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life And that this Text does establish as unalterable the whole New Testament our Adversaries do acknowledg See Diodate on the Place And Calvin upon Deut. 12. 32 Sith they saith he cannot deny that this was spoken to the Church what do they else but report the Stubbornness of the Church which they boast to have been so bold as after such Prohibitions nevertheless to add and mingle of her Own with the Doctrine of God. And Luther doth aver that no Doctrine ought to be taught or heard in the Church besides the pure Word of God. Beza upon Levit. 10. 3. speaking in the Person of God I will punish them that serve me otherwise than I have commanded not sparing the chief that the People may fear and praise my Judgments Mr. Borroughs in his Gospel-Worship p. 8. All things in God's Worship must have a Warrant out of God's Word must be commanded It is not enough that it is not forbidden and what hurt is there in it but it must be commanded In a Book called A brief Account of the Rise of the Name Protestant p. 12. printed 1688 we read thus Protestantism doth mainly or rather only consist in asserting the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule the only Rule by which all Christians are to govern and manage themselves in all Matters of Religion so that no Doctrine is to be owned as an Article of Faith on any account but what hath very plain Warrant and sound Evidence from the Scriptures Nor no Instance of Religious Worship to be owned or submitted to as necessary nor any thing to be determined as a part of Religion but what the Scriptures do appoint and warrant Thus our Adversaries themselves do say as much for this Principle which the Doctor condemns as absurd as we do And
Christ and the Holy Spirit they are washed in Water 3. In the third Age Mr. Baxter tells us out of Tertullian Origen and Cyprian That in the Primitive Times none were baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the World c. and engaged themselves to Christ 4. In the fourth Age Basil saith That none were to be baptized but Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith. 5. In the fifth Age Chrysostom saith The time of Grace or Conversion was the only sit time for Baptism which was the Season in which the three thousand in Acts 2. and others afterward were baptized 6. The African Churches commonly called Donatists taught That none should be baptized but those that believed and desired the same 7. The Waldensian Churches tell us That by Baptism Believers were received into the Holy Congregation there declaring their Faith and amendement of Life 8. The Churches in Germany own'd the same Faith and Practice 9. The Churches in Helvetia asserted the same and suffered for their Testimony 10. The Bohemian Churches by great Sufferings bore witness to the same Truth 11. The Churches in Thessalonica did the same 12. The Churches in Flanders suffered for the same cause 13. The Hungarians did the same 14. And so did the Churches in Thessalonica 15. The Churches of the Ancient Britains did the same and died for their Testimony Here some will be ready to say We value not Mr. Danvers he was mistaken in his Quotations But let me reply Would Men but impartially read his Defence they would see cause to justify him from most of the Clamours which have been vented against him Neither do we censure good and pious Men in the darker Times above us who perhapps had not opportunity as we have to see and avoid the Error God Almighty indulging the oversights of his sincere Ones in all Ages as we trust he will do ours in this for some may yet come after us to restore some Truth which we have not minded being so much busied both by Writing Preaching and Suffering in defence of some particular Truths which are the Controversy of our Age. And this was the Case of our worthy Predecessors who were called to contest with the Spirit of Error And we doubt not but all sincere Christians who have not wilfully opposed themselves to any Truth shall find Mercy in the Day of Christ and receive a Reward according to the Infinite Goodness of God who will not suffer any to go without a Reward who have been but so kind to any because they belonged to Christ as to give them a Cup of cold Water to drink And in the mean time I am for so much Communion with all Christians as will do them and my self good But seeing it is impossible for any to maintain full or ample Communion with all sorts professing the Christian Name at this Day There is a necessity either for some powerful Party to kill all the rest that she may be the only Church or else Brotherly to agree to permit all to chuse their Communion where they can most comfortably enjoy it and I heartily desire that none for any cause but true inward Peace would make use of this Liberty But about this we have more fully treated in the fifth Chapter that here we shall add no more at present but shall conclude with our humble Request to the Church of England to consider how great a Pressure it must be upon our Conscience to break up our Assemblies which we believe to be truly constituted Churches and to unite with Hers which we believe to be so defective in her Constitution as to have no Baptism at all Now that the Baptism of Repentant Believers is of Heavenly Original is granted on all hands that it stands clear both in Scripture and unquestionable Antiquity next to the Scripture is altogether undeniable and that this Baptism is to be continued to the end of the World cannot be spoken against And on the other side Does not even Mr. Baxter and other Learned Assertors of Infant-Baptism confess 't is a very difficult Point to prove by Scripture And do not the Learned Papists and some Learned Protestants acknowledg there is no Scripture for Infant-Baptism Neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism That it was brought in without the Commandment of Christ That it is only a Church Rite and not of Divine Institution These Things cannot be hid from you and therefore there is a necessity that some speedy and prudent way be taken by the Church of England to restore this Holy Ordinance to its purity in respect of the Subject to be baptized For though the Church of England does retain the Doctrine of Baptism with respect to its precedency to other Ordinances its Utility and Dignity in the Church of God yet this is to little purpose still so long as another thing is substituted in the room of it both in respect of the Subject and manner of Administration Concerning the latter let the Church of England be intreated to consider the Reflections which have been made upon this Alteration of Immersion to Sprinkling by the learned Bossuet in his Book of Communion c. And the Conviction which some learned Protestants in France have lately met with upon that occasion I will set down the words of the learned Author who calls himself Anonymus as they are translated by Dr. Duveil upon the Acts of the Apostles p. 292 293. It is most certain that Baptism hath not been administred hitherto otherwise than by Sprinkling by the most part of Protestants but truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its Institution and ancient use and that nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuit deserveth to be seriously considered to wit that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years that hence we may understand that we did not carefully as was meet examine things which we retained from the Roman Church and therefore since the most learned Bishops of that Church do teach us now that the Custom established by most grave Arguments and so many Ages was abolished by her this self-same thing was very unjustly done by her and that the Consideration of our Duty doth require at our hands that we seek again the primitive Custom of the Church and the Institution of Christ Though therefore we should yield to Mr. Bossuet that we are convinced by the force of his Arguments that the Nature and Substance of Baptism consisteth in Dipping what may he hope for from us but that the Professors see themselves obliged to him by no small Favour and thank him that he hath delivered us from Error when we greatly erred in this
thing And as we are resolved indeed to correct and rectify this Error so we desire earnestly with humble Prayer of him that he would correct and amend that Error of taking away the Cup from the Laicks coming unto the holy Supper Does Monsieur Bossuet think that the Protestants will have a greater respect of that Custom which they have sound to be unlawful and that by the most weighty and solid Arguments than of the Institution of Jesus Christ and that to let Rome get an opportunity of boldly and freely breaking the Laws of Christ by the pernicious Imitation of our Example Far be that wicked frame of Mind from them they are straiter bound by the Authority of their holy Master than to despise his Voice when his Sound cometh to their Ears My Sheep hear my Voice and again I know my Sheep None except Wolves lurking under a Sheep-skin refuseth and turneth from it There is no Place therefore for cogging in these things for those that pretend the specious Title of received Custom for the Days Practice when Jesus and his Gospel is not the Custom but the Truth From the beginning it was not so says the same Jesus unto them who did object unto him the worst and cursed Custom of their Ancestors When we shall be presented before the Judgment of Christ he will not judg his Disciples by Custom but by the lively and effectual Word of his Gospel Neither should any be taken with a vain hope of framing an Excuse from the Authority of the Church because all the Authority of the Church is from Christ granted unto her for that intent and purpose that she might procure a Religious Obedience to his Laws and Heavenly Precepts but not that she might break repeal and cancel them There is in the Church no more Power of changing the Rites in the Sacraments than there is Power of changing his Word and Law c. Thus far the Learned and pious Protestant And shall the religious French Protestants be thus awakened and resolved to correct and rectify this Error by the Reflections made upon it by an Enemy and shall the English Protestants add yet more Slumber notwithstanding they have not only the very same Alarm come amongst them from the same Pen but their own Learned Men who stand upon their Watch-towers have given them notice of this Baptism-destroying Error And besides this God has raised up Witnesses for his Truth in this as well as other Particulars who with great Learning and Judgment have shown the Beauty of this Institution both by Doctrine and by the Practice of it in the Royal City and in most Parts of this Land for many Years together and yet the Church of England does not stir up her self at all to take hold of plain Truth in this matter And tho I am one of the least of the Witnesses which God has raised up in this Age and Nation in behalf of this Truth yet I shall humbly crave leave to address the Church of England after this friendly and free manner as I did Mr. Bossuet himself 1. I beseech her to consider that she has now to do with such Christians as are in good earnest for the ancient Christian Religion as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles such as would not have any Truth delivered by Heavens Authority to be neglected nor in any-wise to be corrupted by Innovation Change or Alteration but religiously observed and kept according to the due Form and Power of Godliness 2. As to the Case of Infant-Baptism be pleased to consider that the Salvation of our Infants are as dear to us as yours can be to you and therefore you have no reason to think that we would willingly omit any thing which God has appointed as a furtherance thereunto and being as all Men know no less zealous for the Ordinance of Baptism than your selves you may be confident we would by no means hinder its due extent but promote it therein by all lawful means we are able 3. That our Lord Jesus has made Baptism necessary to the Salvation of Infants is not revealed in the holy Scripture nor that he has made it necessary for them at all and therefore as the African Council did ill to Anathematize those that denied the first so you have not done well to Anathematize such as cannot in Conscience bring their Infants to Baptism 4. Let therefore our Brethren of the Church of England return to the Truth in the Case of holy Baptism that we may return to her for when it shall be so with her she will distinguish between the Precious and the Vile yea that very Ministration rightly restored will naturally lead to a far greater Purity in Church-Communion than has hitherto been attained But if she will not be intreated to amend her Ways and her Doings the Lord will plead the Cause of his neglected Truth and despised People The CONCLVSION THE Doctor was pleased to reserve some of our Objections against the Paedobaptists for the Conclusion of his Book Now the Reader does understand that tho we shew like Arguments for Infant-Communion as they bring for Infant-Baptism both from Scripture and Antiquity yet we do not therefore hold that they are to be brought to the holy Table of the Lord but we do hereby shew that the Poedobaptist is not consistent with himself as for example This Doctor argues for Infant-Baptism from 1 Cor. 10. 2. that because Infants passed through the Sea and it 's said All our Fathers were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea therefore Infants were baptized to Moses and consequently ought to be baptized to Christ Now to shew the Fallacy of this Argument we say All that are said to be baptized ver 2. are also said to eat and drink spiritually of Christ so that this Scripture is as strong for Infant-Communion as for Infant-Baptism tho in Truth it 's no Rule for either For how should it follow that because God saved Israel miraculously from the Rage of Pharaoh in the Cloud and in the Red Sea and fed them miraculously with Mannah and Water in the Wilderness Therefore we are to baptize and communicate Infants But we have shewed before that the Apostle does limit this Baptism and feeding upon Christ to those of Understanding to wit our Fathers and so doth Augustine speaking of the latter in these words Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducaverunt We shew also from this 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all that are baptized into one Body are to partake of one Bread at the Lord's Table and therefore it will follow that if Infants ought to be baptized into the Church Militant they ought not to be denied the Bread and Cup in the Communion of that Body When they plead from Antiquity c. we shew them and they know it that near the second or early Ages of the Gospel Infants were brought to the Lord's Table to