SOlomon the wiſe, hath told us, there are many devices in Mans heart. The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of devices old and new which Men have found out to darken the Counſell of God, teaching the ſacred inſtitution of the Baptiſm of Repentance for the remiſion of ſins. Nevertheleſs the Counſell of God that ſhall ſtand, and therefore neither ſhall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail, nor be found • o much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant Baptiſm, albeit divers Perſons are perſwaded that he hath out-done others, that have undertaken to defend that innovation.

1. Firſt, Therefore we ſhall conſider the two Texts, John 3. 5. Act. 2. 38, 39. which he ſays, according to the interpretation of the Fathers and the antient Church and the Papiſts themſelves do evidently aſſert Infant Baptiſm▪ It were anſwer ſufficient to tell h • m, that what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers, &c. yet, according to the interpretation of the Proteſtants, the grounds of whoſe Religion he preſents to give an account off, theſe Texts, doth not hold forth ſuch a neceſſity of Infant Baptiſm, as by ſome of the Antients was imagined, ſeeing the Proteſtants do not ſay, as the Papiſts and ſome before them, no Baptiſm no ſalvation; but they more truly teach, that this place is to be underſtood (even as ſome of the Fathers alſo expounded it) of ſuch as refuſe or contemn Baptiſm, and yet ſaying withall to your confutation, that it is not neceſſary by water, John, 3. 5. To underſtand the external rite of Baptiſm. See Fulk. Anſ. to the Rhemiſts Annot. John 3. ſo Dr. Willit Synopſ. Papiſ.

However, it is evident to them that will not ſhut their eyes that in John 3. 5. Chriſt is ſhewing the way of Life, and the duties of regeneration to ſuch as came to him for inſtruction, and ſpea •• nothing there, of the caſe of Infants, who (as one well obſerves) cannot overcome the World, by reaſon of their natural incapacity to know either good or evil, and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new birth, to wit, repentance, faith and Baptiſm, for whatſoever is born of God overcometh the world, and this is the victory that overcometh the world even our faith. And hence it is evident that John 3. 5. cannot be underſtood of Infants, who are wholly uncapable of the duties of regeneration.

And as eviden • it is, that Acts • 38. 39. intends not Infants ſeeing the perſons there to be baptiſed, even every one of them, are required firſt to repent; a duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable; and the promiſe there mentioned is clearly meant of the gi • ts of the Holy Ghoſt or the Spirit of promiſe in a ſpecial manner, according to the Propheſie of Jo • l, the extent of which promiſe is only to the called of the Lord, v • rſe 39▪ and this interpretation alſo is avouched by learned Proteſtants, See Diodate on the Text, and Eraſmus on the ſame; Dr Jer. Taylor in his book of confirmation doth fully expound this place, of the promiſe of the Spirit both to the Parents, and to the Children, as they are the called of the Lord, and not to infants in that capacity. Lib. Proph • cy. So then the pretended evidence of Infant Baptiſm from this place is taken away, becauſe this tr • th is hence very evident, that calling by the word of the Goſpel regeneration • y Faith and repentance are the true antecedents to the Baptiſm of every ſinner.

2. Secondly, Dr St • lling-fleet ſtates the Q • eſtion between the Baptiſts and the Paed • -Baptiſts after this manner.

Wh • ther our bleſſ • d Savio • r hath by a poſitive precept ſo determined the ſubject of baptiſm, viz. Adult perſons profeſſing the faith, that the a • teration of the ſubject, in baptiſing Infants be not a deviation from, a • d a p • rverſion off the inſtitution of Chriſt in a ſubſtantial part of it? 〈…〉 ſhort, whether our Saviour hath ſo determined the ſubject of bapt • ſm as to exclude infants. This done he tells us that taking in only the help of Scripture and reaſon, it were no difficult matter to • rove directly that infants are ſo far from being excluded Baptiſm by the inſtitution of Chriſt, that there are as many grounds as are neceſſary to a matter of that nature, to prove that the baptiſing 〈◊〉 is • uita • le to the inſtitution of • hriſt, and agreeable to the 〈◊〉 of the Church under the Goſpel. So then, Scripture and rea • on • nly muſt now deſide the controverſie, Let us hear therefore 〈…〉 St • ll • ng fleet brings from thence, and th • s he ſpeaks.

If there were any ground to exclude them it muſt be either the incapacity of the ſubject or ſome expreſs precept and inſtitution of our Saviour, but neither of them can be ſuppoſed to do it.

But I anſwer, for both theſe cau • es Infants are not to be bapti • ed, and ſith their incapacity depends upon the nature of the inſtitution theſe two reaſons are reſolved into one; Now the inſtitution of baptiſm, whether we conſider it as delivered by God to his Servant John, and by him to us; or as it is eſtabliſhed by precept from Chriſt, for a perpetual Miniſtry in his Church to the end of the world▪ we ſhall find it delivered by both in ſuch ſort, as it is excluſive of infants; for, in the firſt place it is deli • ered as the baptiſm of repentance for the remiſſion of ſins; Mark 1. 4. and every ſinner who is ſaid to be baptiſed by him, is ſaid to be baptiſed confeſſing their ſins, verſe 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants.

The precept of our Saviour for the perpetuity of Baptiſm ſo expreſly requires the making every ſubject a Diſciple in order thereunto, and that by actual teaching, or preaching the Goſpel to them, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16 15▪ according to Chriſts own example, who ſo made Diſciples before they were baptiſed, that no Infant with any ſhew of Scripture or reaſon can poſſibly be brought within the reach of baptiſm according to it's inſtitution; In a word Dr. St • ll • ng-fl • et ſeems, in ſo many words, to grant in his firſt ſtate of the Queſtion that to bring Infants to Baptiſm, is an alteration of the ſubject, and therefore not agreeable to the inſtitution of Chriſt, in which to admit of alterations is very dangerous.

But ſaith Dr. S. The rule and meaſure as to the capacity of divine Inſtitutions muſt be fetched from the end of them, for this was the ground ef the Circumciſion of Proſelites under the Law.

Anſwer, That the ground of the circumciſion of Proſelites was fetched from the end of the inſtitution, is not true. And indeed had it been left to that, Mens various conceits about the ends of ſuch inſtitutions might have made as ill work, as we ſee yours do now▪ wherefore the wiſdom of God to prevent thoſe dangers, gave expreſs order in that caſe as appears, Gen 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44. 48. And when a ſtranger ſhall ſojourn with thee, and will keep the Paſſeover, let all his Males be circumciſed, and verſe 49, One Law ſhall be to him that is home born, and unto the ſtrager that ſojourneth among you.

Thus we ſee the Law is as expreſs for the circumciſing Proſelites and their males, as for Iſrael themſelves Diodate alſo expounds the firſt place by the ſecond (The ſervant that is born) meaning (ſaith he) the Proſelite who of his own free will ſhall add himſelf to the Church by the profesſion of Gods true worſhip.

But now, if we admit Dr. S. his rule, that the meaſure as to the capacity of Divine Inſtitutions, muſt be fetched from the ends thereof, yet will he be ſo farr from gaining, that he will quite loſe his cauſe. For, if by the ends of Baptiſm he means the things ſignified in Baptiſm (as that he does, for he ſaid they who are capable of the thing ſignified ought not to be denyed the ſign) then we ſhall certainly gain one thing out of two and either of them will ſerve our turn to ſhew his miſtake, viz. either Infants are not capable of Baptiſm, becau • e not capable of all things ſignified thereby, or elſe that the Proteſtants do violate their own rule in denying Infants ſome other holy ſigns, as general as Baptiſm, when yet they are capable of ſome of the things ſignified thereby, and this ſhall evidently appear • y running the parralell between us, as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the priviledge of the Lords Table, and we deny them Baptiſm. And firſt.

1 The things ſignified by the Lords Table (as the ends of that Inſtitution) is Chriſt Crucified for us, and to c • me again to receive us to him • elf, of theſe mercies Infants are capable, becauſe they ſhall be ſaved by the death and comming of the Lord Jeſus, thus they have the thing ſignified▪ yet you deny them the ſign becauſe they underſtand not the thing repreſented by the ſign. Anſwerable to this we ſay, by Baptiſm is ſignified the death and reſurection of Chriſt and our ſalvation thereby, of this mercy ſignified in Baptiſm Infants are capable but yet the ſign is not given to them becauſe they underſtand not the thing ſignified thereby.

2. The ends, or things ſignified by the Lords Table, on our part are, the profeſſion of our fa • th, the manifeſtation of our union with the Church, &c. of theſe ends Infants are not capable, therefore then do not admit them to the Lords Ta • le.

Anſwerable to this we ſay, the things ſignified in baptiſm on our •• rt, are the profeſſion of o • r faith, and manifeſtation of our union 〈◊〉 the Saints, &c. of theſe ends • nfants are not capable, therefore 〈…〉 them not to baptiſm.

3. Our coming to the Lords Table holds forth abſtainence f • om the Levened bread of malice and wickedneſs, and our feeding upon the unleavened bread of ſincerity and truth; of theſe ends (as they are duties) Infants are not capable, therefore you admit them not to the Lords Table.

Anſwerable to this we ſay, baptiſm holds forth our death to ſin, and the newneſs of life from our baptiſm to the end, of theſe ends of baptiſm Infants are not capable, and therefore we admit them not to baptiſm, for the rule and meaſure as to the capacity of divine Inſtitutions is to be fetched from the ends of them.

The ſame might be ſaid concerning the impoſition of hands with prayer for the Spirit of Promiſe, ſeeing it was practiſed by the Apoſtles upon the newly baptiſed indifferently yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Inſtitution, though you ſuppoſe them to be baptiſed, although according to Proteſtant Doctrine they are capable of the promiſe Act. 2. 38, 39. And the benediction ſignified, and obtained thereby by which your inconſiſtancy with your own rule is further manifeſted and hence I infer (according to your own words) by a parity of reaſon built on equal grounds, you ought not to baptiſe Infants becauſe the rule and meaſure, as to Divine Inſtitutions, or the capacity of the ſubjects ther • of are to be fetched from the ends thereof.

Not from ſome ends only (and thoſe too only which we pleaſe) as Dr. S doth unadviſedly teach, for ſo there would be no Man, or but very few, but might be brought to Baptiſm, or other ordinances, ſeeing they are capable of ſeveral things ſignified therein, as the death of Chriſt for the ſins of the world and his Reſurection, by which all ſhall riſe again; and whether they believe it or no, yet he is the Lord that bought them, and a mediator between God and them, that his long-ſuffering might lead them to repentance

Wherefore your inſtance of our Saviours being baptiſed without repentance avails you nothing, unleſs you were a le to prove a ſpecial caſe to be a general rule for the practiſe of ordinances, which yet you cannot but know is pernicious many ways, nor can you rationally believe that becauſe Chriſt who was no ſinner was baptized without repentance, that therefore you muſt baptiſe ſinners without repentance alſo; if otherwiſe, then why may not Perſons be admitted to the Lords Table without ſelf examination, ſeeing Chriſt did partake of it without ſelf examination, having no need to do ſo? certainly though Chriſt did this it ſhall never be demonſtrated that the Members of his Church may do it without ſelf examination, and yet thus went the matter in old time for hundreds of years together, ſo true is the maxim admit one abſurdity and more will follow.

But to make an end of this, its evident: Chriſt in being baptiſed did his duty to God, and had he not been baptiſed he had not fulfilled all righteouſneſs; Let it now be ſhewed that it • s the duty of infants to be baptiſed, or that they or any body elſe commits ſin in refuſing infant baptiſm, and then we ſhall ſtand upon no further capacity on their part nor oppoſe this inſtance as to the end for which it is brought but till this be done we juſtly reject ſuch Argumentation.

Neither is it true, that what we ſay of the incapacity of infants &c. reflects upon the wiſdom of God in appointing circumciſion for infants, for Gods command made them fit ſubjects for it, together with the nature of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and his, according to the fleſh, which covenant he alſo ordained to be in their Fleſh by circumciſion, Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore when it ſhall appear, that the covenant of the Goſpel, (I mean it, as eſtabliſhed by Chriſt in his Church) is made with any Man and his ſeed according to the Flesh, and that God hath required the Goſpel covenant should be in their Flesh by baptiſm, and ſo every infant born of them, or ſervant bought with Money to be baptiſed we shall then grant that to inſiſt on the incapacity of infants would reflect upon the wiſdom of God, but ſith this neither is, nor can be done, all theſe pretended reflections falls really upon Dr. S. for denying infants the Lords Supper, becauſe of their incapacity, who yet were admitted to the Paſſeover, of which they were as uncapable as of the Lords Table.

What the Dr. ſays further of the ends of baptiſm to repreſent and exhibit the nature of the grace of the Goſpel and to confirm the truth of the covenant on Gods part: We have conſidered before, and to what you here add, ſaying, It inſtates the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God, I anſwer,

That though the Dr. ſpeaks right according to the right adminiſtration of baptiſm, yet according to his way of infant baptiſm it is not ſo, ſeeing we all know, infants (while ſuch) though ſprinkled have no more priviledge in your Church then thoſe who are not ſprinkled, for the priviledges next following baptiſm, is to be taught to obſerve all things whatſoever Chriſt commanded, and to continue in fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and prayer, Acts 2 42. Ma. 28. 20. Now to tell us that infants are inſtated in theſe things, and yet whilſt infants have nothing at all to do with them is too groſs a vanity. For,

If you ſay they are inſtated in theſe priviledges upon future contingences, viz. Repentance, Faith and newneſs of Life according to the Goſpel, I anſwer when this comes to paſs they are no infants, nor as infants partake of theſe priviledges, but as thoſe that are now the Sons of God by faith, and thus truly all infants are inſtated in Church priviledges as ſoon as born, ſeeing by the death of Chriſt they have a right upon the conditions of the Goſpel when capable to perform them, thus you miſlead the world with a ſpecious pretence of inſtating their infants in Church priviledges, when 'tis only an empty ſound of words.

But the Jews Infants as they were inſtated in the priviledges of their Church, by circumiſion, ſo they entred upon the enjoyment of their priviledges in infancy, appearing by Gods commandment three times a year in the Temple with the offerings accuſtomed and to partake of the Paſſeover, with the congregation or family where it was eaten.

The Dr. ſaith, nothing can ſeem wanting of the ends of Baptiſm (in reſpect of Infants) but that which ſeems moſt cerimonial which is the perſonal reſtipulation, which yet may reaſonably be ſupplyed by Sponſors, &c.

That there is much wanting beſide this reſtipulation in your infant baptiſm is shewed before, and it is unadviſedly ſaid that the reſtipulation of the perſon baptiſed is the moſt ceremonial thing in baptiſm, ſeeing it is the moral and ſubſtantial part being indeed our covenanting with God and in truth the external washing is far more ceremonial as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your ſaying that the perſonal reſtipulation in baptiſm may be reaſonably ſupplyed by Godf • thers, is very much below the reaſon of any Chriſtian to affirm; But is it ſo? that Sponſors may ſupply the perſonal reſtipulation, which is the greater, then let them alſo ſupply the leſſer, to wit ſprinkling with water, which they can better perform, then the covenant they make for the infant, and then the whole buſineſs will appear to have the ſame reaſonableneſs in every part▪ viz, wholly unreaſonable.

Thus much touching the capacity of infants▪ &c. Next the Dr tells us, That in the Inſtitution of Baptiſm there is neither direct nor conſequential prohibition of Infants to be baptized, and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the 〈◊〉 comiſſion, Mat. 28. 19. But here is a miſtake, and its ſtrange he never obſerved that it hath often been demonſtrated that, as when Circumciſion firſt appeared in the world, it clearly took in the Infants of thoſe to whom it was firſt given, ſo, accordingly it was propagated; But when Baptiſm firſt appeared in the world, it as clearly left out the Infants of thoſe to whom it was firſt miniſtred, and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apoſtles▪ inſomuch that of the many thouſands, and famous Churches, that were baptiſed, all the world is not able to ſhew ſo much as one Infant to have been baptiſed in any one of them, nor one word of precept for ſo doing, and if this be not ſo much as a conſequential prohibition of Infant baptiſm, I ſhall never believe that the Dr. or any elſe can ſhew me ſo much as a conſequential prohibition, of Infants receiving the Lords Supper, the impoſition of hands &c.

And though the Dr. conſider never ſo much what apprehenſions the Apoſtles had concerning the Church ſtate of ſuch as were in external Covenant with God, yet he cannot rationally imagine that they ſhould meaſure the ſtate of the Goſpel Churches by the reaſon of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed according to the fleſh. Seeing it is expreſly ſaid from henceforth, to wit from the vanishing of the old Covenant, know we no Man after the fleſh—But now if any Man be in Chriſt he is a new Creature. And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church becauſe they are Abraham ▪s Seed, but they are accounted Abraham ▪s Seed by being in the Church of Chriſt, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Chriſts then are you Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to promiſe.

Neither is it true that Chriſt commanded his Apoſtles to gather whole Nations into Churbes, as the Dr. affirms, neither did the Apoſtles gather any one whole Nation, or City into a Church S • ate that we read of, therefore Churches conſiſting of whole Nations, Men, Women and Infants, are not Apoſtollical But this the Apoſtles did they taught many Nations, 1. v. their ſound went through many Nations, not that they taught all manner of Perſons in the Nations, for they taught no Infants, and the perſons by them gathered into the Church, were only ſuch as received their Doctrine, as appears by thoſe Families where their Goſpel was received, the Husband ſometimes oppoſite to the Wife, and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband Servants and Maſters likewiſe differing in the ſame Family about chriſtianity, 1. Cor. 7. If then the Apoſtles did not gather whole Families into a church ſtate unleſs they did wholly believe, Act. 16. how-should any Man imagine, they gathered whole Nations? the greateſt part whereof by all experience are wicked perſons yea in thoſe very Nations, which Men pretend to have made into churches of Chriſt of which would God England were not ſo full an evidence as it is this day.

The Dr. grants that the order of words Mat. 28, 19. (Teach all Nations baptiſing them) was neceſſary for thoſe who were then to be proſelited to Chriſtianity. And we ſay they are as neceſſary for the generations following, who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance▪ or the firſt principles of Chriſtianity in order to their being Chriſtians, as them that went before, and it is a pernitious alteration of the order of Chriſts commiſſion, to out-run it • s direction ſo, as to make perſons to be Chriſtians, before they do or can know the leaſt title of Chriſtianity.

The caſe which the Dr. puts, about going to Diſciple the Indians Baptiſing them, is not at all rational, but upon the pre-ſuppoſition, that the perſon ſo doing, to have ſeen or known them, that gives him his authority to Baptiſe infants, and then indeed it's rational to ſuppoſe ſuch a Perſon would not underſtand that the words, Diſciple the Indians Baptiſing them, would exclude infants. But yet I muſt alſo ſay, that his ground to believe ſo could not ariſe from the words themſelves but from the practice preſuppoſed. Wherefore the Apoſtles having direction to teach all Nations Baptiſing them, without the leaſt knowledge of any Infants Baptized by any Baptiſts which were before them, or from whom they received their authority, here is no place for the Drs. ſuppoſitions at all.

As little cauſe hath he to think that had any one ſaid to Abraham he that believeth and is circumciſed ſhall be ſaved, it ought ſo to have been interpreted, as that infants ought to be circumcized. For if this had been all the rule given for circumciſion, it muſt of neceſſity have been limited to ſuch as believe only, and unleſs the Dr. know how from good ground to ſatisfie his conſcience, that Infants are believers of that which is taught or Preached according to Mark 16. (which place he aludes unto) he muſt ſo limit the diverſion for baptiſing. But if indeed he take Infants to be ſuch believers, then he is anſwered by Dr. Hammond in his Let. of Reſol. p. 297. who ſaith, as for the Queſtion whether Infants have faith? I profeſs my ſelf to be none of thoſe who are concerned in it. I freely confeſs to believe, Faith to be ſo neceſſarily founded in underſtanding, that they that have not underſtandisg cannot have faith, whethe actual or habitual.

The concluſion therefore is, ſith in the caſe you put, the word (believe) cannot concern infants, and that they muſt be deemed capable of Salvation, though they believe not, it is every way ſafe to think them unconcern • d in the other duty, that paſſage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithſtanding.

Finally the Dr. propoſes five conſiderations about the ſuitableneſs of In • ant baptiſm to the adminiſtration of things under the Goſpel, and firſt he ſaith.

1. That if it had been Chriſts intention to exclude Infants, there had been far greater reaſon for an expreſs prohibition then for an expreſs command, if his intention were to admit them, becauſe this was ſuitable to the general grounds of Gods diſpenſation among them before.

Anſwer, Here is little ſaid but what hath been anſwered before, and may be anſwered by ſaying, had it been Chriſts intention that infants ſhould not be admitted to the Lords Table there had been more need of an expreſs prohibition, &c. then of an expreſs command, &c. becauſe ſuitable to Gods diſpenſations among them before. Thus Argumentum ad hominem.

But I anſwer further, it is dangerous arguing to our preſent right to Sacraments, from Gods diſpenſations among the Jews, ſeeing the ſtate of the Church, and the di • penſation is ſo much altered as that the former was but carnal, in reſpect of the Spirituality of the other.

2. The Dr. ſaith, it is very hard to conceive that the Apoſtles thought Infants excluded by Chriſt, when after Chriſts aſcention they looked upon themſelves bound to obſerve the Jewiſh Cuſtomes, even when they had baptized many thouſands,

Anſwer, It is ill ſaid that the Apoſtles were bound to obſerve any ſuch Jewiſh Cuſtomes becauſe of any ſuitableneſs between them and things under the Goſpel (which is the mark you ought to hit or you ſay nothing) but the reaſon why they did obſerve ſuch Cuſtomes for a time, was the weakneſs of the Jews, and we find the Apoſtles did as ſpeedily put a period to ſuch Cuſtomes as they could Acts 15. 24. to 32. Acts 1645. which clearly ſhews Jewiſh Cuſtomes was not ſuitable to things under the Goſpel, and here circumciſion one of the chief of Jewiſh rites, is clearly aboliſhed among the reſt, ſo that a man would think infant baptiſm ſhould never have been built upon it.

3. The Dr ſaith If admiſſion of infants to Baptiſm were a meer relique of judaiſm, it ſeems ſtrange that none of the judaizing Chriſtians ſhould be charged with it; who yet are charged with the obſervation of other judaical r • tes..

Anſwer, I find no man ſaying that Infant baptiſm was a relique of judaiſm, ſave Dr. Hammond, and ſome from him, and he indeed would make believers baptiſm alſo a jewiſh relique whiles he teaches that the jews baptiſing Proſelites, and their Children was the Original, and the baptiſm • f the Chriſtian Church but the Coppy, by which device he hath opened a gap to our late N • tioniſts to deprive the Church of ſacred baptiſm altogether, and hath done more to weaken the cauſe of infant baptiſm then any other of its favourites, in laying its foundation in jewiſh ceremonies, for which they had no clear command from God. But great is this truth of believers baptiſm, and will ſtand notwithſtanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond, for it was no jewiſh rite, the baptiſm of repentance for the remiſſion of ſins was from Heaven, Mat. 21. 25. and the Phariſees who • ere • ealous enough for jewish rites, rejcted holy baptiſm, which Chriſt aſfi • ms to be the counſel of God Lu. 7. 30. and teſtifies out of the conſciences of his enemies, that he that t • aches otherwiſe denyes John to be a Prophet. This then is the thing that truly ſeems ſtrange, that no mention is made of infant baptiſm, if indeed it was at all received in the Chriſtian Church either as a jewish rite or otherwiſe, but not ſtr ••• e at all that none is charged with it, ſeeing none can be named that held it.

4. Since theie wish Chriſtians were ſo much offended ſaith the Dr. at the neglect of circumciſion, Acts 21. Can we in reaſon think they should quietly bear their children being wholly thrown out of the church, as they would have been, if neither admitted by circumciſion nor baptiſm.

Anſwer, Since the falſe Apoſtles was ſo earneſt to have the chriſtians circumciſe their children, it's ſtrange that none of the true Apoſtles could or would quiet them by ſaying inſtead of infant circumciſion you have infant baptiſm if indeed there had been any ſuch thing practiced, For, this way went the Apoſtle Paul to ſtill them, vvhen they would have brought the believers themſelves under circumſion, Col. two. Telling the chriffians they vvere circumciſed vvith the circumciſion made vvithout hands, in putting off the body of the ſins of the▪ Flesh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt, buried vvith him in baptiſm, vvherein ye alſo are • iſen with him through the Faith, &c. And why might not the jews as qui • tly take the non-admisſion of infants to baptiſm, as they ſo took the non-admisſion of them to the Lords Supper ſeeing they were formerly admitted to the Paſſeover, nor i • it neceſſary to ſay, that though they were not admitted to either of theſe, that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church; For,

If by church be meant the whole number of the ſaved, then are infants of the churchs for Chriſt hath told us the kingdom of God belongs to infants, and thus were infants of the church before circumciſion was for ſome thouſands of years: But if by church be meant thoſe only vvho are concerned in the actual profesſion of the goſpel, in this reſpect I grant infants are not of the church, God having no vvhere required this of infants in his goſpel. Infants are novv as vvell as before the Flood, vvithin the covenant of the goſpel in reſpect of the grace of eternal Life, but are not under the duties of the Covenant, to vvit, Repentance, Faith baptiſm perſeverance, &c.

Nor can my calling the whole number of the ſaved the church, and thus making infants a part thereof offend a Proteſtant who is acquainted with Proteſtant doctrines, ſeeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine p. 73. upon Art. 19. of the Church of England, do • h affirm, there is an inviſible Church, and takes all within the compaſs of • his Church who are elect, tryumphing or that ſhall tryumph in Heaven Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church all the Elect, of Men or Angels, caled, or not yet called. l. 1. c. 8. So that according to theſe defi • itions of the churc • , infants are not thrown out of the Church though not of the number of the called, and conſequently not that cauſe for the jews to complain, nor any other which the Dr. doth imagine; unleſs they be not acquainted with the extent of the covenant of Gods grace in Chriſt Ieſus our Lord.

Five, The doctor laſtly tells us, That had it been contrary to Chriſts inſtitution (to baptiſe infants) we ſhould not have had ſuch evidence of it's early Practice in t • e Church, and here I acknowledge the uſe of Apoſtolical Tradition to manifeſt this to us.

Anſwer, This is altogether unlike a Proteſtant: What are the Sacraments ſo darkly laid down in the Scripture that vve knovv not vvhen and to vvhom they belong vvithout Tradition? but vvhen ſhall vve ſee this Tradition Apoſtolical, I think doctor Ta • lor expreſly denies there is any Tradit apoſtolical. lib. proph • ſi. p. 117. 120.

But the doctor cannot but knovv there be errou • s • vhich crept into the Church even in the apoſtles days, vvhich alſo continued in ſome of them, notvvithſtanding all endeavours to purge them, ſuch vvere circumciſion and keeping the Lavv. Or if we liſt to reckon vvith records of antiquity, 'tis eaſi • o ſhow ſome things held by Papiſts and oppoſed by the doctor are better proved by tradi • ion then infant baptiſm, for example the Lent Faſt ond prayer for the dead, this is not denyed by Mr. Perkins demonſt. prob. What then ſhall be gained to the proteſtant Religion by ſuch Traditional arguments.

It is a notable ſaying of Irenae • s (according to Dr. Fulk) Wsen the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures they • all to accuſing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them—and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition. And ſaith Tertul, (according to Dr. Fulk) Take away thoſe things from the Hereticks, which they hold with Ethnicks, that they may ſtay their Queſtions upon Scripture only.