Truth and Peace, Chapter 3
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 its 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 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 than good ſpeed, nor outrun the Rule which God has given to direct us. Now theſe Words [Exclude Infants from Baptiſm] are rather ſcandalous than pertinent. Does the Doctor exclude Children from the Lord's Table, becauſe he does not bring them to Communion there in their Infancy? ſure he does what he can to bring them to obey God in that Ordinance with what ſpeed he lawfully may, and ſo do we in the caſe of Baptiſm. As for the relative Nature of Circumciſion, though it was no Abſurdity to make Infants Members of the Jewiſh Church by it, when God bad them do ſo; yet had any Man taken upon him to have made them Members of the Church in the old World by ſuch a Sign, it would have been abſurd enough. It was no Abſurdity for Abraham to offer up his Son Iſaac, to ſlay him with his own Hand, when God did command it▪ but it would be Abſurdity to purpoſe for us to do ſo, having no ſuch Command; and yet we are to ſacrifice all that's dear to us, even our own Lives, but it muſt be in ſuch a way as God requireth. This talk therefore of the relative Nature of Circumciſion is very vain; we ſay did the Lord require us to baptize our Infants, and to give them the Communion, there could be no Abſurdity in either, but then he would have diverſified the time for Participation of theſe Ordinances, as he did in the caſe of Circumciſion for the 8th day; though it was the preciſe time for the Admiſſion of Infants, yet it was no rule at all to the Adulti. Shew now that God has required Baptiſm at a preciſe day to the younger ſort, and prefixed no preciſe day of Age to the elder ſort (for thus he did in the Circumciſion) and the Diſpute will ſoon end.
Circumciſion did relate neceſſarily to all Servants bought with Mony in Abraham's Houſe, as Members of his Houſe, but the caſe is not ſuch in Baptiſm. And it was yet never proved that thoſe Perſons who were thus circumciſed, were to be qualified for it by Faith and Repentance; but it rather ſeems to have been done at firſt in Abraham's Houſe, either in Obedience to Abraham's Authority over them, as his Bondmen, Servants, or Child; or elſe by plain force: for ſeeing Abraham circumciſed all his that very day, they▪ had little time to have Faith and Repentance wrought in them; nor is there one word of Abraham's preaching any thing to them. But 'tis ſaid, He took Iſmael his Son and circumciſed him, and all that were born in his Houſe, and all that were bought with Mony—every Male—the ſelf▪ ſame day. Here was bloody Work; and Dr. Willit thinks the Number of the Males was ſo many that Abraham could not circumciſe them in one day, and that he uſed the help of others to do it. And what Faith and Repentance could be expected from Iſhmael at 13 Years of Age, eſpecially conſidering that he was not the Child of Promiſe, nor to have the Covenant eſtabliſhed with him.
And who will ſay that Abraham, or the Jewiſh Church either, had any Commiſſion from God to teach all Nations, circumciſing them? this way he never went; but if he bought any of them, them he would and did circumciſe. And where is the new Birth made the Qualification for Circumciſion? No Man can give an Inſtance of it. But nothing is more common in the caſe of Baptiſm: ſurely the plain Truth in ſhort is this: Circumciſion did relate generally to a carnal Seed, and to a Terreſtrial Inheritance; but Baptiſm relates only to a ſpiritual Seed, and a Celeſtial Inheritance.
And let not the Doctor reflect upon us (as he does p. 27.) but we pray the Doctor to conſider whether God was not as wiſe, and had as great Goodneſs for, and care of Infants, and others too, from Adam to Abraham, as from Abraham till Chriſt's time. And yet the Doctor knows there was no outward ſign appointed for initiating Infants, as the Doctor ſpeaks: and wherein does it appear that God was more gracious to Infants by or through Circumciſion, than he was to the Infants of the other Patriarchs? The Fathers tell us (as quoted by learned Proteſtants) that Circumciſion did not profit the Soul of the Infant; nihil animae Circumciſionem illum profuiſſe. Chryſoſt. Hom. 39. in Gen. And yet the Wiſdom of God was great in appointing Circumciſion ſo early (ſeeing it muſt be the Mark to diſtinguiſh the Family of which Chriſt ſhould be born, &c.) for the pain was more eaſy to be born in Infancy, than when they attained to Manhood.
Neither is it by any means to be ſuppoſed, that God by giving this Ceremony to Abraham, &c. did neglect all the Infants in the World, as to the Buſineſs of Salvation (which I muſt mention, becauſe the Doctor ever and anon is dropping ſuch Paſſages as may deceive his Reader with ſuch Apprehenſions, though I am ſure the Doctor does believe no ſuch thing.) He was ſtill the God of the Spirits of all Fleſh, and all Infants were ſtill his Offspring; and never rebelling againſt him, his gracious Nature would not ſuffer them to periſh without Remedy, and Remedy they could have none by Circumciſion; for it was not appointed for them. And indeed to conceit our ſelves, that our wiſe and good God ſhould make either Circumciſion or Baptiſm (or any other Ritual) neceſſary to the Salvation of poor dying Infants, is a poor low conceit of God, and contrary to all Rules which he has given to Men to extend Mercy or Juſtice. For ſeeing it is not poſſible for them to have the one or the other, but at the Will of▪ others, God's ways are ſo▪ equal that he will never puniſh them for want of either: but the Truth is he required the firſt but of a few in compariſon, and the latter not ſo much as of one Infant: whence then is there ſuch a quoil about Infant-Baptiſm?
One great Pretence of the Doctor for Infant-Baptiſm, is taken from the ends of Baptiſm, ſome of which he will have Infants to be capable of, and therefore to be baptized. This is the ſum of what he ſays in a multitude of Words in ſeveral Pages. But upon a right Diſcovery of the ends of Baptiſm, as they are really ſuch, his Antecedent will vaniſh.
The Ends of Baptiſm (be they what they will) are to be conſidered in ſuch a ſenſe, as that ordinarily without Baptiſm ſuch things cannot be obtained. And of theſe ends, Remiſſion of Sins, and Eternal Life are the principal, Acts 2. 38. Mark 16. 16. Now where ever, or upon whomſoever God calls for Obedience in Holy Baptiſm, as the way in which theſe Ends are by them to be obtained, there the Duty of Baptiſm being refuſed, theſe Ends are loſt; as appears in the Caſe of the Phariſees and Lawyers, Luke 7. 29. They rejected the Counſel of God againſt themſelves, being not baptized.
Now I deny that Remiſſion of Sins, and Eternal Life, are propounded to, or in the Caſe of Infants, as the 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 Compaſſion yearn upon him, and here I reſtore him—and before you all waſh him with pure Water, to ſignify that he is cleanſed—and reſtored to his Birth-right—Could any Man ſay that the Action was inſignificant, becauſe the Child knew nothing of it?
Now in this Similitude, the Doctor begs almoſt every thing in queſtion between us. As, 1. That all that are attainted with Original Sin, muſt be waſhed with Water, as a ſign that they are cleanſed from it. 2. That God vouchſafes the Bowels of Compaſſion to ſuch Infants only as he intends ſhall be baptized. 3. That he does not require the Party baptized to underſtand or take notice of any thing, but bids the by-ſtanders take notice of theſe Things. And, 4. this Similitude ſuppoſes, that all Rules about Infant Baptiſm are plainly delivered by our Heavenly King, when not one of theſe things are true. But the Doctor does very ill to ſuppoſe that to be a true Goſpel-Sacrament, which wants the inward and ſpiritual Grace; as in this Similitude there is no knowledg or conſent on the part of him that is baptized, but a meer force is put upon him. And yet when the Doctor can ſhew us what Infants in particular the Bowels of God does yearn towards, and his Will that they be cleanſed by waſhing with Water, that ſhall ſuffice to make them capable of Baptiſm.
But before we leave this Similitude, let us conſider whether the Foundation of it be ſound. Are Infants indeed ſuch attainted Perſons? Sure no; for whatſoever was their Caſe conſidered in ſinful Adam, yet when through Chriſt Adam was redeemed (that is, virtually▪ by the Promiſe of a Saviour, Gen. 3. 15.) all Infants▪ who then were all in him, had the Attainder taken off, as much as from Adam himſelf, John 1. 29. So that this Attainder of Treaſon againſt Infants, as they proceed from Adam, is but a Fancy; and to think that he has left Original Sin to be waſhed away by Baptiſm, from poor innocent Babes, is another Fancy; and yet theſe were the Grounds on which Infant Baptiſm was built at firſt, and many are yet under the dominion of this Miſtake.
We conclude then, that through the free Mercy of God in the Gift of Chriſt, the Attainder of Sin which lay againſt Infants to Condemnation, was taken away from the Foundation of the World; and that Baptiſm was not ordained of God to take away Original Sin, but for the Remiſſion of Actual Sins upon Repentance and Faith. Nor does it appear, in all God's Book, that he appointed any Ritual, no not Circumciſion it ſelf, to take away Original Sin, and he that ſhall aſſert it, will be intangled in ſo many Difficulties, as he cannot eſcape. For what then took Original Sin from all Males that died before the eighth Day? And what became of all Females and Male Infants throughout the World? Did God leave them all under a Malady, without any Remedy?
And though the Doctor inſiſts never ſo much upon that Apochryphal Story of Infant Baptiſm among the Jews, before the coming of John Baptiſt, yet as himſelf yields, p. 18. it was not of Divine Inſtitution▪ ſo it is looked upon to be a Fable by the Learned of his own Church, who tell us, as we have ſhewed, That Rabbi Eliezer denies▪ that there was any ſuch Baptiſm among the Jews, though Rabbi Joſhua does affirm it. To whom ſhall I give credit, (ſaith that Learned Proteſtant) to Eliezer, who aſſerted what the Scripture confirms, [that there was no ſuch Baptiſm among the Jews] or to Joſhua, who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture?
I am not concerned in their anſwer, who do prove Infants more capable of Circumciſion than of Baptiſm, becauſe it left a Character in their Fleſh. But I anſwer, whatſoever makes any Perſon capable of Baptiſm, the revealed Will of God to order it ſo is the chief; us for Example, ſome Infants might be as capable of Circumciſion on the 7th day, as others on the 8th, yet thoſe of 7 days were not at all capable of Circumciſion. So that for Men to inſiſt upon their Conjectures, about Infants Capacity or Incapacity, is but to wander in the Dark. It muſt be the Inſtitution of Baptiſm, the Commiſſion for the uſe of it in all Nations, and the Example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and Churches by them conſtituted, that muſt decide this Queſtion, Whether Infants are capable of Baptiſm?