The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Shewing Infant-Baptiſm is of no uſe at all, in oppoſition to what Mr. Burkit affirms, but contrariwiſe ſinful, i. e. it being an Error, hath alſo many evil and bad Conſequences attending it. With ſome Reflections on Infants Baptiſmal Covenant, as aſſerted by Mr. Dan. Williams, as well as this Author Mr. Burkit.
YOU ſay, the Anabaptiſts aſſert Infant-Baptiſm is unlawful, becauſe 'tis unuſeful, Children underſtanding no more than Brute Beaſts what is done to them; therefore you may as warrantably baptize a Beaſt as a Child, Pag. 34. And then ſay, pag. 35. That Infant-Baptiſm is greatly advantagious as an Act of Initiation into the viſible Church.
Anſw. 1. You have no Warrant to baptize a Child; but who of the Anabaptiſts ever ſaid ſuch words as you here mention? dare you accuſe your Neighbours falſly? 'tis a bad and unſeemly Compariſon. But 'tis no marvel we meet with it from ſuch as you who are prejudiced againſt us: ſome of your Brethren formerly charged us with baptizing naked. God will judg between us and you in his due time.
Anſw. 2. You ſhould have proved it an Inſtitution, or an Appointment of Chriſt; but that you have not yet done, nor never will. True, were Infant-Baptiſm ordained by Chriſt to be an initiating Rite into the Goſpel-Church, doubtleſs it had been uſeful.
3. But what good doth your baptizing them do them? what Priviledge of the Church do you allow them? I know not one; if indeed it did adopt the Child to be a Son or Daughter of God, you ſay ſomething; or if God had appointed it to be a Sign or Token of it; but this he hath not done, and 'tis not in your Power to do it.
1. But you ſay they have hereby Intereſt in all the Prayers put up in and by the Church.
Anſw. If you ſo pray for them, viz. as Members of the viſible Church, what ground have you to believe God will hear you, ſince he never made them Members thereof? Beſides, the Church prays for all her Members, and for the Children of them who are Members, that they in due time may become Members, and have equal Right in all the Bleſſings of God's Church, if it be his Will to bring them in. But what ground have you to deny any who are true Members of the Church, the Euchariſt, or Lord's Supper, or any other Priviledge whatſoerver?
2. You ſay, by virtue of this Admiſſion they have an Intereſt in that ſpecial Providential Care which Chriſt exerciſes over his Church.
Anſw. No doubt but Chriſt exerciſes his Care over poor Infants, but not the more, aſſure your ſelf, for your baptizing them without his Authority.
3. You ſay, hereby the Church ſtands nearer to them than to the reſt of Mankind, &c. mentioning that Text in Iſa. 54.13. Thy Children ſhall be all taught of God, &c.
Anſw. You cannot bring Infants to ſtand nearer to God, nor his People by any Act done by you, without a Rule left by Chriſt. Beſides, that Text in Iſa. 54.13. does not refer to Infants, not to our Children as ſuch, but to thoſe godly Chriſtians who being born in Sion, are indeed truly her Children.
4. 'You ſay it is an Act of Dedication, &c.
Anſw. Who commanded you this way to dedicate your Children to the Lord? Will you teach him Wiſdom? or, are you wiſer than he? doth he require you ſo to do?
5. You ſay, 'tis greatly advantagious to them, as 'tis an Act of Reſtipulation; that is, ſay you, a Child at Baptiſm enters into Covenant with God.
Anſw. Poor Babes! 'tis without their Knowledg or Conſent, or God's Appointment, which is worſt of all, or being able to perform it then, nor many of them ever after, God never giving them his Grace ſo to do.
But wo to them, if they do not perform this Covenant, if you and Mr. Daniel Williams ſay true;Mr. Dan. Williams in his Book called, The Vanity of Youth, p. 131. he ſays in his Catechiſm as followeth,
That thoſe Children who perform not their Baptiſmal Covenant do,
1. Reject Chriſt.
2. They renounce the Bleſſings of Goſpel.
3. That 'tis Rebellion againſt their Maker.
4. That 'tis Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer.
5. Groſs Injuſtice to their Parents.
6. That 'tis ſelf-killing Cruelty to their own Souls.
7. He ſaith, 'tis a damning Sin, nay, it's the damning Sin, and Heart of all Sin.
Is this indeed the Love you Pedo-baptiſts have to your poor Infants? What, bring them into ſuch a Covenant, without their Knowledg or Conſent, or God's Appointment, and then threaten them, if they break it, with Hell and Damnation, and what not!
Do you know they are all Elect Perſons, and ſo ſuch that God will in time call, give Grace to, and ſo change their evil and depraved Natures? If not, do you not heap up a Multitude of Evils upon them, and hereby make their Condition worſe, or aggravate their Sin and Miſery for ever?
I know not whether you be of this Pedo-Baptiſt's Mind, or not; but I think this Doctrine does not fit a Chriſtian Catechiſm: if God had required Infants to enter into ſuch a Covenant, ſome reaſon he might have thus to ſpeak:Mr. Williams worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit. But ſince he nor you either can prove it, this to me ſeems a daring boldneſs in a Miniſter of the Goſpel to aſſert, (who I hope is a good Man). God I grant expects, that all true Believers ſhould perform their Baptiſmal Covenant, but then know they are required of God actually to enter into it; they freely of their own choice enter into it, they are ſuch God hath given habitual Grace to perform it. And he hath promiſed them alſo a further ſupply of Grace to enable them ſo to do; but nothing of this you can prove, in Infants covenanting in their Baptiſm, (but more of this by and by); nor will their Sureties help the matter, for if they cannot perform thoſe things they promiſe for themſelves, how ſhould they be able to do it for others? beſides 'tis an humane Invention, and not appointed of God, as Mr. Perkins himſelf confeſſeth.
But truly Mr. Williams's Doctrin afflicts my Mind: Strange! is this Sin the damning Sin? I thought the damning Sin (by way of eminency) had been the Sin of Unbelief: Suppoſe your own Child ſhould not believe he is bound by virtue of that baptiſmal Covenant you brought him into, but when grown up, diſowns that (you call) Baptiſm, &c. not believing it is a Truth of Chriſt, muſt he be damned?
But to proceed;
You having ſhewed the Advantages of Infant-Baptiſm, without giving one Scripture-Text to prove what you ſay is true; you, in pag. 38. come to ſhew, that Baptiſm is more uſeful and beneficial to a Child in Infancy, than to omit it till riper Age; Becauſe no Infant-memberſhip is capable of Hypocriſy, which Perſons grown up are.
Anſw. 1. Then give them the Lord's Supper alſo, for doubtleſs if they receive it, they will not eat and drink their own Damnation, as may be ſome, that have it given to them, do. I tremble at what you dare to ſay and write, in which you ſeem to arraign the Wiſdom of the ever-bleſſed Jeſus; Hath he appointed Believers, or Adult Perſons, who are gracious, to be baptized, and none elſe? and do you ſay, the Ordinance better ſuits with ignorant Babes? Should you dictate to your earthly Prince, would he allow it? much leſs to contradict and correct him, as if your Wiſdom was more than his.
2. You ſay, 'Tis more advantagious to Infants, than thoſe of riper Years; as it is a pre-engagement upon them to reſiſt Temptations.
Anſw. You may after this rate bring them under an hundred Engagements and Covenants, nay, may be more plauſible ones too, may you not? When they know what they do, make them take a ſolemn Oath, or enter into Bonds, upon pain of ſevere Puniſhment, that they ſhall not yield to Temptations, and pretend 'tis God's Law they ſhould do ſo; and if you can deceive their Judgments, they will dread as much (nay, may be more) the breaking thoſe Oaths and Covenants, than this you bring them into, without any Authority from Jeſus Chriſt.
3. You ſay, Baptiſm in Infancy is more advantagious than at riper Years, as it is an early Remedy againſt the Malady of Original Sin.
Anſw. Speak; Doth Baptiſm take away Original Sin, or free them of that Malady, or not? You know, ſome of the Ancient Fathers were carried away with ſuch a Dream; how comes it to paſs then, that that Contagion appears ſo ſoon, and to be as ſtrong in your Children as in ours, who never were baptized at all? But does not St. Peter tell you, (1. Pet. 3.20.) Baptiſm waſhes not away the Filth of the Fleſh? Or is not Original Pollution a Filth of the Fleſh? what Stuff is this you would force upon us, and the World! We affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance than any other. Why do you ſay of no Rite but this? We challenge all the World, by God's Word, to prove they are capable of Baptiſm, any more than of the Lord's Supper.
4. You ſay, Baptiſm adminiſtred to Infants, has this Advantage, That it puts the Chriſtian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin, from the conſideration of that ſhameful Perjury and wilful Apoſtacy that is found in ſuch Perſons Sin.
Anſw. 1. I find you are one of Mr. Williams his Brethren, i.e. you are of his Belief it ſeems: but tremble at the thoughts of the Conſequences of your Doctrine.The Danger of Infants Baptiſmal-Covenant laid open. Have not your Children, when grown up, enough Sins to mourn for and bewail before Almighty God, but you muſt bring them into a Covenant which you knew they would break when they come to riper Age? and ſuch is the pravity of human Nature, there is no avoiding of it without a ſupernatural Work of Grace; their Burden is heavy enough, you need not add to it.
2. Is it not ſad, that you ſhould give cauſe to your Children to think they are guilty of Perjury? when in truth they never were, nor of Apoſtacy from God upon that account: our firſt Apoſtacy was bad enough, you need not go about to make them guilty of another. Alas, their pretended Baptiſm never brought them one ſtep nearer to God, than thoſe Children are who never were baptized in their Infancy at all: where then is the Apoſtacy you ſpeak of?
3. You hereby bring them under a neceſſity of committing of the Sin of Perjury, and of Apoſtacy, at leaſtwiſe in your own conceit, and in theirs too, if they can believe what you ſay, and ſo to cauſe them to mourn for that, or thoſe Sins moſt, which may be (if all things were rightly conſidered) are no Sins at all. I do not mean that any of their actual Tranſgreſſions may not be Sin; but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apoſtacy by breaking that you call their Baptiſmal Covenant: for if God brought them not into that Covenant, nor into any Covenant-relation with himſelf thereby, I cannot ſee how there ſhould be ſuch a Sting in the Tail of it, as you affirm and imagine; and indeed, had they themſelves, of their one accord and conſent, entred into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant, which they were no ways able to perform, it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not: beſides, I hope they have not forſworn themſelves, how then is it Perjury?
4. Moreover,Parents, obſerve this well. I deſire all thoſe Parents who baptize their Children; and you alſo, to conſider, in the fear of God, the natural Tendency and Conſequences of your bringing poor Babes into ſuch a Covenant.
1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God: for I challenge you, and all Pedo-Baptiſts in the World, to prove God hath any-where, directly or indirectly, required any ſuch thing at your Hands.
Pedo-Baptiſts ſay, Infants in their Baptiſmal-Covenant, promiſe Regeneration, Faith, &c.2. Conſider that 'tis not only a Reformation of Life, or a bare refraining from the groſs Acts of Sin, that you aſſert is comprehended in this Baptiſmal Covenant you cauſe Infants to enter into, but it is Regeneration it ſelf, i. e. a change of Heart, and ſavingly to believe in Chriſt; this you oblige your poor Babes to perform. Now what Arminianiſm is here fomented, if once you ſay or think they are capable to perform this Obligation? but if they do not do it, woe be to them?
Moreover, what guilt do you bring the poor Sureties under, unleſs they ſtand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy; and if ſo, what need of their Obligation at all, if you intend no more?
3. Conſider, you brought them into this Covenant without their Knowledg or Conſent, they never ſubſcribed to it, nor knew any thing of it, nor were they capable ſo to do.
4. Conſider, whatever you think, that ſuch is the pravity of their Natures, by means of our firſt Apoſtacy from God, or Original Sin, that they do and muſt of neceſſity break it, as I ſaid before, unleſs God ſhould by ſupernatural Grace change their Hearts and Natures, and remove the vicious Habits thereof, which you had not the leaſt ground to believe he would do, or leaſtwiſe to all or the greateſt part of them, God having made no ſuch promiſe; and by woful experience we daily ſee many or moſt of thoſe Children, are never converted, but from the Womb go aſtray, and are guilty of almoſt of all manner of abominable Sins, and ſo live and die.
As to the Adult.
1. Conſider, as I ſaid before;
(1.) That all Believers God himſelf doth require or command in his Word to enter into this Baptiſmal Covenant.
(2.) And they, before they enter into it, have a Principle of Divine Life infuſed into their Souls, or Grace implanted in their Hearts, having paſſed under the Work of Regeneration, being dead to Sin, (of which Baptiſm is a lively Symbol) or is, as your Church ſays, an outward Sign of an inward ſpiritual Grace. Not as Mr. Baxter obſerves, a Sign or Symbol of future, but of preſent Regeneration; which is confirmed by what St. Paul teaches, Rom. 6.2. How ſhall we that are dead to Sin, live any longer therein? not, may be dead, but are dead, and ſo are buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, verſ. 3, 4. If you ſay, all Adult Perſons baptized are not converted, &c. I anſwer, They appear ſo to be, and as ſuch, voluntarily enter into this Covenant: beſides, God does not require them without Faith to do it. Baptiſm doth not only repreſent the Death and Burial of Chriſt, but alſo ſignifies our Death to Sin, or that bleſſed Work of Mortification of the Body of Sin and Death; by which means Believers who enter into this Baptiſmal Covenant, are put into a gracious and meet capacity to perform that ſacred Obligation; but ſo are not Infants.
(3.) That every true Believer baptized, conſiders, ponders upon, and weighs with all ſeriouſneſs and deliberation imaginable, the Nature of this Covenant before he ſigns it. And,
(4.) That he doth it freely, voluntarily, and with his full liking, approbation and conſent: neither of which do, nor can do thoſe poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant. Theſe things conſidered, it appears, as it is a ſinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant (ſince 'tis done without Command or Authority from God) ſo 'tis cruelty alſo towards your own Babes, by making them to be come guilty of Perjury, and thereby damning (as Mr. Williams ſays) their own Souls.
(5.) Conſider, every true Believer that is liſted under Chriſt's Banner, by entring into this Baptiſmal Covenant, is by Chriſt compleatly armed, i. e. he hath the Chriſtian Armor put upon him, Epheſ. 6. he has the Breaſtplate of Righteouſneſs, the Shield of Faith, and for an Helmet, the Hope of Salvation; and the Word of God, like a Sword in his Hand, to cut down all his Enemies. Thus by the help of theſe Sacred Graces of the Spirit, he is enabled to fight againſt Sin, the World, the Fleſh, and the Devil. But alas, you liſt your poor Babes into this War, and make them covenant and vow to forſake the Devil and all his Works, the Pomps and Vanities of this Wicked World, and all the ſinful Luſts of the Fleſh—but arm them not. Did Baptiſm confer Grace, and arm their Souls, it was ſomething; but who dares aſſert that? or if he does, who will or can believe him?
(6.) God hath alſo promiſed to aſſiſt, ſtand by, help and enable all Believers baptized, with further ſupplies of Grace; nay, they being actually united to Chriſt, have his bleſſed Influences flowing to them, beſides the Promiſes of God, the Death, Reſurrection, and Interceſſion of Chriſt; and the everlaſting Covenant of Grace, which is ordered in all things, and ſure, firmly ſecures all their Souls: But thus it is not with thoſe poor Babes you bring into this Covenant; you are like Pharaoh's Task-maſters, command the making of Brick, but allow them no Straw.
4. Again, conſider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjured: I will appeal to the Conſciences of all thinking and underſtanding People, whether, according to your Principle and Practice, it is not ſo; Mourn O England and lament, ſad is thy Caſe! If theſe Men ſpeak right or truly, what a Multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant, who never performed it? O Perjured Nation! Perjured People! and Perjured Paſtors! for ſo are all thy debauched, drunken, ſwearing and unclean Teachers. Are not theſe perjured alſo? Have they kept their Vow and Covenant? Alas, Sir, inſtead of mourning for this Sin, we may conclude they never thought of it. But let them break off their Sins by Righteouſneſs; I mean, repent and leave thoſe groſs Acts of Wickedneſs, of which many, both Prieſt and People, are guilty, and get renewing Grace, and never let them fear this new deviſed Sin of Perjury. For if God's Word convinces of all Sins, and doth not convince of this ſort of Perjury, this is no Perjury; (I mean the ſimple breaking of that Covenant, though thoſe Sins by which they are ſaid to break it, are horrid Treaſon and Rebellion againſt the God of Heaven, and provoke him to Wrath every Day.) But God's Word doth convince of all Sins, and doth not convince of this ſort of Perjury; therefore it cannot be Perjury, as is affirmed. 'Tis not this which is the Self-killing-Murder, the damning Sin: No, no; but 'tis their Unbelief and Contempt of God's Grace, or neglecting the great Salvation offered by Chriſt in the Goſpel.
5. Baptiſm adminiſtred in Infancy hath (you ſay) this ſingular Advantage above that which is adminiſtred at viper Age, in that it gives the pious Parent a good ground of hope that his Children dying in Infancy, are certainly ſaved, it makes (ſay you) that Ordinance a Channel of Grace, &c.
Anſw. 1. This is like the reſt: But, Sir, by what Authority do you aſſert all theſe things? You know what wonderful Vertue the Papiſts ſay is in many of their Popiſh Rites, Ceremonies and Relicks, i. e. in their croſſing themſelves, and in their Holy Water, eſpecially in their Agnus Dei: but how do they prove it? even as well as you do what you ſpeak here upon this Account. And we have the ſame reaſon to believe them, as to believe you in what you ſpeak without Proof or Authority from God's Word.
2. Pious Parent! But alas, how few are there of that ſort? what hopes hath the impious prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children?Mr. Burkit leaves impious Parents without hope of the Salvation of their dying Infants. But, Sir, I thought all the pious and believing or godly Parents Children, were born in Covenant with God; and that the Parents Faith would have ſecured them, whether baptized or not. Were not the Jews Female Children ſaved? they were not circumciſed; and were not their Male Infants ſaved, who died before the eighth Day?
3. From what Scripture is it theſe pious, though ignorant and deceived Parents, may have hope that their Children that die in their Infancy ſhall be ſaved, and none but theirs, who are baptized or rather rantized?
4. Will you make Baptiſm their Saviour? can Baptiſm ſave them? And is it ſo indeed? is it then in the Power of Parents to ſave or damn their Children? And how came Baptiſm to have ſuch Power in it? or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants? Do you not place that Vertue in an external Rite, that only belongs to the Blood of Chriſt, and ſanctifying Grace of God's Spirit?Perkins on Gal. cap. 3. p. 256. Mr. Perkins ſaith, That Baptiſm indeed ſaveth; but ſaith he, that is not the Baptiſm of Water, but the Stipulation of a good Conſcience by the Reſurrection. Again he ſaith, The outward Baptiſm without the inward is no Mark of God's Child, but the Mark of the Fool that makes a Vow, and afterwards breaks it.
5. May not this Doctrine of yours clearly tend to ſcare and afright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that die in their Mother's Wombs, or before baptized, are damned? And O in what a ſad Condition are all the Children of ungodly and impious Perſons, whoſe little Babes you dare not, cannot baptize, if you are true to your own Principles? But that Text may give us a better ground of hope a thouſand times concerning the well-being of our dying Infants, where our Saviour ſaith, of ſuch are the Kingdom of Heaven. And that which you mention, I ſhall go to him, he ſhall not return to me; together with the infinite Mercy of God, through the Virtue of Chriſt's Blood, who can convey Help and Healing to dying Infants and Idiots in ways we know not of; nor are we to trouble our ſelves about ſuch ſecret things that are not revealed.
6. You ſay, The Practice of Infant-Baptiſm appears moſt beneficial; becauſe it prevents ſuch ſhameful and ſcandalous Neglects of Baptiſm, to the Blemiſh of Chriſtianity.
Anſw. Is it then a ſhameful Scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man? (for ſo I have proved Infant-Baptiſm to be) Where is the Shame that ought to be in Chriſtians,Greater Zeal ſhewed for the Traditions of Men than for Chriſt's Inſtitutions. Micah 6.16. that Chriſt's Laws and Precepts are neglected, and his precious Ordinance of Baptiſm expoſed to Contempt and Shame, as it is by you and thouſands more, whilſt the Statutes of Omri are zealouſly kept and obſerved, as the Prophet of old complained; I mean, humane Rites and Traditions, or Statutes (like thoſe of Omri, inſtituted by him and Jeroboam) which the Wiſdom of your Church, and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this Day.
And thus I have ran through and examined your fix Particulars, which you bring to prove the Uſefulneſs of Infant-Baptiſm above the Baptiſm of Believers, which our bleſſed Saviour inſtituted: And now ſhall ſhew you further that Infant-Baptiſm is ſo far from being more uſeful than that of the Adult, that it is a dangerous Error, and therefore of no Uſe at all, but the contrary, viz. a very ſinful thing.
Infant-Baptiſm no ways uſeful, but hurtful.1. Reader, can that be uſeful, or any ways beneficial, which Chriſt never commanded or required to be done in his Name, but is unrighteouſly fathered upon him, to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers?
2. Can that have any Uſefulneſs in it, that brings Guilt upon the Parents in doing it, making them guilty of Will-Worſhip, or of a humane Tradition?
3. Can that be uſeful that brings poor Babes into ſuch a Covenant, which Chriſt never ordained for them to enter into; and to which they never directly nor indirectly conſented nor approved of; and which they are utterly unable to keep; and which giveth them no Strength to perform; nor is there one promiſe of God made to aſſiſt or help them to do it; and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury, with Self-murder, nay, with Hell and Damnation?
4. Can that be of uſe to Infants, that baſely beguiles and deceives them, cauſing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Chriſtians, and become the Children of God, Members of Chriſt, and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven, nay, regenerated; and from hence never look after any other Work of Grace nor Regeneration, but conclude all is well with them?
5. Can that be a uſeful thing, which the doing of is a palpable Alteration of the Words of Chriſt's Commiſſion, and ſo inverts that holy Order left by him for baptizing, who requires none to be baptized before they are firſt taught and made Diſciples?
6. Can that be of any Uſe to an Infant, which you, nor no Man elſe can prove from God's Word to have any Uſe and Bleſſing in it to them?
7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition, think you, ſave poor Children, or a little Water ſprinkled on the Face, waſh away Original Sin?
8. Can Water beget Children to Chriſt, or can that be uſeful to them, which they have only the bare Sign of, and not the thing ſignified, viz. the Sign of Regeneration, but not Regeneration it ſelf; a Sign of Grace, but not Grace it ſelf; you give them the Shell, but no Kernel; the Name of Chriſtian, but no Nature of a Chriſtian; making that you call Chriſt's Baptiſm, as Dr. Taylor ſaith, á Sign without Effect, and like the Figtree in the Goſpel, full of Leaves, but no Fruit?
9. Can that be uſeful that tends to make the Goſpel-Church National, (and confounds the Church and the World together) which ought to be Congregational, a holy and ſeparate People, like a Garden incloſed?
10. Can Baptiſm be more uſeful to Infants than to adult Believers, notwithſtanding the Scripture ſaith, that the Perſon baptized doth not only believe, but call upon the Name of the Lord, Acts 22.16. can Infants do that?
11. Can Infant-Baptiſm be more uſeful than that of Believers, and yet Baptiſm an Ordinance of the Soul's Marriage with Chriſt? And is not that, as Mr. Baxter ſaith, a ſtrange Marriage, where there is nothing ſignified of Conſent? And are Infants able ſo to do?
12. Can Infant-Baptiſm be more uſeful than that of Believers, and yet Baptiſm called the Anſwer of a good Conſcience? Can a little Babe anſwer a good Conſcience by being baptized in Obedience to Chriſt, and to ſhew forth his Death and Reſurrection?
13. Can Infant-Baptiſm be more uſeful than that of Believers? Whereas the firſt has no Promiſe of God made unto it, and yet the other hath many, as Acts 2.36.37, 38. Mark 16.16.
14. Can that be a uſeful thing that fruſtrates the ſacred and ſpiritual Ends of Baptiſm? which we have ſhewed are many, but as adminiſtred to poor Babes, 'tis rendred wholly of none Effect, and an inſignificant thing.
Perkins on Gal. p. 265.Laſtly; Mr. Perkins hints that Baptiſm ſignifies two things: (1.) Our Union with Chriſt: (2.) Our Communion with him. Now how doth this appear in Infants as ſuch, as it does in Believers?