we have their definitive Sentence against the Neceffity of Circumfion, Why tempt ye God to put a Toke upon the Neck of the Dif ciples, which neither our Fathers, nor we, were able to bear? Now on whom would these Pharisees have laid this Yoke? Was it not on the Difciples? And what was this Yoke? Was it not Circumcifion ? And who were they whom they would have to be circumcifed? Doubtless, all the Gentiles, who believed in Jefus Chrift, both Men and Children; and in following Ages, especially if not only Children were to have been circumcifed, if this erroneous Doctrine had prevailed. Well then, they whom thefe Falfe Teachers would have to be circumcifed, were Difciples: But it is plain, that they would impofe this, not only upon adult Perfons, but Children ; for that they required they should be circumcifed according to the Law of Mofes, as Verfe 1. Now, according to the Law and Manner of Mofes, all Children, whether of Native Jews or Profelytes, ought to be circumcifed the Eighth Day. And this, faith the Holy Synod of the Apostles, is a Yoke, that neither they, nor their Fore-fathers, were able to bear. Not that Circumcifion it felf, although a painful, was yet an intolerable Rite, but only as it was a Sign and Seal

enga

engaging them to keep the whole Law of Mofes, which was this pinching Yoke, and this infupportable Burden, that the Apoftolical Council decreed fhould not be put upon the Difciples: And therefore, either Infants are Difciples, or notwithstanding this Decree they may ftill receive Čircumcifion as an Engagement to the Obfervation of the Mofaical Law.

Thirdly, Another Argument may be drawn from the Text; He loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might fanctify and cleanfe it with the Washing of Water, From whence I thus argue: Those for whom Chrift gave himself that they might be faved, those he doth likewife intend to bring to Salvation by fanctifying and cleaning them with the Washing of Baptifmal Water; but he but he gave himself likewise for Infants, that they might be faved; for he exprefly tells us, that of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, not only of their Conditions, but of their Condition ; and therefore Infants are ordinarily to be cleanfed with the Washing of Water in Baptifm. I do not say, that none can or thall be faved without Baptism; that were too uncharitable an Opinion and Doom upon those who are inevitably deprived of this Holy Inftitution.

But

But this I fay, that Baptifm is the ordinary Means appointed by God for the fanctifying and cleaning of those for whom Chrift gave himself to bring them to Salvation. And though the Children shall not be damned for Want of Baptifm, yet (as King James faid) I doubt whether the Parents of them may not, for their Neglect and Contempt of it.

Many other Arguments might be produced, but thefe may fuffice in a Place where this great Doctrine need not be laboriously proved, especially being fuch as cannot be fufficiently answered.

Let us therefore, in the next Place, take into Confideration fome of the most principal Objections that are made against Infant Baptifm, which I would not mention in a Place where this Practice is not contradicted, but that I know the Evidence for it is abundantly fuperiour to the Ca'vils against it, and that you may be fortified against the Fallacies of Deceivers. hereafter: For in these broken and divided Times, when the Whimsies of Men, and their confident Fancies, have fo far prevailed against the Unity of the Church, God knows what they may next attempt 3 and plentiful Experience hath fhewn,that Anabaptifm usually follows Separation,

<

It is objected, 1. That Infants are not capable of the Ends of Baptism, and therefore ought not to be baptized. The End of Baptifm is to fignifie to the Receiver of it, the Washing away of Sin by the Blood of Jefus Chrift. But Infants, not having the Ufe of Reafon, cannot possibly comprehend this Significancy: And therefore, it being to them an infignificant Thing, it cannot be the Ordinance of Chrift that it fhould be adminiftred to them.

To this I answer, That altho' Infants are not, as fuch, capable of all the Ends for which Baptifm was ordained, yet it doth not thence follow, that it is infignificant, and therefore unneceffary or unlawful to baptize them.

For, First, Baptifm may be adminiftred to those who are capable of fome of the Ends of it, though they are not of all. 'Tis true, one great End of Baptism is to be a Sign of the washing away of Sin, and cleanfing the Soul ; and why may not this be God's Sign towards Infants, tho' it cannot be theirs, towards him? Certainly the Sacranients are inftituted to be the Signs of God's Favour to his Children, as well as Pledges of their Service to him. Again, we find that our Lord Jefus Chrift himself was baptized by John, whose Bap

tifim was the Baptifm of Repentance; and yet our Saviour had no Sin to be repented of, no Filth to be washed away. By which Inftance alone it is fufficiently clear that an Incapacity for fome Ends of an Ordinance, where there is a Capacity for others, doth not exclude from a Right of partaking of it.

For, Secondly, Another great End of the Inftitution of Baptifm was to be God's Seal to the Covenant of his Grace. Now as a Man may feal a Deed of Gift to an Infant, which shall be valid, though he understand it not, fo God may, and doth feal the Promises of his Covenant to Infants; and yet their Incapacity of knowing it doth not make the Truth and Promife of God of none Effect.

Thirdly, Though Infants cannot perceive the Significancy of Baptifm, yet this can be no Reason to exclude them from it: For I fuppofe it will be granted, that Circumcifion was fignificant, being a Sacrament as well as Baptifm. And yet we read and know, that Circumcifion was inftituted for Infants who were altogether as uncapable of understanding the Nature and End of that Ordinance, as our Children are of Baptifm. If there fore Circumcifion were not an idlé infignificant Ceremony to the Jewish Children,