fants are. But now we are not to lay the Foundations of a new Church, but to build upon the old. Indeed, were we to convert an Infidel, Reason and Religion would fhew, that we should inftru&t him before we baptize him. But the Children of Believing Parents are Members of the Church of Chrift by their Birthright, and therefore have a Right to Baptifm long before they have a Capacity for Inftruction. So faith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 14. That the Children of a believing Parent are holy. Now to be Holy, fignifies to be feparated unto God; and certainly if they be separated to God in their State and Condition, they ought to be folemnly dedicated unto him in the Ordinance of Baptifm: For they are not unclean, i. e. they are not in the fame State with the Children of Heathens and Infidels: But they are Holy, and therefore Members of the Church (unless we would imagine a Generation of Holy Perfons without the Church); and therefore are they capable of being baptized before they are capable of being inftructed.

Secondly, Confider if our Saviour had fent his Difciples to convert the Gentiles to the Law of Mofes, what other Words could he have used to them, but go teach

all Nations, circumcifing them. If therefore fuch Words would not imply, but that the Infants of profelyted Heathens ought to have been circumcifed before they were taught and instructed in the Law of Mofes, no more do our Saviour's Words imply, that the Infants of Believing Gentiles ought not to be baptized before they are inftructed in the Faith of Chrift: For if Chrift had ufed fuch Words, none would have imagined that the Infants of profelyted Gentiles were to be excluded by them from Circumcifion: And therefore neither can there be any Reason to imagine, from the Words as they lie, that our Saviour did intend by them to exclude the Infants of Christians from Baptilm.

Again, Thirdly, We must confider what Apprehenfions the Apostles, to whom our Saviour speaks, had concerning the Church Eftate of Infants in their Time. Did they not look upon them as Members of the Church then? It is plai that they did, fince they were all circumcifed. And can we with Reason think, that when our Saviour bade them gather whole Nations into his Church, they should imagine that Infants must now be excluded out of it by a new Example, fince they were all included in the Church under

C 3

under the Difpenfation which was in ufe among them? This is highly improbable. And therefore we have all Reason to conclude, that when our Saviour bids them teach and baptize, they understood no other, but that they were to bring the Gentiles into the fame State of a Church in which the Jews were before, that they might enjoy the fame Privileges or greater; the Adult to be taught and baptized, the Infants of these to become Church-Members upon the Faith and Profeffion of their Parents; jast as it was before in the Cafe of Profelytes: And this very Sense the Word and doth well bear, for it fignifies to make Disciples, as well as to teach; and, as I have before proved, that Children are Difciples, fo it is clear that our Saviour himself chofe Difciples before he had taught them, and that Scholars are admitted, not because they have learned, but that they may learn. And this is in Answer to that Objection.

Fourthly, It may be again objected, That Baptifm is an engaging Sign: But how can Infants covenant and engage with God?

To this I answer, First, That certainly our Children are as much capacitated to enter into Covenant with God, as were the Children of the Jews; and that Cir J. cumcifion

T

cumcifion was as much an engaging Seal of the Covenant as now Baptifm is. If therefore they condemn Infant Baptifm, because Infants cannot enter into Covenant with God, they do but thereby pretend to be wiser than God, and tell him he may poffibly be a Lofer by transacting with those, who perhaps hereafter may plead Nonage, and that they could not be obliged by any Thing tranfacted in their Minority.

But, Secondly, I answer, It is true that Baptifm is an engaging Sign between God and the Baptized, whereby they enter into Covenant with God, and He with them: But though they cannot perfonally vow nor ftipulate, yet they may have Sponsors and Sureties to undertake this for them. For Parents, and those who are appointed by Parents, have certainly a Right to bind and engage Children in this Baptifmal Covenant. It is but a natural Right they have over them to bind them to the Terms of any Covenant and Agreement, efpecially fuch as fhall be for their Benefit and Advantage. I shewed you before out of Dent. 29. 10, II, 12, 13. that they were to enter their Children into Covenant as well as themfelves. And though it be the Custom of our Church for those who are not the Pa

rents to engage for the Child, yet their Stipulation is in this Cafe valid and obligatory; because they are hereunto appointed by their Parents, who have a natural Right over their Children, and make these their Representatives.

But fome will fay, and it is commonly objected, but not more commonly, than very ignorantly, that thefe Sureties promife more than they can perform. They promife, that the Child prefented to Baptifm shall for fake the Devil and all his Works, and renounce the Pomps and Vanities of this World, and continue Chrift's faithful Soldier and Servant unto its Life's End. But this is not in their Power to effect.

To this I anfwer, It is not they that promife thefe Things for themselves, neither indeed do they promife that the Child fhall do them; but it is the Child that promifeth thefe Things by them. It is not their Duty, by Vertue of that Promife, but his. Indeed, they ought to contribute their beft Help and Affiftance hereunto, and that is all that is incumbent on them: Which, if they have done, and the Child prove notoriously wicked, they have not thereby broken any Covenant, but only he himself; for in entering into thofe Holy Engagements they bore the Perfon of the Infant, and their Stipulation