Argum. 10. Hence in the next place, The initial Sacrament which God hath appointed always in his Church for Infants doth fully demonstrate, they have sin in a proper formal sense, viz. Sin to be remitted, and to be abolished. In the Old Testament, every Infant eight days old was to be circumcised, and that Sacrament did plainly declare the sin and corruption that was in them, though so young, for Rom. 4. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness by Faith, which is a Gospel-righteousness by Christ, whereas if they had no sin within, such a Seal would have been ridiculous and absurd; As for Christ, who though he had no sin, yet was circumcised and baptized, that was upon another account, for having voluntarily made himself subject to the Law, it beloved him to fulfil all the Righteousness thereof, but Infants have not that consideration; If then Infants needed a righteousness through faith, this plainly demonstrated they had nothing but sin in themselves. besides, The cutting of the fore skin in the Sacrament of Circumcision, did denote the throwing away of that inherent pollution of their Natures, Deut. 10. 16. Therefore Deut. 30. 6. God promiseth to circumcise their heart, which was to regenerate them, of which Circumcision was a sign. Hence Rom. 2. 28, 29. the Apostle distinguisheth of a Circumcision of the flesh, and a Circumcision of the spirit; If then Infants needed a Circumcision of the Spirit; If they needed that the sinful fore-skin of their heart should be cut off, of which their external Circumcision applied to them, was a Seal, it followeth unquestionably, that they had an universal pollution all over them, before they had committed any actual sin. Thus also for Baptism, an initiating Sacrament in the New Testament, that is to be applied to Infants; For though Anabaptists do now deny it, yet the Pelagians of old, (though so exceedingly pressed by this Argument, That Infants were baptized for Remission of sin, but it could not be actual, therefore it was original, which was in them.) They never dared to deny their Baptism, but ran to other evasions. I take it for a Truth at this time, because so fully proved by those who have writ on this Subject, That Infants are to be baptized;
Argum. 10. Hence in the next place, The initial Sacrament which God hath appointed alwayes in his Church for Infants doth fully demonstrate, they have sinne in a proper formal sense, viz. Sinne to be remitted, and to be abolished. In the Old Testament, every Infant eight dayes old was to be circumcised, and that Sacrament did plainly declare the sinne and corruption that was in them, though so young, for Rom. 4. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness by Faith, which is a Gospel-righteousness by Christ, whereas if they had no sinne within, such a Seal would have been ridiculous and absurd; As for Christ, who though he had no sinne, yet was circumcised and baptized, that was upon another account, for having voluntarily made himself subject to the Law, it beloved him to fulfill all the Righteousness thereof, but Infants have not that consideration; If then Infants needed a righteousness through faith, this plainly demonstrated they had nothing but sinne in themselves. besides, The cutting of the fore skin in the Sacrament of Circumcision, did denote the throwing away of that inherent pollution of their Natures, Deut. 10. 16. Therefore Deut. 30. 6. God promiseth to circumcise their heart, which was to regenerate them, of which Circumcision was a sign. Hence Rom. 2. 28, 29. the Apostle distinguisheth of a Circumcision of the flesh, and a Circumcision of the spirit; If then Infants needed a Circumcision of the Spirit; If they needed that the sinfull fore-skin of their heart should be cut off, of which their external Circumcision applied to them, was a Seal, it followeth unquestionably, that they had an universal pollution all over them, before they had committed any actual sinne. Thus also for Baptism, an initiating Sacrament in the New Testament, that is to be applied to Infants; For though Anabaptists do now deny it, yet the Pelagians of old, (though so exceedingly pressed by this Argument, That Infants were baptized for Remission of sinne, but it could not be actual, therefore it was original, which was in them.) They never dared to deny their Baptism, but ranne to other evasions. I take it for a Truth at this time, because so fully proved by those who have writ on this Subject, That Infants are to be baptized;
