But was not the same pretence mainly made use of for the introducing Infant Baptism, viz. Charity to the Children's Souls, whom they judged in a state of Damnation without it, and certainly of the two, the introducers of Paedo-Baptism are more excusable than the bringers in of this Opinion, because, although they mist the Right Subject of Baptism, and attributed too much to it, yet they kept up a Practise of that name in its due Rank and Order in the Church, whereas these, on the other hand dispense with the total neglect of Baptism, since Baptism in Infancy is by them held for no Baptism for unanswerable Reasons, as for instance. In Baptism the Covenant struck between God and us implies, especially the consent of parties, but by Infant Baptism the Infant is not bound, for he consented not. Again, consent must be expressed, ⟨p. 77⟩but the Child wants the just ripeness and formation of Organs inward and outward for such expressions, and so cannot will it, because he cannot understand it, nor can he express that which within him he hath not: Nor can he depute others to consent for him, nor is there any Authority for such a Deputation given by God, nor any Instance in the Sacred Records that it was ever Practised. Nor can such as undertake it, perform what they promise for the Child, viz. Faith and Repentance, being the two great Graces of the Gospel, and the sole Gift of God. Besides Christ looks for a Believer, which no Infant can at present be said to be, the want of which, makes the Baptism null, for if there be no Bond, no Covenant, no Obligation in it (as 'tis plain there is not, and they confess it) than there is no Sealing, for a ⟨p. 78⟩Seal serves but to Ratify and Confirm a Bond and Covenant, and as there is no Sealing, so there is no exhibition or conveyance of any thing from Christ, for there are no Pipes to receive it, that is, as an Ordinance, there is no Reason in the use of it, no Faith, no Sense, no Receptive Faculty proportionable to the Ordinance in the manner of Conveying it &c. So that the Conclusion is, that Infant Baptism is as much a nullity as the Marrying or Ordination of Infants, and being really so by the grant of the Favourers of this Opinion:
But was not the same pretence mainly made use of for the introducing Infant Baptism, viz. Charity to the Childrens Souls, whom they judged in a state of Damnation without it, and certainly of the two, the introducers of Paedo-Baptism are more excusable than the bringers in of this Opinion, because, although they mist the Right Subject of Baptism, and attributed too much to it, yet they kept up a Practise of that name in its due Rank and Order in the Church, whereas these, on the other hand dispense with the total neglect of Baptism, since Baptism in Infancy is by them held for no Baptism for unanswerable Reasons, as for instance. In Baptism the Covenant struck between God and us implies, especially the consent of parties, but by Infant Baptism the Infant is not bound, for he consented not. Again, consent must be exprest, ⟨p. 77⟩but the Child wants the just ripeness and formation of Organs inward and outward for such expressions, and so cannot will it, because he cannot understand it, nor can he express that which within him he hath not: Nor can he depute others to consent for him, nor is there any Authority for such a Deputation given by God, nor any Instance in the Sacred Records that it was ever Practised. Nor can such as undertake it, perform what they promise for the Child, viz. Faith and Repentance, being the two great Graces of the Gospel, and the sole Gift of God. Besides Christ looks for a Believer, which no Infant can at present be said to be, the want of which, makes the Baptism null, for if there be no Bond, no Covenant, no Obligation in it (as 'tis plain there is not, and they confess it) than there is no Sealing, for a Seal⟨p. 78⟩serves but to Ratifie and Confirm a Bond and Covenant, and as there is no Sealing, so there is no exhibition or conveyance of any thing from Christ, for there are no Pipes to receive it, that is, as an Ordinance, there is no Reason in the use of it, no Faith, no Sense, no Receptive Faculty proportionable to the Ordinance in the manner of Conveying it &c. So that the Conclusion is, that Infant Baptism is as much a nullity as the Marrying or Ordination of Infants, and being really so by the grant of the Favourers of this Opinion:
