The order of the Gospel, professed and practised by the churches of Christ in…

Answ. If the Question were only whether all Children Adopted by Believing Parents might not be Baptised, we should not oppose. For this is granted not only by the generality of Protestant Divines, but Eminent Writers of the Congregational Persuasion, particularly Dr. Ames, and Mr. Cotton, are for the Affirmative. But as the Question is worded, we defend the Negative. And say, that all such persons as are Comprehended in the Question, have not a right to Baptism, consequently it would be a Profanation of the Holy Institution of Christ to Administer Baptism to them. For,

Answ. If the Question were only whether all Children Adopted by Believing Parents might not be Baptised, we should not oppose. For this is granted not only by the generality of Protestant Divines, but Eminent Writers of the Congregational Perswasion, particularly Dr. Ames, and Mr. Cotton, are for the Affirmative. But as the Question is worded, we defend the Negative. And say, that all such persons as are Comprehended in the Question, have not a right to Baptism, consequently it would be a Profanation of the Holy Insti•ution of Christ to Administer Baptism to them. For,

1. Papists, Socinians and other Heretics are Professed Christians. But their Children ought not to be Baptised. For that is to declare their Religion to be the true Religion. When the Children of Israel were Baptised unto Moses in the Cloud, it was thereby signified that the Religion taught by Moses, was the true Religion. 1 Cor. 10 2. But Papists have corrupted the very Essentials of the true Christian Religion, not by one but by many Heresies by them maintained, besides their Idolatry. Nor does it follow, ⟨p. 55⟩that if the Children of Papists had no right to Baptism, that then their Baptism was a Nullity and must be Iterated. For they baptise in the same Name, and use the same outward Element (though with Superstitio•s Additions of their own) which is of Divine Institution; in which respects although Fieri non debuit, factum valet. Now if the Children of Papists notwithstanding their being Professed Christians, have no right to Baptism, if any such should engage to see a Child Educated in the Christian Religion, that could not Entitle him to this Sacred Ordinance. Who can believe that if a Papist will undertake to be the God-Father of the Spurious Children of Negroes or Indians, then those Children ought to be Baptised? But they ought to be so, if this be a true Position, That Baptism ought to be Administered to all Children whom any Professed Christian shall engage to see Educated in the Christian Religions Our first Reformers were large enough in their Principles and Practice as to the Subject of Baptism Nevertheless, they taught that the Children of Papists had no right to Baptism. So