Presumption no Proof OR Mr. PETTO's ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM Considered and Answered AND Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace without Baptism asserted and maintained Whereunto is prefixed An ANSWER to two QUESTIONS propounded by Mr. Firmin about Infants Church-membership and Baptism By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Earth also is defiled under the Inhabitants thereof because they have transgressed the Laws changed the Ordinance broken the everlasting Covenant Isa 24. 5. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you 1 Cor. 11. 2. London Printed in the Year 1687. To the READER IT appears by Mr. Pett's Epistle to the Reader that he took hold of a very slight occasion to write against the Baptized Believers it was because one without acquainting him with it came over to their Communion I could wish he had been more patient under so small a trial and thereby saved me this labour which whether it will end here I know not that may be as he pleases I hold it no convenient time for Dissenters to write one against another Friendly Conferences might do much better But I have found Men of Mr. Pett's Principles very averse to that when it has been offered I have not answered each particular Page in Mr. Pett's Book for that one and the same thing is very often repeated I have chiefly dealt with his two main Arguments on which his whole Discourse depends What he says about the mode of Sprinkling I have not meddled with nor is it needful For we see that generally such as are seriously convinced of their Duty in the case of Baptism will not if they might receive it but in the way of Immersion They are presently apprehensive that no way can be so safe for them as to follow Christ himself who it's certain was baptised so For it is granted by the Learned that Mark 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be truly read And was dipped of John into Jordan This account of our Saviour's Baptism is sufficient to decide this Controversy about the manner of Baptism if the highest and most perfect Example that ever was be of any force at all What I have offered on behalf of Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace may perhaps seem too full of Charity in the Judgment of Mr. Petto and some others But if that offend thee do but consider from whom this Doctrine of Infants Damnation has proceeded it 's either of God or Man. I have searched the Scriptures but could never find his Word that is Truth it self declare such a dreadful Sentence against any one Infant much less that the greatest part of dying Infants are damn'd Could Men be satisfied of the certainty of the Salvation of their dying Infants the Controversy about baptising them would come to an End for as far as I could ever learn it came into the World upon this Mistake that they could not be sav'd without it And tho Mr. Petto seems to dislike Cyprian's Judgment herein yet what does he say less himself in p. 1. where he insinuates that those who deny the Baptism of Infants exclude millions out of the great Charter of Heaven But this may perhaps be found their Fault who exclude all but the Infants of such as they count Believers when the reckoning comes to be truly stated I never saw Mr. Firmin 's Book till I had answered Mr. Petto And at the request of some as also for that his Questions may seem to be serious and considerable I thought it needful to give a serious and Christian Answer to them which I hope I have done And as I must commend Christians in their Enquiry what Evidence of God's Love we have concerning Infants and therein be an Enquirer as much as any having Children of my own so I think it needful to caution my self and others that we set not up our own Devices for such Evidences lest our Hope be thereby lessened seeing our imposing that upon Infants which God has not required at our hands is no sign of his Love to them at all Tho. Grantham The PREFACE Containing Brief Answers to two Questions propounded by Mr. Giles Firmin in his Book called The Plea of the Children of believing Parents BEcause Mr. Firmin's Questions bear date four years before Mr. Petto's Arguments I will give them Precedence in my answering them Their Books are much of one quality save that Mr. Firmin's abounds with more unhandsom Reflections upon many in which kind of dealing it were easy to give Retaliation but that is not commendable What he writes against Mr. Danvers I leave to him to vindicate himself as he has done against others and that very well either by justifying his Authorities or rectifying such Over-fights as might easily befal the most accurate Writer in such a multitude of Quotations and which I am persuaded would much satisfy Mr. Firmin himself would he impartially read the Controversies Mr. Firmin being a wiser Man than to engage closely in the Question about the Divine Authority for Infant-Baptism maintains his Fight at a great distance save that he plays a little with some Arguments rather of other Mens devising than his own He at last comprehends the whole strength of his Discourse in two Questions and ONLY desires some Answer to them from those whom he is pleased constantly to call Anabaptists I know no such Creature yet I know that he means those Christians who according to God's Word Heb. 6. 1 2. make Baptism the third not the first Principle of Christ's Doctrine In which order the first and best of Gospel-Churches received it even that which was founded by Christ himself in the exercise of his Ministry and which is therefore the Mother of all Churches Christian in which Church consisting of believing Jews their Children had as clear an Interest in the Covenant of Grace as any can pretend to and as great Priviledges in the Church Christian as was or is needful for any and yet whoever reads the Plantation and Progress of that Church or the Epistle which was written to them on the occasion of some Decays which afterward befel them shall never find so much as one Infant baptised in that Church nor indeed in any other during the Apostles Days which Consideration alone is enough to cause a modest Enquirer to question the Legality of Infant-Baptism Mr. Firmin has got Infant-Baptism into a very little Corner it belongs only to Children of believing Parents in an Independent or Presbyterian Sense so that a great Part of the World called Christendom will have no Right to it And he makes it very insignificant to a great number of these two for pag. 33. he does not make God to be INDEED their God till with his Call he gives them Faith to answer his Call. And this is the reason I suppose why they deny these so pretendedly holy Infants whom they sprinkle any Priviledg in their Church at the Lord's Table till
are Abraham 's Seed and hence he would infer their Baptism He has many Words and very often repeated the substance of all has I think already been answered however seeing he talks here of a threefold Seed of Abraham under the Titles of Natural Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Seed I will seriously consider the Scriptures which he brings to prove Infants to be the Ecclesiastical Seed of Abraham For the Scriptures which he brings to describe the Spiritual Seed of Abraham speaks not one word of Infants Gal. 3. 8 9. shews that God would justify the Heathen through Faith and concludes thus So then they which be of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham This is not spoken of Infants yet they shall be blessed The Texts he brings to prove Infants to be the Ecclesiastical Seed of Abraham are many first Matth. 25. 1 2. where the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to wise and foolish Virgins but I suppose no wise Man takes Infants to be of either sort for they are neither wise nor foolish but they are innocent Two Texts more we have Rom. 11. 20. John 15. 6. where we learn that the Jews were broken off for Vnbelief and the Gentiles stood by Faith that some Branches in Christ not bearing Fruit are taken away and those which bear Fruit are purged to bring forth more Fruit But what all this is to Infants no Man can tell He quotes these over again and with them Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10. 13 14. Luke 18. 15. Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Rev. 1. 12 13 20. Now he that from these Texts would prove Infants to be Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed must prove that in the three first Texts the Word Kingdom must needs signify the Church-militant and that Christ admitted these Infants into the Church by Baptism or else that they have Authority to do more than Christ himself did For if these very Infants were not baptised they must have very great Confidence that can pretend from hence to find ground to baptise others The next Christ tells Peter that he would build his Church upon a Rock But must all that are saved be Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed Sure some Infants may be saved who were never baptised for all this Rom. 16. 16. bids Christians salute one another with an holy Kiss and tells them also that the Church of Christ salutes them I see nothing from hence to prove Infants visibly Christ's so as to be Abraham 's Seed sure his Proposition will fail of Proof The Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 27. tells the Corinthians that they were the Body of Christ and Members in particular But not one word to prove that there was one Infant of this Communion Yet all Members of that one Body were partakers of that one Bread in which their Unity was demonstrated Rev. 1. 12 13 14. only describes the Vision that John saw of the Son of God and the seven Golden Candlesticks But no Man can yet find in any of these Candlesticks so much as one Infant concern'd bearing up the light of Truth in the profession of the Gospel Now for his Argument I would know the meaning of this Speech Some Infants are visibly Christ's If he means some Infants only are Christ's by Redemption how can he possibly know the Redeemed from the Damned for so they are supposed to be in this Mans destiny The work of Redemption is visible because God's Word tells us who Christ died for and that is for every Man Heb. 2. 9. and here Infants are equally Christ's visibly But so long as Mr. Petto thinks that Christ died but for some Infants only and those very few in comparison of the whole he cannot name one for whom Christ died it being impossible for them to give any Demonstration by which he may know such a thing and therefore he can have but small comfort in baptizing any of them if indeed it were lawful to baptize some Infants as he supposes Nay were he as sure that Christ died for some particular Infants as I am that he died for them all yet would it not follow that they are Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed so as to be baptized for Christ knew that the Infants whom he took in his Arms were his and yet he did no such thing to them and I shall never think Mr. P. wiser than our Saviour nor so kind to poor Infants as he was Mr. Petto argues thus Some Infants are visibly of the Faith and so are Abraham's Seed Here I deny the Antecedent I say no Infants are visibly of the Faith. And Mr. P. tells me in this very place That he does not say that Faith semenal and habitual or actual is in all Infants baptized for then saith he all of them must be saved which they are not or else they might lose that special Faith But they are invisibly invested in the Covenant or Promise which is the Word of Faith and may bear that Name c. I answer Here are two kinds of Faith which the Scripture knows nothing of i. e. seminal and habitual However I perceive he knows not one Infant that has any of these kinds of Faith he therefore has found out a fourth and that is a reputative Faith or a thing which he says may bear that name Sure these are meer Dreams and Fancies and so let them go Actual Faith Infants have none and this is all the Faith that Man can make Judgment of by God's Word He does indeed grant all Infants which are baptized have not this Faith and if he dare affirm it â—f any of them all the Experience of the World will confute him and so he has lost his Argument as a meer Story without Truth and against all Experience For seeing Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God he cannot without a Miracle shew any Infant to be visibly in the Faith for the poor Babe knows not its right hand from its left He might as well say some Infants are visibly in Repentance and I marvel why the Poedobaptists do not insist upon that as well as Faith to entitle their Children to Baptism Mr. Petto tells us If Infants have not Faith for the present yet visibly they are under a Promise of it which Promise Baptism may be a Sign and Seal of it may seal a Doctrine of Faith even where a Principle of it is yet wanting These and what follows are meer Dictates and Presumptions without Proof Yet he brings Deut. 30. 6. where God promises to circumcise the hearts of the Israelites and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord with all the heart and with all the soul But God spake not this to Infants nor as a thing to be done to them in their Infancy for when they should thus be circumcis'd they should be able to know the Lord very well for they should love him then with all the Heart and Soul. Now this Promise is made to all Men upon future Contingencies for God commandeth all
Example of Christ who when little Children were brought to him for Prayer did not refuse but perform it and wills that little Children be brought to him and accordingly we do dedicate our Children to him from the Womb according to our Capacity 2. Little Children are also by this means i. e. of their Parents Conversion under the Blessing of an early Education in the Christian Religion by which means through God's Blessing I have known some who were not sprinkled in Infancy attain to more true Knowledg of Christianity and Experience of the Work of Grace so far as Man may judg at 7 or 8 years of Age than multitudes of those who were sprinkled in their Infancy have attained at the Age of 70 or 80 years 3. Our gracious God by Jesus Christ hath left us an open Declaration that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants in which Declaration he has not excepted so much as one of them This is more than Circumcision and more clear than any thing before declared concerning Infants tho there was evidence of God's Love to them before From all which you may see that God hath left us in the room of Circumcision a far more excellent Testimony of his saving pleasure concerning Infants than that was or any legal Rite whatsoever As for Mr. Baxter's Argument which you borrow 't is answered in what is said to your Questions Howbeit I have more particularly Answered it in my Examination of no less than five hundred Queries gathered by one of his Admirers out of his voluminous Works all which have been redargued by a proportionable number of Anti-Queries in which all his Devices for Poedorantism is in some measure discovered to be but the cunning craftiness of human subtilty or a copious Brain Of whose Books on this Subject and Dr. Hammonds also take thus the Judgment of a Learned Doctor of the Church of England now living I have seen what my learned and worthy Friend Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in defence of Infant Baptism and must confess I do not a little wonder that Men of so great Parts should say so much to so little purpose for I have not yet seen any thing like an Argument for it Dr. Barlows Letter to Mr. Tombs Thus much in Answer to your Questions See more in the last Part. One thing I take special notice of in your Discourse of Infants You tie up the Salvation of all Infants that shall be saved to their having Faith some way yea you say else they must all perish p. 90. And you allow Faith to no more Infants than are elected in your seme of Election The rest of Infants even of believing Parents are reprobate and damned for all the Noise which ye make of their Covenant-Interest Church-Membership Holiness c. Miserable Infants If there be none to plead your cause better than Mr. Firmin has done it 's uncertain whether so much as one of you shall be saved out of a thousand And whilst his Book may cause many weak Readers to think that Circumcision did and that Infant-Baptism doth great things toward their Saltion it 's evident he can believe no such thing himself For if they be elect saved they shall be tho they be not baptised And for those Infants which are reprobated damned they must be tho they be baptised He is so far from making Baptism of Infants to be of that Concernment which you may imagine from some Passages in him that he plainly tells you p. 20. That he does not think that a sound Believer dying without Baptism shall be damned And then how an innocent Infant dying without Baptism should be damned is not easy to be imagined But by his favour if such a Believer had opportunity to be baptised and neglected his Baptism he will hardly pass for a sound Believer in the Day of Judgment because in this thing he believed not his Lord who told him Thus it becomes us to fulfil all Righteousness Mat. 3. 15. Deut. 1. 33. Act. 3. 22 23. And I must in Faithfulness tell Mr. Firmin that such a sound Believer I take him to be for after all the Improvement which he tells us he has made of his Fathers Covenant which would make a well Man sick even to see what pittiful work he makes with it pag. 68 69 70 71. for after all his shifting from Post to Pillar he only gets Stomach to reject the Counsel of God against himself being not baptised with the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins as some of the Learned have done before him Luk. 7. 30. And seeing it is the known Practice of Infant-sprinklers to sprinkle them when they are fast asleep and it is odds but Mr. Firmin was asleep when he was sprinkled and crossed and therein these wonderful things done which he talks of without Scripture or Reason to warrant his Conceits I desire to know of him what Ground any Man hath his Parents or himself to baptise any Person when they are asleep This is no idle Enquiry but calls for the Consideration of all serious Christians In these and the following Pages you will find this to be Mr. Firmin's sense That the Covenant as it concerns Infants hath two Parts the inward and the outward That some Infants have the outward Part who are not concern'd in the inward Part and that the first sort of Infants cannot fall but the rest may and shall fall because they have not seminal Faith and Regeneration but only reputative Faith. And yet sure this was not the Infants Fault for it could not chuse of what Seed it should be produced And what the Seminal Faith is I suppose Mr. Firmin may know as much as those Infants do whom he supposes to have it Dr. Hammond was a great Man for Infant-sprinkling yet he rejects this Fable of Mr. Firmin's For he tells us he must confess that Faith is so necessarily founded in Understanding that he which hath not Vnderstanding cannot have Faith. And Dr. Taylor confesses whether Infants have Faith is a Question to be disputed by those who care not how much they affirm and how little thâ—y prove This damning all Inâ—â—â—â—â— which have not Faith I take to be a very damnable Doctrine because it represents God to be so cruel as to make millions 〈◊〉 Infants on purpose to send them to Hell who could by no means help 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 want of Faith. What Man would kill his new-born Child because it does not call him Father as soon as it is born And shall mortal Man be more just than God shall Man be more righteous than his Maker I am ashamed of the Doctrine of our Presbyterians and Independents which as I am informed teach that Infants are yelling in Hell yea that Infants of a Span long are yelling in Hell. I am also ashamed of Mr. Firmin's Conceit pag. 90. where from Dr. Ames he would have us believe that an Infant is as capable of a passive Reception of
anon and Acts 21. 4 5. This Place informs us That the Disciples told Paul by the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem Is it possible that * Infants who are not mentioned here should be of the number of these Disciples It is true 't is said that the Wives and Children went with Paul to the Sea-shore and kneeled down and prayed But are all Children Infants Or if there were any Infants did they kneel down upon the Sea-shore and pray with Paul And if not to what purpose has he brought these Scriptures 4. He brings a Cloud of other Scriptures in Figures for had he read them his Folly would have been seen with more ease Let us hear what these Scriptures say 1 Pet. 1. 15. As he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy What must these Places prove I will set down your own Words As to the Name of the Trinity that of being holy is attributed often to Father Son and Holy Spirit And this very Name of the Lord holy he hath imposed upon the Children of Believers But what a wretched Consequence is here as if it would follow that all for whom Christ offered up himself or for whom he was God's High-Priest has thereupon the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit on them Why according to this Logick Saul had the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon him when he persecuted all that called on that Name And the Scripture is very plain that whilst we were Enemies Christ died for us but we had not then the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit imposed on us And how follows it that because Christians are exhorted to be holy in all manner of Conversation that therefore Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Might not a Man by this kind of reasoning prove that all the Infants in the World have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them I am sure that God is the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and that all Nations are in respect of his gracious Providence his People and Sheep of his Pasture and exhorted to enter into his Ways with Praise and Thanksgiving Psal 100. The Places you bring from the Epistle to the Ephesians cap. 1. 13. and 4. 30. informs us that after Men believed they were sealed with the Holy Spirit this shews these Persons were no Infants Rom. 11. 16. shews that an holy Root has holy Branches 1 Pet. 2. 9. tells us Christians are a chosen Generation a royal Priest-hood a holy Nation a peculiar People that you should shew forth the Praises of him that hath called you out of Darkness into his marvellous Light. As for Rom. 11. 16. it evidently refers to the great things which God will do when he calls the Jews which were cast off and so it little concerns our Question otherwise it were easy to shew that at that time how holy soever Abraham had been yet his Children were prophane enough But Mr. Petto's Drift is to make Men believe that each of them whom he calls Believers are as holy a Root in respect of conferring Church-Priviledges as Abraham was and so their Children must needs be holy for Baptism But this is a very unlawful consequence seeing Abraham never did nor ever can confer that Holiness upon so much as one of his Offspring which shall entitle them to Baptism because every particular Person 's Repentance and Faith is required as the true Antecedents to Baptism as is granted by the Church of England in her Catechism But how well she keeps to her Doctrine therein admits of consideration Upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. you teach that Infants are holy by separation to God and his Service But Sir can you tell us what Service of God Infants are fit for If other Men may judg as well as you then as they are not able to serve God in spiritual things so God requires it not of them whilst Infants But so strangely are you transported here that you tell us from Mr. Cotton That Sin it self is sanctified to Believers This is another Strain of new Doctrine and will it not follow from your Doctrine that Sin hath the Name of Father Son and holy Spirit upon it Let Mr. Cotton look to it You must have a care how you take up such Notions You will by no means admit the Holiness here mentioned to be meant of a Matrimonial or Legitimate Holiness And yet I pray what Sanctification of the Unbeliever can that be but Matrimonial so as the believing Husband and the unbelieving Wife might cohabit together as Husband and Wife without Sin The Childrens Holiness is derived from this Sanctification of the Unbeliever as the Word else being rightly referred does shew it doth This Holiness therefore in true Construction of the place is most fitly interpreted as Erasmus doth expound it of Legitimacy and so did the eminent Man Augustine of Hippo long before Erasmus take the sence for he tells us whatsoever that Holiness is it is certain it is not of Power to make Christians or remit Sins 5. The Figures which you give us out of the Old Testament are Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Exod. 16. 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. 2. and 26. 19. and 28. 9. All which do shew That God was the Lord that Israel should know that he is the Lord that he is a holy God and that they should be a holy People But what is all this to your purpose God spake not these things to Infants he tells us so himself Deut. 11. 2. And know you this day for I speak not with your Children which have not known and which have not seen the Chastisement of the Lord your God his Greatness his mighty Hand and stretch'd out Arm c. ver 7. but your Eyes have seen c. Therefore ye shall keep all the Commandments c. Sure you have not proved your Argument by any thing you have yet brought for that purpose For By all that you have said it appears not that some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Nor are you able to name so much as one such Infant now in being and consequently you can with no shew of Reason baptise them I consider again Who must do this previous Work to Infant-Baptism Must the same Minister do both And what Order have you to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost upon Infants twice once before you sprinkle them and then again when you sprinkle them There is one thing remarkable from your self and others in these later times who espouse this Controversy You all seem to be convinced that none are to be baptised but Disciples according to Matth. 28. 19. and indeed the Text is so very clear to that purpose that it cannot be
denied But when I behold the miserable Shifts you are put to to prove Infants Disciples according to Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19. I do with the greatest Admiration bewail your Unhappiness and cannot tell how to imagine that any wise Men among you does really believe your selves in what you say on that account And sure I am the Papists have as strong a pretence from Hoc est Corpus meum for their Transubstantiation as you have from Matheteusaté for Infant-Discipleship And to speak freely they are both incredible things all Sense and Experience militates equally against both Opinions If they be Truths it must be because they are both Miracles but then they want the Character of true Miracles for they are no ways demonstrable that there is any Miracle at all in either of them we are only told that they are so i. e. that the Bread in the Eucharist is Real Flesh That the Child in your Rantism is born again of Water and Spirit made a Disciple of Christ c. but no mortal Man knows any of these things to be true And what is it that we may not believe if we must believe such things as these Prayer for the Dead Purgatory fire c. will come upon us armed with our own Arguments if we admit the former And to conclude as to your first Argument Give me leave to say if your Hearers can receive your Dictates and ill-prov'd Affirmations I know not but they may believe you in whatsoever you will be pleased to tell them What you say of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism I shall here consider in few words for since you insist only upon Cyprian's Testimony whose Grounds for Infant-Baptism you confess to be unsound I need say little here that which was built upon bad Principles then by him and stands upon as unsound ones now by you does gain nothing by either of you But will you know that it is plainly granted by some of the most Learned of your way That there is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism Here it wants the best Antiquity nor any just Evidence for it for about two hundred Years after Christ. Yet it came in upon a gross Mistake of the Scripture that in what Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond has said for it there is nothing that looks like an Argument Dr. Barlow This is enough at present PART II. Wherein is considered Mr. Petto's second Argument which he delivers in these Words If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham then by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized BEfore I answer this Argument I shall consider a few things And 1. That as Mr. Petto grants God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham twenty four years before he gave him the Covenant of Circumcision see Gen. 12. 1 2 3 4. with 17. 24. so that the Covenant of Grace had no external Sign as it was made with Abraham Gen. 12. But when God was pleased to add to this Covenant the Promise of the Land of Canaan c. then it was that he gave him the Law of Circumcision and these additional Parts I take to be most properly if not only that which is the Covenant of Circumcision 2. It is to be understood that Abraham was not the only Person in the World which was under the Covenant of Grace at this time when God made Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 'T is observed by some that Salah lived after the Covenant of Circumcision was made about 50 years Arphaxad lived thirteen years after and that Heber lived till Jacob was about twenty years old which was long after Abraham died Now these with Melchisedeck if he were not one of these with many others amongst whom was just Lot were not only true Worshippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace but some of them superiour to Abraham himself for Melchisedeck blessed Abraham being the King of Salem and Priest of the most high God. 3. And as neither these nor their Posterity were liable to any loss of the Covenant of Grace by their not being circumcised after the manner of Abraham so neither Job nor other worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh had any obligation to Circumcision from whence it must needs follow that God intended not the sign of Circumcision to belong to Persons as they were in the Covenant of Grace but that it was appropriate for some great Ends respecting a special preservation to the Family of Abraham as of the Kindred from whom Christ should proceed and with whom he would presence himself in a Land of Promise by a distinct way of Worship from all Nations who at that time were falling very fast into Idolatry 4. And besides this it is certain that this Sign of Circumcision was by God's Appointment to be affixed to some to whom the Covenant of Grace might seem to have the least extent or at least they did forfeit all Interest in it this was the case of Ishmael and Esau who proved very wicked and it is to be questioned whether the Bondmen or Slaves in Israel had that Ceremony as a Badge of the Covenant of Grace Men may talk high of these things and prove little or whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any Person in the World save to Abraham And in what sence it was so to him who had so many things peculiar to him is not easy to be demonstrated 5. Our Practice in Religious Institutes is not to be gathered from such uncertain Conjectures but to stand upon the clear Direction of the Instituter or the Practice of such as God hath thought fit to make Precedents to us and it is certain we are not at all concerned in the Law of Circumcision and for us to take our Rules thence for the Subjects of Baptism is very childish and reflects Dishonour upon Christ and his Apostles who never sent us to learn Infant-Baptism from Infant-Circumcision nor indeed have they taught it at all These things premised I answer to the Argument by these ensuing Distinctions 1. If by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumcision as he does for he quotes Gen. 7. 9 10 11. to prove his Assumption and by some Infants he means the Infants of Christians as such as that is his meaning then I deny his Minor. 2. Or if by Covenant he mean that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. distinct from the Covenant of Circumcision and by some Infants being in this Covenant externally he means Infants are concerned in the outward Profession or Practice of Worship still I deny the Minor for God by that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. never required the Performance of such Duties of Infants 3. If by Covenant he mean the gracious Pardon of
be damned Our Saviour saith it is not the Will of his Heavenly Father that so much as one of these little Ones should perish which is as true of Infants as of any Persons in the World. Object II. The Overthrow of both these Generations in the old World is a strange Medium to prove the Salvation of all Infants by Answ The meer destroying of the Infants of those who were called the Sons of God as well as the Infants of others Gen. 6. and 7. I do not say is any Evidence of God's saving any of them But this is that which I say it shews them to be in one State or Predicament And how shall any Man prove the Salvation of so much as of any one of them better than I shall prove the Salvation of them all And shall we suffer it to enter into our Hearts that God sent them all to be damned in Hell By no means When therefore we read 2 Pet. 2. 5. That God brought the Floud upon the World of the Vngodly and Jude 7. 't is said of those who suffered the Vengeance of eternal Fire that they were given over to Fornication and went after strange Flesh May we not perceive some Light which may guide us to believe that God did not plead in such Wrath against the Infant-seed as he did against the wicked themselves And though it is true God suffered the Infants to die with the wicked Parents yet that is no Argument of God's condemning them to Hell. For did not the same God suffer his Servant Sampson to die with the Fall of the Theatre among the wicked Philistines And we see the righteous often taken away by the same common Calamities which have befallen Nations and Cities Let us remember how tender the Lord was of the Infants of Nineveh and that may convince us that the same gracious God could not be cruel to the Infants of the old World and he that made those little ones an Argument to justify his sparing sinful Nineveh against the murmuring of Jonah would certainly make that an Argument for us to believe that had his Judgments proceeded against that City according to the Prophesy of Jonah yet he would have distinguished between the Innocent and the Nocent in respect of future Punishment and Mercy For it was not the Sin of the Infants which cryed to Heaven for Vengeance but of the grown Persons When we consider how hardly Almighty God was drawn to inflict those Judgments upon Mens Bodies in the old World and in Sodom Gen. 18. and frequently where we read of the Execution of his Judgments it might justly seem very strange that Men should think that God can be so easily provoked to damn Infants to Hell For him I say to damn poor Infants to Eternal Fire who was so unwilling to inflict on the Babes in Nineveh so much as a Temporal Judgment nay he is unwilling to destroy the very Cattel for Mans Sin Jonah 4. which are only capable to suffer a short of Death And can it become any Christian to think that God will send Millions of poor dying Infants to Hell Pray what have they done so highly to stirr up his Wrath against them let any Man shew a Reason for it if he can Object III. To the Text Rom. 5. the Free-Gift abounded towards all Men to Justification of Life This all must be restrained to all in Christ Answ But by your Favour there are none so out of Christ in Infancy but that God hath Mercy for them in Christ John 1. 29. so that here is no Restraint to the Justification here spoken of till Men abuse this Mercy of God by sinning against their own Souls Nor can your Restriction which I suppose would limit this Free-Gift to the Elect only hold any Agreement with the Scope of the Place For seeing all Mankind are personated as well in the second as in the first Adam you can no more exclude any from the Justification of Life as having abounded towards them by Christ than you can exclude them from the Condemnation which abounded towards them by Adam For tell me how many came under Condemnation by the Sin of Adam Is there any one or any Infant that can plead Impunity Why even so saith the Apostle the Free-Gift abounded towards all Men to Justification of Life And may we not safely conclude that had Mankind never been guilty of any other Sin but that of Adam's I say upon a Supposition that Adam's Posterity from the time of the Promise Gen. 3. 15. had lived holily and done no Iniquity would you not conclude with me that none should have perished in Hell-Torments And if you grant this then we must either find some Man SO concerned in the Covenant of Grace AS that if he sinned against this Covenant his Posterity is damned with him eternally as all Adam's Posterity was exposed to Condemnation for his Sin or else we must hold that no Infant shall die eternally for Adam's nor for any other Persons Iniquity If you name any Man thus concerned in the Covenant of Grace you can name none so apt for the purpose as Adam seeing we were all in him when the Covenant was made with him and there is no doubt but that he sinned after the Covenant was made Gen. 3. 15. yet where do we find any Sin which he afterward committed imputed to any Part of his Posterity And seeing we cannot prove an universal Resurrection from 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. unless Mankind be equally concerned in the Death of Christ we must necessarily believe whole Mankind to be interessed in him and as interessed in him they are in a saneable State from that Wrath which lay against them by reason of the Sin of Adam So then Infants being justified from the Guilt of Adam's Transgression by Christ the Lamb of God who shall lay any thing to the Charge of poor Infants that may justly cast them into Hell-fire Sure it is but meet that Men should be able plainly to convict them before they thus condemn them Yea you that hold the eternal Damnation of Infants ought you not to bring substantial proof for so dreadful a Doctrine And when you have done your worst that way you have only destroyed your own Hope concerning your own dying Infants For I am perswaded you are not so unwise to think whatever you make others believe that your Infants are saved because of your pretended Church-membership and Baptism Nay Mr. Petto plainly tells us that all Infants that are baptised are not saved as I have shewed above And it is impossible without a Miracle for him to know this or that any one of them is saved unless he comes on this Foundation that none of them shall perish Object IV. To assert the Salvation of all dying Infants seems to imply that God's destroying the old World and Sodom c. were eminent Acts of God's Mercy rather than of Justice c. help me over this Difficulty Answ Although it
therefore the Saviour of all Men. Indeed Abraham and so all Believers have many things in special or peculiar Blessings as a People engaged in the Duties of Religion Whilst Unbelievers are under a wrathful Sentence because they neglect so great Salvation But all this concerns not dying Infants who neglect not this Salvation and so forfeit not their Right to that common Salvation obtained by Christ for Mankind In Gal. 3. 14. the Apostle speaks of the Promise of the Spirit which as it concerns the Church under the Gospel-frame does not concern Infants It being understood of a greater measure of Wisdom and Power to walk in the Paths of Righteousness than was ordinary under the former Testament 2 Tim. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 2 3 5 7. Gal. 5. 25. Nor can you with any shew of Reason say that I make the Salvation of Infants run in a fleshly Line seeing I derive it only from the free Grace of God manifested in the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World to take away the Sin of the World. Nor do I consider Adam in a State of Nature but as under a Covenant of Grace from whom the second Adam must in time proceed as touching his Flesh and therefore his Descent is reckoned from him Luk. 3. 23. to the end In this second Adam the Repairer of Mankind do I place the Salvation of all Men. And of the Infant-Race I say their Title to this Grace is not tyed to Man's Will to sin them out of it at their Pleasure nor can the Devil himself deprive them of this Grace of Life And therefore they being thus written in the Book of Life and not being under the Sentence of the Book of Conscience they cannot be hurt of the second Death To what you say about God's putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own Hand I say that though he put the Salvation of no Creature out of his own Hand according to my Opinion yet when he stretched forth his Hand to Gain-sayers as Rom. 10. and gives them the Word of Life and they put it from them Act. 13. 46. Then Men may truly be said to have a Prize in their Hands and to put it from them even the Salvation of their Souls And then I pray consider that if their putting Salvation from themselves be equally or really a putting it from their Infants as that must be your Opinion or else we differ not then I say according to your Opinion God suffers Men to damn poor Infants whom he would save Seeing according to your Doctrine had the Parents believed their Infants had been in the Covenant of Grace But now for their Fathers Sin for what you say of their own contracted is but a Fable they are left by you in the Kingdom of the Devil to suffer with the Devil and his Angels for ever Now this dreadful Doctrine can never be proved by the Scriptures though some have assayed to do it I find indeed Dr. Fulk saying That Calvin holdeth all Infants under the Sentence of Eternal Damnation only he admits that such Infants as are Elect and born again by the Spirit of God may be saved But I find no Proof that any Infant dying so is reprobate to Eternal Damnation The Scripture says no such thing Indeed Diodate would have us believe that God cast Esau even before he was born out of his Love as a Father But here is no Proof For if we should admit his Gloss upon Rom. 9. 13. yet we are to consider that God knew what Esau would be in time and did here foreshew what in time should be done concerning him Esau lived to be a Man and a very sinful Man. God knew all this before Esau is not to be ranked with dying Infants therefore the Instance of Esau is nothing to the purpose And this Instance failing as it evidently doth I am sure there is not the least shew of Proof in the Scripture for the Damnation of Dying Infants And therefore no Man ought to believe such strange Doctrine nor trouble the World nor Church of God with it When our Saviour denounces the dreadful Sentence of Hell's Damnation he directs his Speech to Hypocrites and grievous Sinners But he has better things in store for poor Infants testifying that to them belongs the Kingdom of God. In his gracious Arms therefore we shall leave all dying Infants for the obtaining that Blessing of Life without which they are more wretched than the fallen Angels for they had once a blessed state but proudly fell from it But here it is poor Infants are above these Angels Infants have a Redeemer but the fallen Angels have none Glory to God in the Highest for his free Grace towards all Dying Infants and let all good Christians say Amen FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Offspring of Growth or Stature but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Infant * Manual of Contro p. 372 to 377. S. n. Antid