Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	6,329	5	9.5436	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B23662	The controversie about infants church-membership and baptism, epitomized in two treatises the first, shewing the certainty of the salvation of all dying infants, against the doctrine of the Pædo-baptists, who deny salvation to all infants that die unbaptized, either directly, or by the natural consequence of their arguments : the second, being a plain confutation of Mr. J.B. his second book of more than 60 queries, about infants church-membership and baptism, by a proportionable number of antiqueries : being an essay towards a more Christian accomodation between the Pædo-baptists, and the baptized believers, published for that happy end / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.; Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. Querist examined.	1680 (1680)	Wing G1529	50,899	65

THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Infants Church-Membership and BAPTISM Epitomized In two TREATISES The First Shewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants against the Doctrine of the Paedo-Baptists who deny Salvation to all Infants that die Unbaptized either directly or by the natural Consequence of their Arguments The Second Being a plain Confutation of Mr. J. B. his second Book of more than 60 Queries about Infants Church-Membership and Baptism by a proportionable number of Antiqueries Being an Essay towards a more Christian Accommodation between the Paedo-Baptists and the Baptized Believers Published for that happy end By THOMAS GRANTHAM Author of The Querist Examined wherein Fifty Queries gathered and propounded by the said J. B. are Redargued Mr. Baxter tells us in his Saints Rest p. 179. 3 d Edit That in the Primitive Times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the World the Flesh and the Devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey Him LONDON Printed in the Year 1680. To Mr. J. B. Collector of the Queries c. SIR I Shall here requite your Thanks you gave me in your last by returning Thanks to you for your endeavours for Peace among differing Christians and particularly for the terms propounded for an Accommodation and I find the same delivered lately by Mr. Baxter himself for which I return him thanks also For methinks there wants but a little more than is offered towards the obtaining so much Union between the Baptists and Paedo-Baptists as might make them a great Blessing one to another But Sir now give me leave to blame you and Mr. Baxter also for misrepresenting your Friends the Baptized Churches Whilst you in your Epistle and he in his Books do represent us to the World as a People who exclude Infants from Gospel Grace deny them to be capable of Pardon by a gracious Covenant as if we left all Infants in the Kingdom of the Devil took away all Comfort from Parents concerning their dying Infants When yet it is most certain all these things are utterly untrue and it is also certain that our Doctrine concerning dying Infants is far more comfortable than yours as I am persuaded will appear to such as read the ensuing Treatises And I am also persuaded could there be once a free and friendly Debate between the Baptists and Pedo Baptists about Infants interest in the Covenant of Grace and the certainty of their Salvation by Christ without incumbring that Discourse with Baptism it were easie to compose their Difference in that Point Which done it 's hoped might be no impossible thing to accommodate their difference in the case of Baptism it self But whilst these two things are confounded Disputes are Perplexed in so much as that a right understanding can hardly be attained on either side Nor do many Readers understand what Mr. B. means when he would have Infants admitted Members of the Visible Church by the Law of Infants Church-Membership unrepealed any more than they know what is intended on Mr. T 's part by their being taken to be Members by a Transient Fact both passages being too occult for every Reader Sir let me say this farther Could but the Reformed Christians once get over this stumbling-block of Paedo-Rantism and resolve upon the way of Believers Baptism which is so perspicuous in the Scripture and in the mean time take the most solemn way which might be warrantable to dedicate their Infants to God in the Name of Christ It would certainly prove the best Expedient to bring down the Papal Confidence for as they know and acknowledg that usage to stand upon the authority of Tradition and not upon the Scripture Warrant so they glory over the Protestant for his Inconstancy in denying unwritten Tradition and yet their very Baptism hath no other Foundation But were the Doctrine of Baptism purged from this Leven and restored to its Primitive Purity it would find all the Universities of the Papists as much business to defend their Infant Sprinkling as ever they were at to defend their Transubstantiation What you write concerning my Querist Examined I shall take little Notice of especially for that I find it attended with overmuch Levity and at the most is but a kind of Carping at Words rather than a solid Answer and there seems to me an unwillingness in you to understand what you flirt at about the Messenger's Office and about Imposition of Hands which being no Scriptureless Matters as your Paedo-Rantism is requires your more serious thoughts whether you understand or like my Sentiments there or not I am your Real Friend THO. GRANTHAM The Controversie of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism Epitomized The first Treatise shewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants SECTION I. IT is evident by the Writings of many Paedo-Baptists both Papists Prelatists and Presbyterians that they do all either hold absolutely that no Unbaptized Infant can be saved or at least that their Salvation is very doubtful And among these Mr. Baxter and from him Mr. J. B. hath not a little amused the Minds of Men about this Matter Only they have used a more subtle way coupling the Church-Membership of Infants with Baptism confounding thereby the Readers and themselves too they not being able to say which hath the Precedency for if Infants be Church-Members without or before they be Baptized let them say so and let them prove it well I shall be glad to see it done But then let them never say as Mr. J. B. doth in his Epistle and Mr. Baxter in his Books That Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation that Parents can have no comfort of their dying Children Making Baptism the soveraign Antidote against their Griefs and Fears when they are removed in Infancy As will appear more fully in the Examination of the Queries in the second Treatise Now this new art of pleading for Infant-Baptism by virtue of their Church-Membership and not from the Scriptures directly as others have assayed to do but could never perform the Task and therefore have been forced to take sanctuary with the Papists in unwritten Traditions and that with ill success I say considering this new Subtilty of Mr. Baxter I perceived the Controversie to rise very high and Questions thereupon to be greatly multiplied especially upon the Point of Infants Church-Membership Hereupon I thought it needful to consider this Matter for I perceived very good Men engaged on both sides and as I conceive much more straining in the Point than needed by which means the Reader shall sooner fill his Head with amazement than satisfaction in tracing the several windings of their Disputations Nor do I think my self wiser than they but having the advantage to stand and view whilst they engage I hope I have thereby been led to the consideration of a Medium which if duly considered and improved by better Pens than mine will I am much persuaded reconcile the difference about Infants visible

Sun Moon and Stars are Christ's Disciples too for they are called God's Servants Psal 119. 90 91. Rub your Eyes from the mist they have attracted by poring upon Mr. Baxters Fables and know that God will shew all the Mercy to Infants which they have need of as is shew'd before though he give them not all the Mercies which he gives to some and particularly this mercy of Discipleship which they have no need of during Infancy sith they cannot discern between the right Hand and the left But you query still Whether the Infants of the Gentiles were so God s Servants as the Infants of the Jews were And do you not here fairly grant that all Infants are God's Servants though not SO as the Jews Infants were But you will not say that all Infants are Christ's Disciples And then have you not confuted your own Fancy seeing it's plain from your own words that the Title of Servants does not necessarily infer the Title of Disciples And why may not God set more by one Servant and so by one Infant than by another and yet love them all sufficiently and may not this satisfie your demand why God should should grant a Year of Jubilee to the Jews and their Infants when he granted not that Mercy to others Else what will become of all Christians and their Infants for pray Sir when had they such a Jubilee as the Jews were allowed once in Fifty Years And yet I hope we have no cause to murmur against God as if he were not Merciful enough both to us and to our Infants J. B. 3. Are not Infants capable of being Subjects of Christ's Kingdom and is not Christ's Church his Kingdom and his School Are not all Subjects of Christ in his Visible Kingdom or Church Christians And are not Disciples and Christians all one Acts 11. 26 c. T. G. What if we grant that Infants are Subjects of Christ's Visible Kingdom in respect of his Purchase common Protection the Designation of them to his Service on the part of true Christians and in respect of the Blessing of Heaven it self Yet how doth it follow hereupon that they are capable of all the Priviledges of his Visible Kingdom Much less of the Duties of his Subjects And do you not your own selves exclude them during Infancy from all Priviledges and Duties of Religion as much as we do except your supposed Baptism And where do you find that any Infants are called Christians Certes the Text Acts 11. 26. says no such thing I see no ground to call any Infant by the name of its Parents Religion for then the Child of a Papist must be called a Papist the Infant of a Presbyterian must be a Presbyterian the Infant of a Quaker a Quaker c. But is not that saying of Tertullian more rational We are not born saith he but made Christians J B. 4. Whether were not some Infants once to be admitted Members of the Visible Church by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God not yet Repealed T. G. Whether Infants once admission to particular Ordinances in the Church be part of the Moral or Ceremonial Law How could it be a part of the Moral Law seeing it had no being in the World till Abraham's time Was not the Moral Law observed by the Faithful in all Ages When yet there was no such admission of Infants to Ordinances in the Church Seeing then this Admission must be a part of the Ceremonial Law was it not for the time being the merciful Gift of God and was not the whole Ceremonial Law the same And yet whether the taking away of the whole Ceremonial Law was not a Mercy and consequently that Admission of Infants by that Law done away in Mercy also And seeing Infants could then but belong to the Kingdom of Heaven with that painful admission by Circumcision is it not a greater Mercy for them to be declared by Christ to be the Children of God and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven without it Matth. 18. 10. And is not this spoken of little ones indefinitely seeing else it will follow Men may despise some of them but does not our Saviour include them all in this speech That which was lost How then can you exclude any of them when he saith He came to seek and to save that which was lost J. B. 5. Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord that he might establish them to be a People to himself Deut. 29. 1● 11 12. 13. And were not Infants engaged by the Seal of the Covenant Circumcision c. T. G. Whether this Covenant Deut. 29. was not made for many before they were born How then could it be a Covenant for Admission of them to Visible Church-Membership Or dare you say that Infants were by this Covenant obliged to any Act of Obedience in Infancy And how then does it suit your Case Again Do you think it would be lawful by this or any other Law for Christians to enter into a Covenant Oath and a Curse as the Israelites did that our Children should be of our Religion Or are your Infants bound by your Solemn League and Covenant to be for the Presbyterian way of Religion And what ground have we to believe that God will establish our Children for his People as he did promise to the Children of Israel i. e. To be a glorious Nation above all the Nations of the Earth Can you prove that such Promises are made to the Christian Church militant Or doth not Mr. Baxter himself sometimes say all that need be said or can be rightly said on these words Ero Deus tui seminis It sufficeth saith he that God will be to them a God of Mercy Mr. B. Friend Accom p. 361. and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum And we demand whether God did not thus much for all Infants in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace which he confesses is not Vain nor Repealed by God Did he not do all that was necessary to put them into a state of Salvation for the condition of little ones If Infants were engaged by Circumcision as you here observe then they were not Visible Church-Members without it And then doth it not plainly follow that Circumcision being Repealed this their Visible Church-Membership is Repealed also Or will you say they remained in Visible Church-Membership without an Ordinance and so destroy your Master-piece in one Member of it And let that Typical Membership be accounted as it was a merciful Gift yet when the Antitype made that Type null it was a great mercy that it ceased nor shall we fail of proof in this case 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. cum multis aliis J. B. 6. Dare any of you say that God hath Repealed Infants Church-Membership to their hurt in Justice Or can you say it is in Mercy for their good How can it be a

Church-Membership And yet I do not at all doubt that Infant-Baptism will remain without any ground at all SECT II. And this I shall demonstrate by shewing That all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Vniversal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed state till by their voluntary departure from God by choosing sinful ways they destroy themselves And here we will make our entrance by a passage out of Mr. Baxter himself who saith All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace which is not vain nor repealed by God But as their abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out For as a Covenant of intire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam Mr. Baxter's more Reasons pag. 8. 6. so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah Now this Doctrine being no more than plain truth we shall apply it to the case in hand by shewing First That this Covenant of Grace was a visible Church-Covenant 2. That it was made with all Mankind and takes place in their Infancy 3. That it was never repealed by God 4. That no Infant did ever abuse the Grace of this Covenant And therefore no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant And then fifthly They all stand visible Members of the Catholick Church by virtue of this Covenant however their Parents do abuse or neglect it and hence it will follow no dying Infant is Damned but are all in a visible state of Salvation 1. That this Covenant of Grace first expressed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant or else there was no Church-Covenant in the World that we read of from Adam to Noah this being indeed all the Covenant that is named during these Times besides that Covenant of Intire Nature made before the Fall And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam and in him by all his Posterity it being not a Covenant of Grace could not justifie the Offenders in the ●ight of God There must therefore be some supervening Act of Grace or Mercy from God else Adam even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins must have stood under Condemnation for ever seeing no Man could by any means redeem his Brother nor give to God a Ransom for him It is the received Doctrine of Christians that the Visible Church began in Adam and that his Family was the Church wherefore the whole World being then the Church and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World that was to proceed from Adam and this Covenant yet remaining it follows against all contradiction that whole Mankind considered as they come into the World in all the several Ages of it are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Catholick Church of God But whereas many did Apostatize from the Grace of God's Covenant by corrupting his way Gen. 6. 12. It was necessary that they should be ejected and therefore was the Covenant accommodated and appropriated to those who had not sinned themselves out of it but still the Innocent must not be ejected with the Nocent for it is he only that sinneth whose Name shall be blotted out of the Book which God hath written Gen. 32. 32 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in settling the Covenant of his Grace nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham was exclusive of any Infant in the World as to the Grace of God in order to Eternal Life no more than the establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel in a far more excellent order for distinguishing the Precious from the Vile is in any wise exclusive of any dying Infant for of such is the Kingdom of God Nor can any Man shew either by Scripture or Reason that God will shut out all the dying Infants of wicked Men from Life and Salvation by Christ no nor so much as any one of them for we are sure that the Judgment of God is according to truth that the Judge of all the Earth will do right That the Condemned shall be judged according to the deeds done in the Body but alas as for poor Infants what have they done 2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind is thus cleared because it was made with Adam without the least intimation of the exclusion of any part of his Posterity as they proceed from him to the end of the World neither hath God himself explained the Covenant of Grace to be Exclusive of any but for the cause of their own iniquity and this was evident first in the case of Cain who not being faithful in his offering was not accepted Yet God was pleased to shew him the cause Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted It should seem God never rejected him till this time neither did he now delight to reject him but graciously expostulates with Cain to convince him of his evil and assures him of acceptation if he did well If then Cain had an interest in the Grace of God who can we suppose to be shut out till they with Cain shut themselves out of it Evident it is that the Covenant of Grace extended to those Rebels in the Old World because we read the long suffering of God waited on them and he gave them time of Repentance and sent a Preacher of Righteousness even the Righteousness of Faith among them Heb. 11. 7. 2 Pet. 2. 5. therefore it is said Christ went by his Spirit and preached to them 1 Pet. 3. though none of them believed his Word Now such Acts on God's part are great Evidences of his Graciousness towards Men and shews that he remembers his Covenant made in Christ with them even for them that rebel against him and so perish And then how shall we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants who never rebelled against him 3. The Covenant of Grace was never repealed by God for if it be there is now no Covenant at all nor can it be repealed to one Man but it must be repealed to all Men. 'T is true Men may forfeit the Mercy held forth in that Covenant but the Covenant cannot be repealed for then there can be no certainty of any Mercy for Sinners Christ himself may as soon be made Null as this Covenant For what if some Apostatize or do not believe shall this make the Grace of God without effect God forbid When we continually see that Covenant of God's Grace displayed making overtures of kindness to Sinners even to the chief of Sinners what shall we say if any Infant be without a part in that Covenant Is he not then the chief of Sinners It is not then the Sin of Parents that can repeal the Covenant of Grace with respect to Infants 4. No Infants did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam

supposed to close with our Way before they have tried it Seeing we put all Men upon it and have no Honours Profits or Pleasures in this World as you have to engage them to our Way 't is the evidence of our Cause that doth it J. B. 6. Is the overthrow of a Man's former weak Grounds the overthrow of the Truth which he held c. T. G. Is not the overthrow of your former weak Grounds for Infant-Baptism the overthrow of the Cause it self till you or some body else bring Grounds of sufficient strength to support it J. B. 7. Is not one sound Argument enough to prove any thing true What if all the Text's that are brought were put by save one is not that enough T. G. Have not we desired you to produce but one sound Argument and one clear Text to prove Infant-Baptism true with promise that shall suffice But in stead of this have you not sent us hundreds of false Grounds and many Texts abused in these and your former Queries J. B. 8. Are not evident Consequences drawn by Reasen from Scripture as true Proof as the very express word of the Text Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant Baptism as Christ brought for the Resurrection Mat. 22. 31 32 c. T. G. Should not the Practice of Christ and his Apostles outvy such Consequences inferr'd by the most Learned when the said Consequences fight against plain Scripture Presidents as Acts 2. 38. to 41. Acts 8. 12. Gal. 3. 26 27. But who could ever prove that all Church-Members as She contains all the saved whether Jews or Heathens must be Baptized Might it not more strongly be pleaded that all Church-Members must be admitted by Faith from Gal. 3. 26. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God must FIRST believe that God is And how shall all Infants believe on him of whom they have not heard Rom. 10 And who taught you to make Baptism more necessary to Church-Membership than Faith But why should your Consequences be made of equal Authority with Christ's For he could not be deceived but you may And why may not our Consequences be as valuable as yours specially seeing ours agrees with Christ's own Practice John 4. 1. as we know yours do not J. B. 9. Should not the former and present Customs of the holiest Saints and Churches be of great weight to humble and moderate Christians in Cases controverted and beyond their reach T. G. Should not the undeniable Custom of the first Churches immediately governed by Christ and his Apostles be of more weight with humble and moderate Christians than the Custom of any since their times And whether your Conscience do not tell you we follow the Custom of the first Churches Also whether there hath not very holy Men in many Ages since Christ opposed Infant-Baptism as well as in these latter Times Nay is not the first clear mention of it gathered from them that opposed it Such were Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to be for the delay of Baptism to Children till they could understand it And though it is alledged that Nazianzen was not against it in danger of Death yet whether this be not rather against than for Infant-Baptism seeing they might as safely die without it as live without it For did it in his judgment more please God that Infants should live unbaptized How then can their dying so be displeasing to him Were not the Children among the Jews as much accepted who lived seven days Uncircumcised and died before the eighth day as if they had lived till the eighth day and then have been Circumcised And may we not hence conclude that seeing God hath not made the Age of any Person a Rule in the case of Baptism as he did in the case of Circumcision but hath made it proper to the time of the New Birth at what time soever it shall happen that Nazianzen his supposed allowance of Infant-Baptism in danger of Death was groundless But why do you arrogate the greatest Holiness to your Parts which agree with you in the case of Infant-Baptism Why holiest Saints Why holiest Churches Though I wish you more holy than you are and honour what Christian Vertues I see in any of your Party yet let me faithfully tell you that your Churches by means of your Pedo baptism are become the unholiest generally of all the Christian Churches in the World And how can it be otherwise When by this means you take in not only those that 〈◊〉 God and work Righteousness in every Nation but the whole Nations themselves the greatest part whereof God knows are very far from Holiness J. B. 10. Is this Controversie in it self considered of so great moment as some would make it Why then was it not in the Creed Doth not the Apostle speak of Baptism as a small part of his Work in comparison of Preaching c 1 Cor. 1. 14. 17 c. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not not he that is not Baptized shall be damned c. T. G. Whether you Pedo-baptists do not make this Controversy of greater moment than any others whilst the greatest number of you to wit the Papists and many Prelatists do teach that none no not Infants can be saved without Baptism or desire of Baptism And whether you say any less Bishop Gunning Query 17. when you tell us Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation without your Church-Membership and Baptism And do you not then make it more Fundamental and absolutely Necessary than the Baptists do who only say not the want but the contempt of Baptism damneth And what though baptism be not mentioned in the Creed which you call the Apostles Creed though you never be able to make that saying good according to the exactness of speech yet seeing Baptism is mentioned in that Summary of Christian Doctrine Heb. 6. 1 2. which may more certainly be called the Apostles Creed than that by you so named doth it not thence follow that Baptism is necessary to the beginning of a Christian Man Or will you say that any Man can be admitted into the Christian Profession to partake of the Lord's Table without Baptism And what need was there to say Mark 16. 16. He that is not Baptized shall be damned When it s to be supposed he that believeth not will not desire to be Baptized Luke 7. Neither indeed ought he to be Baptized because he believeth not Acts 8. And if all Christ's Commands great and small are to be obeyed as you grant then why not this Acts 2. 38 REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOV And though it be true that Paul esteemed and that rightly Preaching to be a greater work than Baptizing Yet when 〈◊〉 he hinder any for being Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance as you do Or where did he shew any zeal at all for Pedobaptism as

broken off be understood to suppose that some yet did stand by God's Appointment in the former Church Or is it not evident that Mens eagerness to stand in the Old Church which now was ceased de jure was the cause why they were rejected Again Is it not said of the believing Gentiles That they were grafted in among the Branches to wit the Jews sure this is not meant of the Jews that stood in the House of Moses or the Old Church-state but of the Church or House which was builded by Christ for Old things were passed away all things became New Wherefore now consider seeing the believing Jews themselves did not stand by virtue of their Old Church-Membership that being now Repealed Matth. 3. 9. Rom. 7. 4 5 6. whether it be rational to imagin that the Infant Church-Membership which was of the same Law should yet remain And wherefore do you so boldly say the believing Parents do remain in the same Church But further Is it safe by the good Olive Rom. 11. to understand the Jewish Church Was not Paul willingly broke off from that Church Phil. 3. that he might be in Christ Is it not more safe to understand the place of Abraham not as a Natural Father for so the Gentiles could no more be grafted into him than into the Jewish Church But as a Spiritual Father into whom as such the Faithful were grafted or rather into his Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed even Christ the true Vine and the Faithful both Jew and Gentile are the Branches united to him J. B. 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief T. G. And is there any thing more clears the Point that this breaking off was not from the Jewish Church for their unbelief caused them to stand in that Church And seeing these two things are both evident that the breaking off here meant was by unbelief and the standing here meant is by Faith is it not thence very evident that the poor Infants are not concern'd either in this kind of breaking off or this kind of standing in the Olive Tree Alas poor Souls what have they done Have not Infants a more sure interest in Christ than to be jetted into or out of him by the Faith or Unbelief of Parents What wise Man will think so And what need have we or any Body else to talk of the Invisible Church it being a thing unknown to Man And suppose this Olive Tree be meant of the Visible Church Christian walking in all the Commands and Ordinances of Christ blameless yet seeing no Natural Branches as such do stand in this Olive Tree but must be grafted in by Faith before they can stand there Is it not evident even hence that no Infant meerly as the Seed of a Believer is concern'd in the Duties of this Church seeing the very Natural Branches of Abraham himself have not that priviledg on that account J. B. 3. If it be into their own Olive Tree which they were broke off from and of which they were Natural Branches that the Jews shall be engrafted at their recovery as Rom. 11. 24. then how is God's Ordinance for Infant Church-Membership Repealed c. though they be not restored to the Mosaical Law or Covenant of Peculiarity but taken into the Catholick Church T. G. Though it be never so true that the Jews upon their return shall be grafted into their own Olive viz. Abraham as a Spiritual Father and into Christ the Promised Seed in whom all Nations are blessed yet do you not here fairly grant that they shall not be grafted into the Covenant of Peculiarity or Mosaical Law And then whether their bringing Infants to the Mysteries of Religion which was one main thing which was peculiar to the Jewish state is not consequently granted by you to be now Repealed unless you can prove that the Catholick Church hath Command from Christ to bring their Infants to the Mysteries of Religion And who exyour selves did ever exclude the Jews Infants from the Catholick Church viz. the Assembly that are written in Heaven But how will you prove that the Infants of the Jews or any dying Infants are cast out of that Church Or are not all those of the Catholick Church who are of the Kingdom of God And does not Christ state Infants there without excepting any J. B. 4. Is it not the same Olive or Church which the Jews were broken off from that we Gentiles are grafted into as Rom. 11. 17 19 24 And if theirs admitted Infants must not ours admit of Infant-Members also c. T. G. Whether the Church was not the same Church in all Ages and yet whether she did not differ in her external order by God's Appointment and whether this difference was not in the case of Infants being brought to or left unconcern'd in the Rituals of Religion as much as in any thing And seeing you here say She was taken down as to accidental Ceremonies whether this will not justifie us in not Baptizing Infants as well as you in not Communicating them seeing God hath not commanded the one any more than the other J. B. 5. Would not Christ have gathered Jerusalem And is it likely that he would have unchurched all their Infants when he would have gathered to him whole Jerusalem or the whole Nation Matth. 25. 37 38 39. T. G. Whether it be not evident we unchurch no Infants in respect of their relation to Salvation by Christ but only say they ought not to be brought to the Services of Gospel-Ordinances And do not you your self say the same that we do except your pretended Baptism And suppose Christ had gathered all Jerusalem would not he have gathered them after the same manner Would he not have gathered them by Preaching by Repentance and by Faith and Baptism which were capable of these things But how should their Infants be thus gathered Could he not have gathered their Infants in the sende of this Text without Preaching to them without Faith or Repentance required of them And could and would he not have gathered them without Baptism as well as without these And should not the Infants in Jerusalem and Judea have escaped the destruction which came upon them by the Romans if the Adult had but received the Gospel and can you think that though the Infants suffered in that Desolation of Jerusalem that therefore they were damned with the unbelieving Jews And if not were they not still of the Catholick Church though their Parents were rejected J. B. 6. Can you suppose the believing Jews Children and so the Parents in point of Comfort to be in a worse condition since Christ than they were before c. T. G. Was not Enoch Seth and Noah when Infants as happy though not Circumcised or brought to any Ritual in the Church as Isaac Jacob c. were in their Infancy though Circumcised And have we not as much ground