God by consenting to Gods Covenant for themselves and them Whether it was not the duty of the Israelites to engage and devote their children to God in Covenant Whether this be not evident from the Penalty even to be cut off from his People annexed for the non-Performance And whether this be not as much our Duty still Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to every one his own due and are not Infants God's own due Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God by acknowledging his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Infâ—nâ— to God as his own Baptist Antiq. 30. Where are Christian Parents required to devote their children by consenting to any Covenant for them or in their stead as the Jews were in matters of Religion and what penalty hath God imposed on them that devote not their Insants by sprinkling them as you do And whether we do omit the duty of devoting our children to God in any thing wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us abating us all what must be abated And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-relation obligation or right or who opposes their being devoted to God in their capacity and whether this be not a meer noise of words as if all that do not as you do do lay a side their care and duties towards Infants And where is the institution of your publick way Have we not a more certain instituted way to devote them to God by Prayer and to educate them in his fear as they are capable then you have to cross or sprinkle them Presbyterian Query 31. Whether Anabaptists themselves all of them that are truly pious do not vertually though not actually devote their children to God and consent to their Covenant-relation while they veheâ—ently plead against it Baptist Antiqu. 31. Whether you do not greatly wrong your self and those you call Anabaptists in saying they vehemently plead against devoting their children to God yea sure they do it actually as far as Gods Word requires And can you believe that there is no way to devote children to God but in your way How then did Adam Enoch Scth Noah c. devote their children to God And it would do well also if you could shew us how they consented to any Covenant for their Infants more then we do or prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants more then we whom you call Anabaptists Does not Eusebius Pamphilius count Christianity as old as Adam l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian say Enoch justissimum non Circumcisum nec Sibbatizantem c. Enochan upright man was translated by God though he were not circumcised neither yet did observe the Sabbaâ—h --- Vt aeternitas candidatis c. To the end that he who did aspire to Eternity might shew us that we might please God without the burthen of Moses Law And what Law save the Laâ— of Circumcision did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God Presbyterian Query 32. Is it not a desperate undertaking and dare any adventure on it to justifie all the World before Christs Incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God And do not they that say there is no Law in this case say there is no Transgression Aâ—d dare any in like manner undertake to justifie at the Bar of God all the VVorld since Christs Incarnation from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children'to Christ and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect Baptist Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwise Query As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God unless they brought them to some Practical Ordinance in the Church which is the only thing you do so complain of And how I pray you did Abraham Isaac and Jacob dedicate their female Infants to God sith we finde no Practical Ordinance for them in Infancy or who goes about to justifie the World if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their Infants And may we not well justifie all men for not doing that which the Law of God never required Presbyterian Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledge to be a visible Church-Member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible Is it not abenefit in it self besides the Consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body Is not such a Relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to the Church an honor And how great is the misery of a contrary state And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit then how were they that had it when they came to Age or their Parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it Will any say that neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account Baptist Antiqu. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God requires not of them or whether it be any loss to them till God requires it And seeing you make your Pedo-rantism this all in all shew us what benefit or priviledge you had when sprinkled more then the Infants of a pious Baptist And what is that benefit that all who are sprinkled by the Papists do receive which you ratifie for good Baptism Or how are their Infants Church-members more then ours And whether our children when grown up have not a fairer way to the Purity of Christianity in that they are not entangled with such Traditions Presbyterian Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged And is it not certain that they are actually Members of all the Commonwealths in the World perfecte sed imperfecte membra And does not Nature seem actually to have taught most people on Earth to repute their Infants in the same Religiouâ— Society with themselves as well as in the same Civil Society Baptist Antiqu. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is very true And we therefore ask whether Infants be not as capable of the Lords Supper as Baptism if the Lord will give it them And as far as Gods Will is that Infants should be related to his Church we doubt not of their capacity for it And why is the order of Commonwealths so much insisted on in this case Are we to fetch our Rules for dispensing Ordinances in the Church from the Civil Policie of Nations We desire you still to show us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our Infants which we do not Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be crossed or sprinkled as you do sure you can
never make this good Baptist Query 35. Whether according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace God will not vouchsafe to be their God and take them for his people that are in a natural or Law-sense willing to be his people and take him for their God And whether the Infants of believing Parents are not thus willing When Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in a natural sense must not the reason and will of another be theirs in Law-sense that is of the Parents have the full dispose of them and are warranted by the Law of Nature to choose for them for their good till they come to the use of reason themselves Whether in Gods acceptance the Child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents and doth not Covenant with God as a Child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in Contract as in a Lease for his Life or the like And so granting the Relation of Church-membership to be founded in a mutual contract covenant or consent betwixt God and us yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of Infants and the adult Were not the Israelites Infants Church-members who consented not actually in their own persons but virtually and reputatively Baptist Antiqu. 35. We still require you to shew where this Law is that obligeth Christians to will the baptizing of their Infants and that will warrant the baptizing of one Person by vertue of anothers will And why may not a reputative Baptism serve as well as a reputative Covenant sith the Covenant is greater then Baptism And whether this be an advised speech that the Parent hath the whole disposal of his Child in matters of Religion And who must judge what is good for his Infant in religious matters Must not Gods Word do this And shew us what command we have omitted in not bringing our Infants to the Font as you do Or do you think that your instance of a Lease is sufficient to rectifie mens consciences in matters of this nature And what if some of the Jews had failed to consent for their children were they therefore not in Covenant sure it was the Law not the Parents consent that regulated these matters Neither do we finde that the Israelites were bound to repent and believe in the Person of the child and accordingly to make profession in his Name when circumcised as you do at the Font when you pretend to baptize your Infants when yet you baptize them not seeing Sprinkling cannot be truly called Baptism Presbyterian Query 26. Whether it be not the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children the Infant being not sui Juris but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good have not the Parents power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly for their own good And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own child And doth it not deserve to be called the unthankful Error that opposeth Childrens Rights and Blessings Baptist Antiqu. 36. Whether this Query be not the same in effect which we have had again and again And we would know what offered benefits the Infant of the Pedobaptists meet with among the Papists or your selves either which we received not meerly for this cause of not doing to our infants as they and you are pleased to do And whether it were not as reasonable for Parents to be baptized in the childs stead as to profess faith and repentance for him And whether it be reasonable for a Parent to oblige his Infant to be of his opinion and practice and to suffer for the same And what Law of God requires this and whether this may not be called the unreasonable errour Presbyterian Query 37. VVhether it may be thought or any dare maintain that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World Are they all excluded And why Are they worse then their Parents If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth tâ— Parents must it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents or such as are so far entrusted Or can this be called a Covenant for God only to say I will save all such Infants as I elect and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition nor give a title to any Person that can be known by themselves or others Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant And what Right or Hope doth this give to Christians for their children more then to Pagans Baptist Antiqu. 37. Whether it may be thought that God should require the conditions of the Covenant of grace on them which he knows can observe none at all or whether it be his will that the grace of that Covenant should depend upon others observation of the Conditions for them And whether this be not to put the salvation of Infants out of his own hand and into the hand of such as commonly neglect their own And is not this to expoâ—e poor Infants to ruine whose Parents generally are so far from keeping that they are strangers to the Conditions of this Covenant And where are we taught to doubt the salvation of the Infants of Pagans or to conclude ours only are in the state of salvation And is it not much more secure to hope the salvation of Infants on the Ground of Christs dying for them and rising again for their Justification then upon any Practical in Religion And where did God ever since the beginning of the World give any Ordinance to be necessary to the salvation of any Infant in the World Can you believe that the cutting off of the uncircumcised Man-child was a cutting off from salvation how then were all the Infants saved which were born to the Israelites for fourty years together such of them I mean as died during that time And why may not Infants as well be made righteous without any thing done on their part as they were made sinners without any thing done on their part Will not the second Adams obedience salve the first Adams disobedience And may not poor Infants better plead in the day of Judgement what Christ did for them then what your Godfathers or Proparents did for them Presbyterian Query 38. Though all that are saved are saved by the meritorious righteousness of Christ by way of free Gift yet whether the condition be not a suteable acceptance And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his Child who hath no will to accept it for himself Shall he be certainly shut out unto damnation Or shall he have that gift absolutely which is conditional to all others Or is he not concerned
in the Donation at all And have not Infants guilt and misery from their Parents And though Life and Pardon be by Christ only yet is it not congruous that the meer condition of acceptance may bâ— Performed by the Parents while they cannot accept for themselves Baptist Antiq. 38. Whether the meritoriousness of Christ is not as available to save Infants without any mans acceptance thereof for them Or whether hath God ty'd the salvation of any person to the acceptance of another And whether these be not unreasonable and unscriptural conceits And whether it be not for want of better Grounds for Infant-Baptism that you thus continually tautologize varying little from that which you have said once and again Presbyterian Query 39. Whether it be no advantage for children to be under an early engagement to God and Jesus Christ Whether to dedicate them betimes to God doth not tend to secure God's right and childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery they being thus under a double Obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God c Baptist Antiqu. 39. Who is against as early an engagement of children to God as can lawfully be made and do not the Baptists engage their children to God as soon as they can by Prayer and Supplication whiles Infants and then by the best education they are able when docible But whether any thing be done to purpose in your judgement when yet all is done that can be done unless it be rantized in your way And whether it be not bâ—tter to leave the event of their accepting Baptism to the wise dispose of God then to do it per force in Infancy without Precept from God Also whether the Infant-Baptism be such a means to propagate Religion as you suppose may be seen when you consider how in the darkness of Popery Pedobaptism was more common then now but Christianity much less And name one if you can that was bettered in Christian vertue by Pedobaptism we think we can name one and that your self which is worse for it for had you not that to rest on you would probably desire to put on Christ in baptism whether it be not the fittest time to be buried with Christ in baptism when we are dead with him from the rudiments of the world or whether it be reasonable to bury sinners therein till they be dead to sin and whether it can profit any person to be baptized unless he have the answer of a good conscience by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead 1 Pet. 3. therein Presbyterian Query 40. Whether it can be proved that ever there was one Age or Church particular on Earth since Adam till about 200 years ago that the Anabaptists rose wherein Infants de facto were not Members of the Church Baptist Antiqu. 40. Whether in your sense of making Infants Members of the Church de facto it can be proved there was any one so made a Member from the beginning of the World till Abrahams time and whether John Baptist Christ or any by his order did receive Infants into the Church de facto And whether the Baptist do not better prove the Antiquity of their faith and practice in baptism then any Aedo baptist in the world and doth not your conscience tell you that the baptism of Men and Women upon profession of faith and repentance is beyond the reach of contradiction whilest M. Baxter himself confesses Infant-baptism to be so difficult that many of its Assertors both Protestants and Papists are forced to confess it cannot be proved by the Scriptures See his Cure p. 7. And seeing you and we are generally agreed that our way both for subject and manner is out of dispute clear in the Scriptures and you confess by the Pen of Mr. Baxter that yours is very difficult is it not reason the difficult way should give place to the clear and evident way Presbyterian Query 41. VVhether it can be proved that ever there was any one Iâ—fant of true Church-members that was not rightfully a Church-member himself from the Creation till Christ's days Or from the Creation till this day except the Anabaptists who reject the benefit whose case we will not presume to determine Baptist Antiqu. 41. Whether this Query be not the same we had before and whether what is said to it may not also suffiee to this Presbyterian Query 42. Seeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the Creation to this day as far as any Records can lead us Is it likely that the Lord and Head and all-sufficient Governour of his Church would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such subjects as in regard of Age be disallowed and suffered his Church to be wrong framed till now Or is it a reasonable modest and lawful undertaking to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new framed Church as to the age of the Subjects And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints of Heaven lived in till the other day as a few Anabaptists did attempt an Alteration Baptist Antiqu. 42. Whether it be not utterly untrue that Infants were Members of the Church de facto i.e. to be brought to partake of Ordinances Practical in the Church save only from Abraham to the end of the Law And whether all the Pedobaptists in the world have not hitherto been unable to shew any one instance before Abraham or since the Law was abrogated so much as one Infant admitted to any such Ordinance in the Church of â—od according to what the Scriptures afford in thi◠〈◊〉 And â—â—â—her it be not as modest in us to labour to restore â—â—ptism to its pure use in the Church both in respect of the subject and manner of Administration thereof as it was for the Protestants to do the like in respect of the Lords Supper Also whether your pretending the Authority of the universal Church be not the same figment with which the Papists deceived themselves and others And how can you pretend the universal Church when the Primitive Church is on our side Presbyterian Query 43. Whether considering Christs own Infant-Memâ—â—rship and his kind reception of Infants and his chiding those that would have kept them off and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation Matth. 23. 37. and that they were broken off by unbelief and consequently the Seed of Believers broken off from the Church Vniversal and that whole Housholds are oft said to be baptized and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy and that Christ Mat. 28. commanded his Ministers as much as in them lieth to disciple all Nations baptizing them c Baptist Antiqu. 43. Whether Christs Infants Church-membership did not pertain to the Jewish Church only Gal. 4. 4. born under the Law only
boldly to suppose a thing without the least shew of proof be not a plain begging the main thing in Question And though it be never so true that the universal redeemed Church consist of the same Materials in all Ages yet whether it be not evident that that God made a difference as to the time of dispensing Ordinances to them As first no Practical Ordâ—nance or 〈◊〉 dispensed to any Infant that we read of till Abrahams time and though then Circumcision was ordained for Males yet not for all the Male Children for all under eight days of Age were prohibited and yet you grant thâ—y were in that Covenaâ—t nor any Rite at all for the Females who yet were of the same Church And whether under Moses they were not admitted to other Rites also as the Passâ—over Sacrifices and other holy Feast of the Jews We therefore ask you why the Infants of converted Gentiles are not in as good a condition without any Rite or Ceremony as the Infants of all the faithful from Adam to Abraham And whether those Infants before Abraham were not a happy as the Infants of Abraham And then doth it not follow that the Infants of faithful Gentiles are as happy without Circumcision or any other Rite or â—eremony whatsoever as Abrahants was under a Ceremony seeing God hath not ohliged them to any in the days of the Gospel oâ— since the Abâ—ogation of the Law and Circumcision Presbyterian Query 9. Whether if we could shew no written Law or Promise at first constituting the Duty or granting the Priviledge of Church-Member ship it were the least disparagement to our Cause as long as we can shew those following Laws which presuppose this If Moses at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had bin without any written Law found all the Infants of Church-Members in Possession of this bâ—nâ—fit 〈◊〉 what nâ—ed was there of a new Law about it Or why should God promise it as a new thing Baptist Antiqu. 9. Whether if there be any such Law you would not have she wed us where it is longere this day and whethen you do not now grant in effect there is no such written Law And what nâ—ed you thus to query seeing we deny no lawful thing to Infants to be done for them by their godly Parents but only oppose your doing that for which you have no Law Presbyterian Query 10. Whether there being certain Proof in Scripture of Infants Church-Membership but none except that before alledged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it but all speaking of it as no new thing we have not great reason to assign its beginning which from Gen. 3. is before spoken of Baptist Antiqu. 10. Why do you say that Gen. 3. 15. makes mention of Infants Church-Membership otherwise then what we allow Is here the least hint of your mode of making Infants Church-Members that is doth this place bid you admit them to any Ordinance As for the gracious Covenant here made with Adam do we not grant that it extends to Infants yea we say with Mr. Baxter it was never abrogated Presbyterian Query 11. Is it not unquestionable that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham the Father of the Faithful comprehended Infants for Church-Members And was 〈◊〉 not the same with that Gen. 3. 1. 5. But in some things clearlier opened Were not both these the Covenant of Grace and free Justification by Faith in the Redeemer And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed comprehend Infants And should not the same Promise expressed more concisely be expounded by the same expressed more sully Baptist An. 11. Though it be unque stionable that the Covenant of Grace did extend to Infants Gen. 3. 15. as well as in Abrahams time yet there was a vast difference in respect of ceremonies And whether the difference between the Baptists and Pâ—dobaptists be not chiâ—fly if not only about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants And whether it be not evident that what Ceremonies the Word of God did even assign to Infants we allow them respecting the time of their duration and only oppose your imposing Ceremonies upon Infants for which you can assign no Authority in the Holy Scriptures as is confessed by many Pedobaptists See Mr. Baxters Cure p. 7. Presbyterian Query 12. Whether though the Hebrews had their Peculiarities it be at all credible that the Infants of that one small Countrey only should be so differently deâ—lt with by God from all the World else even Enoch's Noah'â— Sem's and all from Adam to the end of the World that these Infants only should be Church-Members and nâ— others Baptist Antiqu. 12. Whether this Query as indeed almost all the rest do not mis the true state of the Case seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sence acknowledge Infants to be related to the Churcâ— viz. by Redemption Pious Dedication to God c. And seeing you grant the Hebrew had their Peculiarities in what thing could it be but in external Rites and Ceremonies especially concerning Infants And shew us if you can any one Nation under Heaven from the beginning of the World to this day to whom God gave any Law to bring their Infants to any Rites either Legal or Evangelical And sith Circumcision was forcibly put upon Infants we ask whether you be able to prove that any Person whatsoever are to be forced to Baptism which Augustine tells us Infants do strive against with great crying from whence he infers they have no Faith Lib. de Peâ—cat Mer. Remis chap. 28. Presbyterian Query 13. What can be more absurd then to maintain a Transient Fact as Mr. T. hath done making Infants Church-Members without any Law Promise â—r Covenant-Graâ—t of God giving them Râ—ght Whether a Gift that was never given be not a contradiction V. p. 32 35 39 44 45 151. And if there was any such Promise or Covenant-Grant of Infant 's Church-Membership when or where was it revoked Baptist Antiqu. 13. Whether these things be surely suggested against Mr. T and whether you ought not to have set down his opinion in his own words and whether he doth not mainly oppose himself against Mr. Baxter's Pretended Law for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism whiles yet he denies not Infants a saving Promise or the Promise of saving Prepriety in God Antipedobapt 3. Part. p. 33. And whether that Book was ever answered by Mr. Baxter or ever will by any other Presbyterian Query 14. Was it only the Infants of the Hebrews or of those that were at their absolute dispose that were Church-Members VVere not the Infants of free Proselites Church-Members too Baptist Antiqu. 14 What need of this Query who doubts but that as many others as became Jews by being Proselited to the Law were Circumcised according to the Law But where do yoâ— find that any either Jews or Gentiles when they were baptized had any obligation to baptize their children and servants also Presbyterian
Query 15. VVas it not then the Duty of all the Nations round about that could have Informatiâ—n of the Jewish Religion to engage themselves and their Children to God by Circumcision And did not many of the People in Hester's time become Jews Hest 8. 17. who yet were not under their Government And is it not well known that this was to be circumcised they and their little ones as the Proselites were and so to keep the Law of Moses And whether the circumcised Servants of Israel sold away to another Nation and so separated from the Civil state of Israel did eo nomine cease to be Church-members though they for sook not God And â—o of the Infants if they were sold in Infancy And so whether Infants might not be Church-members that were not of the Jews Common-wealth Baptist Antiqu. 15. Although other Nations had the liberty to become Jewes yet whether they were under such an obligation as that they must become Jewes or else not be saved is worthy consideration and whether the contrary will not be found true when the case of Cornelius Act. 10. and of the Gentiles Rom. 2. are duely considered whereas the one is accepted as fearing God and working Righteousness as much as the Jew upon the account of his Jewish Worship And the other Gentiles generally who did by Nature the things contained in the Law were counted the Circumcision so as to judge the Jew who only had the Circumcision in the flesh and not only so but so as to be accepted of God as far at least as the Righteousness of the Law would avail the Jew And whether the Infants of these devout Gentiles was not free from any obligation to Circumcision or any other external Ceremony And whether there be not an evident difference between the Law and the Gospel in this the one being fitted to the Jewish Nation only so as to be capable of an orderly observation there only And the Gospel fitted sor the observation of all Nations equally and consequently all Nations equally obliged to the full and orderly Profession thereof Presbyterian Query 16. VVere not the Israelites Children Members of the universal visible Church as well as of the Congregation of Israel As he that is a Member of the City is a Member of the Kingdom and a part of a part is a part of the whole so was not ever member of the Jews Church also a member of Gods universal Church Baptist Ant. 16. Whether it be well said to call the universal Church visible And whether the universal Church did not contain many thousands such as Job Cornelius c who were neither Jews by Nature nor Religion And whether no Infants might be said to be Members of the universal Church who were not Members of the Jewish Church and if not how shall they be saved seeing Christ is only the Saviour of his body finally Presbyterian Query 17. Was there ever any true Church or Ecclesiastical Worshipping Society appointed by God in all the World since the Fall but the Church of Christ Were not Infants therefore either Members of Christs Church or of no Church of Gods Institution Was not Moses Christs Vsher and Moses Church and Christ's Church one according to God's Institution Baptist Antiqu. 17. Whether this Query be not either captious or else impertinâ—nt for though it should be granted that the Church of Christ was the same in some sence from the beginning yet who knows not that the time and way for admission of the Members thereof to external Ceremonies was not always the same And who doubts but the Church was always of Gods Institution But doth it therefore follow that the Ordinances Instituted therein belongs to Infants might they not have the Passeover as well as Circumcision in the Mosaical Church and yet have neither the Lords Supper nor Baptism in the Christian Church you deny them the one why may not we as well deny the other Baptist Query 18. Whether was Abraham made a Member of the Church by Circumcision or circumcised because a Member of the Church The like of Infants born in his House And how can the ceasing of Circumcision prove Infants Church-Membership ceased any more then it can prove their Church-Membership began with Circumcision or that Women were not Church-Members because not circumcised or that all Israel was unchurched in the VVilderness when they were uncircumcised for fourty years Baptist Antiqu. 18. Although Abraham was in the Church of God essentially by faith yet whether formally in that Church-stâ—te vvhich God was then about to settle till circumcised vvill not I suppose be hastily affirmed and how can Infants be said to be in the Church as Abraham then was seeing they have no faith as he had And whether the Jewish Church-state did not cease de jure when Circumcision so ceased And then whether that state of Infant Church-Membership did not also cease And like as the ceasing of the Passeover de jure was the ceasing of Infants right to any such Ordinance even so we ask why the ceasing of Circumcision de jure is not as truly the ceasation of Infants right to any such Ordinance certainly if Gods Word assign any Ordinances in lieu of the former the place where 't is written would have bâ—en known to this day Presbyterian Query 19. VVhether the blessing of Abraham consists not chiefly in this that God Promised to be a God in Covenant with him and his Seed And how are the believing Gentiles blessed with faithful Abraham and Heirs of the same Promise if their Infants are not also comprehended in the same Covenant Baptist Antiqu. 19. Whether the blessing of Abraham if you understand it of eternal life were not the blessing of the Fathers that were before him And whether that blessing did not belong to their Infants And whether their Infants were Partakers with them in any Rites or Ceremonies of instituted worship And if not then why may not the Infants of the Gentiles partake of the blessing of Abraham though not concern'd in Rites or Ceremonies or whether you think the blessing of Abraham is confined to Ceremonies in respect of Infants if so shew us what Ceremonies these are Presbyterian Query 20. Whether in that great Promise Gen. 12. 3 Tribes Kindreds Families do not most certainly comprehend Infants As it was to such Families that the Promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church VVhat warrant have we to understand Families or Tribes otherwise when the same Promise is made to the Gentiles Baptist Antiq. 20. Whether you ought not to distinguish in this great Promise the things which are eternal from the things that were but for a time And then whether you can imaâ—inâ— that all the temporal blessings rites and ceremonies â—oncernâ—d any Nation as it concerned the seed of Abraham after the flesh But if by this Promise you understand it as the Apostle Paul doth Gal. 3. 16. thâ—n we doubt not but all the Kindreds of the