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
Innocent was ejected with the Guilty For this is God's Order It is he only that sinneth whom he will blot out of the Book of Life Exod. 32. 32 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in setling the Covenant of his Grace nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham Gen. 12. was exclusive of any Infant in the World as to the Grace or Mercy of eternal Life no more than the Establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel in a far more excellent way for distinguishing the precious from the vile is in any wise no not in the least iota exclusive of any dying Infant of ill Men but contrary-wise the Right of Infants without excepting any of them is asserted by Christ in this last and most ample Edition of the Covenant of Grace 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 Judg of all the Earth will do Right That the condemned shall all be judged according to the Deeds done in the Body But as for poor Infants what Evil have they done Demonstration 2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind 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 has 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 tell him how he might be accepted Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted It should seem God never rejected Cain till now neither did he now delight to reject him but graciously expostulates with Cain to convince him of his Evil and assures him of Acceptance if he did well If then Cain had an Interest in the Grace of God who can we suppose to be shut out of it Or how should Infants be cast out of his Favour 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 that the Long-suffering of God waited in the Days of Noah upon 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 for them even for them that rebel against him and so perish And then how should we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants who never rebelled against him Demonstration 3. The Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. 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 of God held forth in that Covenant but the Covenant cannot be repealed for then there can be no certainty of Mercy for Sinners Christ our Lord may as soon be made null as this Covenant For what if some do apostatize shall this make the Grace of God without effect God forbid When we continually see the Covenant of God's Grace displayed making Overtures of Kindness to Sinners by beseeching them to be reconciled to God 2 Cor. 5. What shall we say Has the chief of Sinners this Benefit by the Covenant of Grace And shall poor innocent Babes have no Benefit by it Is he not worse than the chief of Sinners that is thus exposed to Damnation Sure there are better things with God for poor Babes and chiefly in this he has not given Parents power to make void the Covenant of his Grace with respect to their Infants For he hath said the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father The Soul that sinneth it shall die Demonstration 4. No Infant did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam therefore no Infant was ever cast out of it Although it is most true that Original Sin is come upon Infants and Death by Sin Yet this is as true That Original Sin was not committed against the Covenant of Grace And therefore Infants are not guilty of any Sin committed against the Covenant of Grace and consequently are not deprived of the Benefit of it Otherwise if the Sin of subsequent Parents should make void the Grace of the second Covenant as the Sin of Adam made his Posterity guilty of the Breach of the first Covenant we may then cry out who then can be saved But therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Testament for the Redemption of the Transgressions which were under the first Testament Wherefore seeing Infants stand acquitted from the Trespasses committed by Adam against the first Testament or Covenant and having not sinned against the Grace of the second Testament they cannot come in the Condemnation of Hellish Torments The Church of Rome who make Baptism as necessary for Infants as any Body does yet they have so much Kindness as to condemn Infants only to a State of Loss but not of Torment Whilst those of Calvin's Spirit do send them by their Doctrine to yell among the damned in Hell-fire Sure this is no part of the Gospel I will not call it so Yet I will say those that reject that great Salvation held forth in the Gospel are justly condemned but this is not the case of Infants Demonstration 5. That all dying Infants are Members of that vast Body of which Christ is the Saviour finally and so of his Church considered as universal is evident because they are in a visible State of Salvation And I think no Man will deny the Catholick Church to contain the whole Number of the saved I have nothing more to do but to prove all Infants in a visible State of Salvation which shall be done more particularly by answering such Objections as I have met with more especially from Mr. Barret Objection I. I gave you thanks for some things before granted concerning Insants and I here promise more Thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants Answ When I speak of the Right which Infants have to Life by Christ I intend it only of that Right derived to them by the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. wherein they are equally concerned and so have the same or equal Right And I hope you cannot charge them with forfeiting the Grace of that Covenant and then they cannot
they covenant again which is commonly 20 30 or 40 years after they have sprinkled them For which strange Practice they have not the least Tittle in God's Word to warrant it and where then they can find a Rule for this Practice I know not I have been told that Mr. Firmin's Questions are taken by some to be unanswerable Let us therefore view them in his Words verbatim The first is thus Mr. Firmin's Quest I. Since God was so gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents and Children while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come Why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children the Jews now believing in Christ come Answer You must allow that the Covenant of Grace was not restrained to Abraham and his Seed but did belong to many at that time both Parents and Children many holy Patriarchs being then living and some outlived Abraham himself and yet none of these were concerned in the Covenant of Circumcision as made with Abraham Gen. 17. but only in the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam and Noah which had now continued more than 2000 years during all which time no Infant was concerned either in Circumcision or Baptism and yet were as much of the Church as was needful for their Salvation And hence a Man may very well answer your Question by asking you another Thus Since God was so gracious to make a Covenant with Adam and Noah and their Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents to practise his Ordinances and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life without being concerned in the Practice of Ordinances in their Infancy for more than 2000 years before Christ came Why may it not confist with his Grace to continue that Covenant of Grace made with Adam Noah and Abraham himself 24 years before he was circumcised and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents to practise his Ordinances and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life without being concerned in the Practice of his Ordinances in their Infancy since Christ is come especially considering that Christ himself did not appoint those very Infants who were brought to him to have his Ordinances imposed upon them If Mr. Firmin be not satisfied with this Reply then let me tell him it becomes no Man no not Mr. Firmin himself to propound such an unlearned Question which is guilty of no more reason than this Since God was so gracious and it did consist with his Wisdom to give Abraham a Command to offer up his beloved Son as a Sign of Christ to come why may it not consist with his Grace and Wisdom for us of our own Heads without any Command from God to offer up every one his dearest Child in remembrance that Christ is come Sir What may or may not consist with the Wisdom of God in relation to his Church-constitution and our serving him in matters of Religion must not be concluded from the likeness which we fancy to be between his former Institutions and our own or others Inventions but from such Directions as he has given us by the Messiah which was to teach us all things John 4. both concerning our selves and concerning our Infants And we do therefore know that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of God to constitute his Gospel-Church so as to impose Gospel-Ordinances upon Infants although he did impose Legal Ordinances upon them Because Christ who is the Wisdom of God hath revealed no such thing to his Apostles nor they to us And like as ye know it to be inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to bring little Children so into the Church as to partake of the Lord's Table because God hath required Faith and Humiliation in every one that comes to that holy Manducation So we do know it to be inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to bring Infants so into his Church as to partake of holy Baptism because Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken and Faith to believe God's Promises is required by him of those that he requires to be baptized You see then that we do not deny Infants to be of the Church in such sort as to obtain Salvation with them that shall be saved although we deny them to be in the Church in your sence But let us hear your second Question Mr. Firmin's Quest II. If God hath repealed his Covenant with the believing Jews Seed turned their Children out of the Church and deny them Baptism tho the Jews truly believe in Christ come what hath God left in the room of these that carry any shew of his Blessing or good Will towards their Children during their Infant-state Answer The Words Covenant and Church as used by Mr. Firmin are ambiguous I do not find that Abraham nor Isaac neither were out of the Church till they were circumcised It 's evident Abraham's Seed was in Covenant before they were eight days old even as it was a peculiar visible Church-Covenant else all that were uncircumcised for forty years in the Wilderness were out of the Church and Covenant Mr. Firmin himself believes that Infants are in the Covenant and in the Church also before they be sprinkled by him For this is the Minor of one of his Arguments p. 103. But Children of believing Parents are Church members and this before you sprinkle them Now Sir if your Doctrine be true then it is not our waiting for a fit time to baptize our Children which turns them out of the Church nor does God for our so doing turn them out of the Church any whit more than your waiting a fit time and you make it perhaps twenty thirty or forty years for your bringing your Children to the Lord's Table turns them out of the Church Indeed if they live to years and chuse sinful ways they then turn themselves out of that Relation they had to God and his People in their Infancy by virtue of God's gracious Covenant and they thus turning his Mercy into Jndgment shall perish whether yours or ours The Case is equal I need say no more to a wise Man. Yet I add That the believing Jews and their Infants also were now made free from the Jewish Church-state Gal. 5. 1. But neither they nor their Infants were deprived of any place in the Church which was needful for them in their respective capacities yet the Parents had many Duties upon them which the Infants had not and of these the Baptism of Repentance was one they had also Priviledges which the Infants had not of which the Lord's Table was one Yet the little Children had these Priviledges which the Children of Unbelievers had not First to be devoted to God by the Prayers of the Church warranted therein by the
Men every where to repent and wills that the Gospel which contains this and many other precious Promises should be preached to every Creature And if Baptism may be a Seal of this Doctrine even there where there wants a Principle of Faith as you tell us it may then we may go and baptise every Creature and not higgle as you do about some Infants only but should we do thus God's Word would trip up our Heels as it does yours for tho he has proclaim'd Peace to the World by the Gospel yet he makes Faith necessary to the Pledg of its Reception He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst be baptised When they believed they were baptised not one Person admitted without and then what is Mr. Petto that will adventure to give Baptism even there where there is not Faith no nor so much as a Principle of it How shall Baptism be the Answer of a good Conscience without a Principle of Faith And what good will it do you without Faith He quotes Isa 44. 3. I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed c. Well but not in Infancy when was this done to any of your Infants Or has not God made good this Promise in the Gospel Men must be thirsty before this Water be poured out upon them You bring Isa 59. 21. which might have shewed you that these Promises belong not to Infants seeing they cannot understand either the Word or Spirit which yet is here promised to be in the mouth of the Church and her Seed for ever or if you please in the mouth of Christ and his Seeds Seed for ever But Infants are so called saith Augustin à non fando because they cannot speak You bring Psal 25. 13. and 112. 2. where 't is said The Seed of good Men shall inherit the Earth and be mighty upon Earth and be blessed But I think these are unfitly applied to Infants in Infancy and yet if they concern'd them here 's no Proof that they are visibly in the Faith during Infancy But what shall become of the Infants of ill Men by Mr. Petto's Doctrine they are put by him in a Condition contrary to that of the Infants of good Men as if the Infants Blessing or Cursing must be measured out as the Parents are Believers or otherwise Let us see his Scriptures Psal 37. 28. The Seed of the wicked shall be cut off But why must this be applied to Infants Sure he has Mercy for them so as not to turn them into Hell. For he hath told us if those Children of wicked Men which live to years do but turn from the wicked Ways of their Fathers they shall not dy and so equal are God's Ways that if the Son of a righteous Man follow the Ways of wicked Men he shall die as to temporal Judgments I grant the Infants do sometimes suffer for the Sin of their Parents but our Discourse is about their Salvation You bring Rom. 11. again and thence you infer that the Infant-seed of the Jews was broken off for the Parents Unbelief But if this Breaking-off be understood of an Exclusion of Infants to Hells Torments it is a most false Opinion as I shall fully shew anon That Abraham by virtue of his Faith which he had being uncircumcised is a Father of the faithful both Jew and Gentile is very true But that any of them are his Children so as to be Members of the Church militant to do and suffer for Christ without actual Faith is not true nor does Rom. 4. 10 11 12. prove the contrary let us hear your Text How then was it reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Vncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision And he re-received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the Father of them that believe though they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed to them also And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised May the God of Heaven give you a good understanding of this Place and then all your struggling for Infant-Baptism would soon vanish For there is nothing more evident than this that none but such as so believe as to walk in the Steps of that Faith which Abraham himself had which was true actual Faith are the Children of Abraham in a visible Church-state to worship God either in Baptism or other Ordinances From pag. 48. You proceed to answer many Objections and in all you say this seems to be your great Stick That Infant-Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is not cut off by any thing so objected as you have set them down and unless this be shewed all Objections signify nothing to you 1. To which I answer Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision and have the same Right now which they ever had to that blessed Covenant of this more by and by 2. No Person 's Right to Circumcision did arise out of the Covenant of Grace but did only issue from the Command of God otherwise all good Men then living must needs be circumcised for they were in the Covenant of Grace as well as Abraham 3. As Circumcision did not give Abraham's Seed an Interest in the Covenant of Grace so the Abrogation of Circumcision did not take that Interest from them Nor did the omission of it when in being cut Infants off from the Covenant of Grace It only cut them off from the Land of Canaan and the external Priviledges of the Jewish Churchstate For the delay of the Circumcision of Moses's Child did not cut it off from the Covenant of Grace nor did the omission of it fourty Years in the Wilderness cut them Infants off from the Covenant of Grace who died in that time howbeit before they possessed the Land of Canaan they must be circumcised which evidently shews that the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumcision are to be distinguished And therefore though Infants have now no Part in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they lose nothing by it because though it was very useful till Christ came for the Ends for which it was ordained respecting the Church-state of the Jews and the Birth of our Saviour of that Seed according to the Flesh yet the Removal of it was a great Mercy whether we respect the Severity of the Service it self or the Obligation to which it bound all that were circumcised Neither does any Man's Right to the Covenant of Grace arise from the Covenant of Circumcision neither does his Right to Baptism arise from the Covenant of Grace without a Divine Command appointing to whom and how it should be performed Now the Gospel being preached for the Obedience