as any whatsoever Antiq. 10. p. 9. As for the gracious Covenant made with Adam do we not grant that it extends to Infants yea we say with Mr. Baxter it was never abrogated Antiq 19. p. 14. Whether the Blessing of Abraham if you understand it of Eternal Life was not the Blessing of the Fathers that were before him And whether that Blessing did not belong to their Infants which is not at all opposite to my 19 Query And in what follows there you plainly shoot short as I noted before And Antiq. 23. p. 17. you fairly grant that Promises made to the Seed of the Righteous to the children of them that Love God c. are unrevoked you doubt not but these Promises yet remain Though I confess I do not well understand what you mean by those words Antiq. 21. p. 16. Whether all men that follow the rules of Morality are not within the reach of these Blessings also These you speak of are either Righteous and such as love God or they are not If they be such then certainly they belong to the Universal Church and are real Members of it if they are not such then they have not an interest in the promise made to such as love God neither can they lay claim to Blessings promised But to go on with your concessions Antiq. 11. p. 9. And whether the difference between the Baptists and Paedobaptists be not chiefly if not only about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants Antiq. 12. p. 10. Seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sense acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church viz. by Redemption pious Dedication to God c. Antiq. 30. p. 23. And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-Relation Obligation or Right Or who opposeth their being devoted to God in their capacity Antiq. 31. p. 24. 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 Prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of grace for your Infants more than we whom you call Anabaptists Here we have as you say in your Preface your Concessions in respect of Infants Relation to God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace and the Devotion of his people c. I shall be very glad if I may know you are all agreed in these things And here methinks you offer as fair as any of your way I have ever met with to end our difference about Infant-Baptism If the premises be granted the conclusion will follow If you grant our Infants within the Covenant then they have right to the investing sign To whom the promise belongs to them Baptisme belongs Acts 2. 38 39. If you yield our Infants Church Members then you should not deny their right to solemn admission by Baptism See Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof c. p. 23. c. And Mr. T. your Champion yielded this would follow You grant Antiq. 6. p. 4. and Antiq. 22. p. 16. That Infants are of the Redeemed Church And in the close of Antiq. 25. p. 19. That Infants still retain Member-ship in the Invisible Church And Antiq. 16. p. 13. They are Members of the Universal Church invisible you mean for you like not of an Universal Church Visible And otherwise as you say How shall they be saved seeing Christ is only the Saviour of his Body Only I query whether it be not a contradiction when you say Antiq. 28. p. 21. How can Infants be said to be a spiritual Seed Are any but a spiritual Seed Members of the Invisible Church Are not they a spiritual Seed that are of Christs Body and saved by him But if Infants be not Members of the Visible Church how can you prove they are Members of the Invisible Church To be probably Members of the Invisible Church is to be Members of the Visible Church or Visible Church-Members Further you say The Baptists do in a good sense acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church viz. by Redemption pious Dedication to God c. Antiq. 12. pag. 10. before-cited now do but make sense of it and I have enough Either these Infants visibly belong to the Kingdom of Christ or to the Kingdom of Satan for these two Kingdoms divide and share the whole world that such as are not of the one are certainly of the other and such as are not visibly of the one are visibly of the other And will you say that such as are of the Redeemed-Church related to the Church by Redemption and further related by Pious Dedication to God c. are visibly the seed of the Serpent and of the Kingdom of Satan But this Pious Dedication leads me to another of your self-contradictions Antiq. 30. p. 23. Where are Christian Parents required to devote their children by consenting to any Covenant for them Though you grant there the Jews were required to Covenant for their children in matters of Religion And yet under the next Anti-query p. 24. you say Prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of grace for your Infants more than we How properly may these be called Anti-queries Or to get off will you say you consent to the Covenant of grace for the Infants but not as a thing required I gave you thanks before for some things granted concerning Infants and I here promise more thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants This you insinuate p. 5. Seeing then all Infants for ought you know have the same right But I doubt your proof of this point will be as lame and weak as your sentence there is imperfect and abrupt You should not wrong us To say we restrain the love and grace of God to such Infants as in your new phrase partake with Parents in practicals of Religion Antiq. 3. p. 2. as if we held that no Infant dying unbaptized could be saved is a charge you cannot prove Antiq. 4. p. 3. Whether the Parents consent to wickedness is the childs consent Peruse Mr. Baxter of Original Sin You your self do not deny Antiq. 7. p. 6. but the wickedness of Parents may expose their Infant-children to external calamities Yea Antiq. 21. p. 16. whoever doubted but that Infants are greatly disadvantaged by the wickedness of their Parents even so as to bear their Fathers iniquities many times as is evident in the overthrow of the old World c. Now God is not injust in what he inflicts on such children If they bear the Fathers iniquities they are some way guilty with their Parents You enquire further Antiq. 4. p. 3. And whether this do not give the Parents power to save or damn their Infants But you will not say I suppose that you are your own Saviour when you perform the condition of the Covenant to which Salvation for Christs sake is graciously promised Neither will we say that any Infants perish purely for
Church and to be afterwards admitted into the Christian Church upon the profession of Faith and Repentance is plain in Scripture not to be contradicted But this contradicteth not the Baptising of the Infants of such being also to be acknowledged Church-Members Neither can you shew in all the New-Testament one instance of any Baptised upon their profession who deferred their Childrens Baptism if Infants till they were grown up and able to make the like profession But to come a little nearer to you would you have none but Men and Women Baptised Then do you not forget your self again and what you said Antiq. 39. p. 31. Who is against as early an engagement of children to God as can lawfully be made Now this one concession of yours that you are for as early an engaging them to God as can lawfully be will prove your way not so certain not altogether clear as you would perswade your Readers in your Preface not beyond the reach of contradiction but full of doubts full of difficulties If the children of Christians are not to be engaged and devoted to God in their Infancy you can none of you tell how then are you like to agree at what age they are to be so engaged and devoted to God What think you Is it not sinful to neglect and put it off when once it might lawfully be done Now what word what Example can you produce out of Scripture to satisfie Conscience how early you may do it What was the youngest Age that ever any Christians child was Baptised at And if you could tell us the minimum quod sic and quod non the youngest age at which any child was Baptised and under which age none might be Baptised it would be some guide to us Because you put the matter to my Conscience I would speak seriously And so I must say was I off from the grounds of Infant-Baptism I cannot see how Conscience would be well satisfied about the time of Baptizing my own Children To defer it after they are come to make a visible profession by your own Principles should be concluded sinful against the Rule of the Gospel but how soon a Childs profession may be taken for a sufficient visible profession I should not know how to resolve or how to determine I have one request to you that you would take into your more serious thoughts that part of the last Query which you left out Think how much of it you have granted unto And let us study the things that make for Peace and whereby we may edifie one another What you seem to hide from your Readers I shall give you the substance of more briefly out of Mr. Baxters Review p. 27. That if you would be contented your selves to satisfie your own Consciences to be Rebaptized as one that doubted whether he were well Married would secure it by being Married over again and would afterwards live peaceably in Communion with your Brethren and not appropriate Church-Communion to your Sect And if you would not deny our Infants part in the Covenant of Grace the promise of Pardon and life by Christ and our Infants Church-Membership and only deferred the Baptismal Investiture as Tertullian desired for the more solemn Inauguration and Obligation Though I should not be of your mind I should live in as loving forbearance and communion with you as with other Christians The Lord direct all his professing people into the way of Truth and Peace so prays Your Friend J. B. After this brief Reply to your Antiqueries I would propound to you these following Queries out of Mr. B's first defence or plain Scripture-proof c. desiring your serious thoughts upon them If you say they are answered already in Mr. T s writings then it will be more easie for you to return an Answer which if clear and succinct may more befriend your cause than greater volumes Preparatory Enquiries 1. Is not the Scripture more sparing in such cases as these 1. In speaking of those to whom it speaks not as concerning the Heathen and concerning Infants 2. In lesser points 3. In points not then questioned 4. Does not the New-Testament speak more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the old And is not this the very case here The main Question not being By what sign Members are to be admitted into the Church or whether by a sign or without but At what age they are to be admitted Members which is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible and therefore what need any more 2. Will the difficulty of a point that it is not so easie or clear as we would have it prove that it is not Truth The Apostle Peter tells us many things are hard to be understood even in Pauls Epistles yet are they not truths for all that Are there not many weighty Controversies more difficult than this And should it not be considered whether the contrary hath not far less evidence and likelihood of Truth 3. If never so clear evidence of Truth be produced will it not still be dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it And is not this the case of many even of the godly that are but children in knowledge 4. When the case is so difficult that we cannot attain to a clearness and certainty must we not follow the more probable way And though there should be far more said against Infant-Baptism than hath been said yet if far more may be said against your way of Baptism should not this stop you 5. And is it not a spirit of rashness and headiness that runs men presently upon new untried ways upon every doubting about the old would not tender Consciences who know errors to be dangerous wait and pray and enquire of those that are likely to inform them c. before they venture 6. Is the overthrow of a mans former weak grounds the overthrow of the Truth which he held Or is the overthrow of other mens weak arguments a weakning of the Truth which they maintain 7. Is not one found Argument enough to prove any thing true what if all the Texts that are brought were put by save one is not that enough 8. Should not the former and present customs of the holiest Saints and Churches be of great weight with humble moderate Christians in cases controverted and beyond their reach 9. Are not evident consequences or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture as true proof as the very express words of a Text If it be proved that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism And then proved That Infants are Church-Members is not this as much as to prove They must be Baptized Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-Baptism as Christ brought for the Resurrection Mat. 22. 31 32. or will you call that weak arguing which is like his 10. Is this Controversie in it self considered of so great moment as some
Much in a Little OR An Abstract of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-Proof for INFANTS Church-Membership OR BAPTISM VVith a few Notes upon the Anti-queries of T. G. By the same hand that wrote the Fifty Queries LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers-Chappel 1678. Reader WHat Artifices and assaults the Devil hath made and used to supplant the weightiest Principles to darken the most clear and comfortable Truths and to break the Peace and Concord of the Church is grown too evident to require proof And how he hath perplexed this present Doctrine of the Church-Membership and Baptism of Infants with Controversies we need not now insist upon But surely were not our little ones as well concerned and interested in the Covenant of Grace as their Parents are your strange and deep compassions towards them so rooted in Nature and cultivated and enlarged by Grace would become their dreadful torment and distress And why Infants should feel the smart 〈◊〉 dreadful punishments of the violated Law 〈◊〉 Covenant of innocent nature as is evident in their early diseases pains and death and not be capable of redress and pardon by a gracious Covenant I am yet to learn And what their capacity should be for if not to be answerably treated and regarded supposing what God by his Son and in his Gospel hath prepared and tendred to us I cannot understand All Laws consider Infants at in their Parents until maturity make them capable of chusing and acting for themselves And why we should exclude them from Covenant redresses seeing God once took them in by an Act or Law of Grace not yet repealed I am not able to conjecture Were they excluded from Gospel-Grace their Parents would want 1. That Cogent Argument which now they have to be devoted unto God themselves and to be true to such a Dedication as ever they regard the present and eternal welfare of their Infant-Seed And 2. A Soveraign Antidote against their griefs and fears when their children are removed in their Infancy For if God hath no-where promised to save our little ones by his Son to pardon them and to adopt them into his Family what can perswade us that they belong not to the Devil and that they are not gone to dwell with him when they are dead And then with what dejected hearts and looks must mournful Parents follow their deceased Infants to their Graves But I shall and need not say any more seeing this Abstract of Mr. Baxters larger and elaborate Treatise comes on this Errand to its Reader who is desired to take notice that it was ready many Months agone soon after the publication of the Anti-Queries though its own publication hath been obstructed until now Peruse and judge impartially A few Notes upon the Querist Examined YOur Anti-Queries very lately sent me by one of your party as A full Answer to the Fifty Queries I have considered impartially I hope and cannot think them worthy of a Book in Answer Yet that you might not take my Silence either for consent or for a contempt I have written these few pages here Now in the first place I must tell you Those Fifty Queries will remain unanswered until that Book of Mr. Baxters be answered to which every Query refers which for ought I know you never yet lookt into And whether your Anti-Queries so far as they concern the main point in Question be not cut off and answered again and again in that Book and divers other extant and common I leave to the judgment of indifferent Readers Further I might tell you of your playing upon the word Church Antiq. 1. p. 1. which is immediately explained in my first Query by Kingdom of God which prevents your exception And I might take notice of your newcovn'd Term Practical Ordinance which you have so often as if there were some other Ordinances speculative or not practical I might take notice of your Illogical distinction of being a Member of the Church Essentially and being a Member Formally Anti. 18. p. 14. And your not allowing an universal Visible Church Antiq. 16. p. 12. I might take notice how you misunderstand or misapply those Texts Except ye eat the Flesh of Joh. 6. 53. And Except a man be born of water Joh. 3. 5. As if the former spake of the Lords Supper and the latter of Baptism vid. Antiq. p. 5. Again I might take notice of your shooting short in many of your Antiqueries As because there was a time when Infants within the Church were not devoted to God by any such engaging sign as Circumcision or Baptism no such engaging sign being then instituted therefore Infants are not to be so solemnly devoted to God when such an engaging sin is instituted and belongeth to all within the Church And your shooting wide is plain in some others I might tell you how you have the same things over and over again Though you accuse me of continual tautologizing Antiq. 38. p. 30. I am willing the Impartial Reader should judge whether of us be most guilty here Turpe est Doctori c. I take notice of your citing Mr. Baxters Cure of Church-Divisions p. 7. no less than thrice soil in Preface and p. 10. and p. 32. yet a man may turn thrice to p. 7. in that book of Mr. Baxter for that which you refer unto and lose his labour So I take notice of your vain flourishing and braving it with Mr. T 's confident challenge both in the end of your Preface And know this c. and again Antiq. 49 p. 38 39. when also you shoot wide not one word to my Query As concerning Mr. Baxter I may say Know this that others that are sober and judicious tell him he hath clear'd those points sufficiently that any further debate concerning them is needless Further I might take notice of the many Et caetera's you have put to my Queries sometimes leaving out what was most lively to pinch yea you cut off the chief part of fiftieth and last Query without so much as an c. unless it was the Printers fault Again I might take notice where you are not very consistent with but rather contradict your self One or two places I may have occasion to observe But I must take notice of your fair concessions and I thank you for them I will not dispute it with you whether these of yours be properly called Antiqueries Let the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be either pro or con with you I should not spend time in criticising on the word But whether in composition the word of an Apostle or Messenger of the Churches as I have heard some do call you should be both yea and nay may be a question Now what do these following Queries o◠yours imply Antiq. 5. p. 4. Whether the Baptists do not as clearly assert Infants right to the grace of God in the first Edition of the Covenant made with Adam
meritoriousness of Christ is not as available to save Infants without any mans acceptance thereof for them I doubt not but the second Adams obedience and merits are available so far as was intended and agreed betwixt the Father and him But it lies on you to prove that it was so intended and agreed that all Infants so dying shall absolutely be saved Antiq. 37. p. 29. Whether it be his will that the grace of that Covenant should depend upon others observation of the condition for them And whether this be not to put the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand Infants are not saved by the Covenant of grace which is to Believers and their Seed if they neither be Believers nor the Seed of such Only that I be not misunderstood I add If any that enjoy not the Gospel that never heard that joyful sound come up to the terms of the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah I rank not them and their Seed with Infidels To what you say of Gods putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand I need say but this you might as well query whether God put not the Salvation of the Adult out of his own hand if their Salvation be suspended on performance of the condition required One thing more I cannot but observe wherein I suppose you are a little singular also In Antiq. 26. p. 19. You make your Imposition of hands as generally pertaining to Members of the Church as Baptism Where I might note that you seem to grant Baptism generally pertains to the Members of the Church But that by the way Now elsewhere you tell us that In this holy Ordinance of Prayer and Imposition of hands we are in a solemn manner ushered into the promise of the holy Spirit You go on Imposition of hands doth put us in a better capacity to seek daily for the gifts and graces of the Spirit because now solemnly interested in the promise by that very way the primitive Saints were interested therein Act. 8. 15 17. Act. 19. 2 6. 2. Tim. 1. 6. Heb. 6. 1 2. What shall I say The Scriptures or these Scriptures are evidence sufficient that this Crdinance is of Divine Institution is from Heaven the promise which it leads to is perpetual and universal it belongs to the whole body There is one Body and one Spirit c. This is the conclusion of the Sermon p. 96 97. And what gifts of the Spirit you speak of is very plain throughout the Sermon For brevity I will mention but one place p. 77. Thus you see the Church being under perpetual Exhortations to seek for spiritual gifts without any restriction necessarily infers her perpetual right to them and every of them which consideration alone is sufficient as I conceive to satisfie any Christian that the promise of the Spirit even the same that was given to the first Churches in respect of gifts as well as graces belongs to the Church of Christ throughout all Ages Now if Imposition of hands generally pertains to all the Members of the Church and solemnly interesteth them in the promise of the Spirit methinks it should follow that all such Members on whom you lay your hands supposing you have right to do it as you take up the practice if I be not mis-informed should have some extraordinary gifts of the Spirit And I have reason to think you encourage your followers to submit to this Imposition by working in them such a perswasion and expectation For p. 88. of the forecited Sermon you have these words As the promise of gifts as well as graces pertains to us as we are the called of God we ought to stir one another up to seek with all diligence and full assurance for the Spirit of promise And p. 95. 'T is well known and I think granted on all hands that they i. e. the Primitive Churches used the solemn Ordinance of Prayer and Imposition of hands for obtaining the promised Spirit at least with respect to these gifts Then seeing these gifts are promised to us as well as unto them and are attainable and in part at least attained by many what should hinder the Churches but that now they should tread in this path with faith and full assurance that a blessing is in it But while you call for full assurance here I am full of doubt that you have no such Promise nor Commission for your practice of Imposition of hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost Take heed of pretending a Commission from Heaven take heed of counterfeiting Heavens Seal Oh be afraid of taking Gods Name in vain Will you herein imitate the Apostles May it not be said of you you know not what Spirit you are of May you not as well take upon you to lay hands on the Sick to heal them Because of that Mark 16. 18. They shall lay hands on the Sick and they shall recover or anoint them with Oyl in the Name of the Lord because of what you read Mark 6. 13. Jam. 5. 14. I dare not limit God or his holy Spirit and I desire that you may not tempt him When you have pleaded all you can for the continuance of those extraordinary gifts and for the promise of them being perpetual universal to the whole body and pertaining to us as we are the called of God whereupon it follows that they should pertain to all that are called of God yet experience will confute you and prove they are not so ordinary When you make Prayer and Imposition of hands The means ordained of God to obtain those gifts Ser. p. 94. 95. I might retort some of your own words Antiq. 33. p. 25. Shew us what benefit c. And Antiq. 39. pag. 31. Name one Name one that hath received those gifts of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of your hands If the gift of healing c. was seen to follow these might draw in more to you then your Writing or Disputing And I wish you would be advised ere you encourage all your hearers to seek for Spiritual gifts without any restriction lest Women seek to Prophesy or men seek new Revelations and so turn Enthusiasts and think themselves above Mans teaching There is enough to be said against your Imposition of hands though I have nothing to say against Confirmation being duly and orderly performed but have long wisht for the Restoring of it So I have nothing against Imposition of hands in setting apart persons that are proved and fitted to the work of the Ministry But this pertains not to every Member of the Church I can pass by what you say of me that I am worse for my Baptism in Infancy as resting upon that c. Antiq. 40. p. 32. 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 The Baptising of such as were without the Church or were first of the Jewish
they not God engaged in Covenant to be their God and to take them for his peculiar people Deut. 29. 10 11 12. And those that were aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel were they not strangers to the covenant of Promise and without hope and without God in the World Eph. 2. 12. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate but Church-Members And when God addeth to the Church such as shall be saved can it be any known way of mercy to be cast or put out of the Church Did Christ come in tho flesh to put Infants out of his Church in mercy Will you say he could more fitly save them out of his Church than in it And if it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven nor any hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth or any hurt to the Church to see them Members here And whatsoever it may be to strangers yet how can it seem such a mercy to Parents to have their Children put out of the Church why then hath God made such promises to Parents for their Seed as if much of the Parents comfort lay in their Childrens Welfare And hath God no mercy for Infants or can he not shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way than by casting out all their Infants What great comfort would follow this conclusion That all your Infants are out of Christs visible Church Can you prove that Christ will save those that are no Christians not so much as visibly or seemingly Subjects of his Kingdom If some priviledges were taken away as the Release of the Jews servants c. yet are there not far greater given in their stead 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church Therefore to the rest that remained in the gift was not repealed Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members with their Parents that but some were broken off from this Church and how far is the whole Church from being dissolved And who can imagine that God should cast out the Infant that came in for the Parents sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 3. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief And consequently that Believers and their seed were not broken off Will you say that the Apostle speaketh there of the Invisible Church Doth he not speak of that Church whereof the Jews were natural Branches v. 24. and was not that the Visible Church And if the breaking off was visible such wherein Gods severity was to be beheld by the Gentiles as v. 22. was it not from the Visible Church directly Could there be a visible breaking off or removal from an invisible term 4. If it be into their own Olive which they were broke off from and of which they were natural branches that the Jews shall be re-ingraffed at their recovery as Rom. 11. 24. then how is Gods Ordinance for their Infant Church-Membership repealed Is not their own Olive their own Church And did not their own Church ever contain Infants as Members As it will when it is but part of the Catholick Church tho they be not restored to the Mosaical Law or Covenant of peculiarity but taken into the Catholick Church 5. Is it not the same Olive or Church which the Jews were broken off from that we Gentiles are graffed into as Rom. 11. 17 19 24 And if their Church admitted Infant-Members and ours be the same must not ours admit of Infant-Members also Is it not plain from the Text that the Olive or Church it self remained still only some Branches were broken off and others of the Gentiles ingraffed in their stead Then how is it taken down any further than as to ceremonial accidentals 6. Would not Christ have gathered Jerusalem which is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish Nation Mat. 23. 37 38 39. 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 7. Can ye 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 Did Christ come to make Believers or their children miserable or bring them into a worse condition And is it not a far worse condition to be out of the visible Church than in it Hath not Christ made larger promises to his Church Visible than to any in the world that are not of the Church what promise is there to others except the conditional upon their coming in 8. If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now in regard of the Childrens happiness and the Parents comfort than it was before Christs coming then will it not follow that our children ought to be admitted Church-Members and consequently that Ordinance and merciful Gift is not repealed 9. If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church then are they not in a worse condition than the very children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ Is it not the express Letter of Gods Law that any stranger that would come in might bring his children and all be Circumcised and admitted Members of the Jews Church 10. Was not the Covenant Deur 29. 10 11 12. which all the Jews with all their little ones were enter'd into with God a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Laws which was repealed How then is it or their Church-Membership grounded on it repealed Is not that a Covenant of Grace wherein God taketh them to be his people and engageth to be their God Hath God entred into such a Covenant with any since the Fall but in Christ and upon terms of Grace Is not that a Covenant of Grace wherein the Lord promiseth to Circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their Seed c. See Heb. 10. 16 17. And doth not the Apostle Paul cite those words of faith Rom. 10. 5 6 7 8. out of this very Covenant Compare Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14. with the Text last cited 11. If Infants then were entred and engaged Church-Members by that Circumcision which was a Seal of the Rightcousness of Faith and was not given on Legal grounds as Rom. 4. 11. how comes that Church-Membership of Infants to be repealed Is it any other than a shift to say that it was only such a Seal of Abrahams righteousness of Faith Is not the nature end and use of Sacraments or holy engaging Signs and Seals the same to all though the fruit be not alway the same 12. If the Law of Infants Church-Membership was no part of the Ceremonial or meerly Judicial Law
be otherwise by grace Again may not children be visible Church-members and yet perhaps children of wrath too Were not all the children of Church-members among both Jews and Proselites Church-members And yet were they not children of wrath by nature as we are 2. If you object that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism To this though Infants are not capable of every benefit by Baptism as the Aged are yet are they not capable of the principal ends May it not be a listing sign to enter them Church-members and solemnize their Dedication to Christ and engage them to be his people and to take him for their Lord and Saviour and so to confer on them remission of sin and what Christ by the Covenant promiseth to the Baptised though yet themselves understand not this even as we put the names of Infants in Bonds and Leases which they can neither read nor know of And may it not be operative by its signification as soon as the Child comes to the use of Reason which will not be so long as you use to defer Baptism And in the mean time as his interest is upon the â—â—…dition of the Parents faith and as he is received as it were a Member of them so may not the Parents have the present actual comfort of it as the Parent hath the actual comfort of a Lease that assureth an Estate to his Child And was not Christ himself Baptized when yet he was not capable of many of the great ends of Baptism Was Baptism to Christ a sign of the washing away of sin or of purifying his Soul which was perfect before or of being buried with Christ c. And how uncapable were the Infants that Christ laid his hands on and took up in his Armes of understanding the meaning of what he did Shall we therefore say that Christ should have let it alone till afterwards And will you tell us what operation Circumcision had on the Infants of Church-members formerly Was it not a Seal of the righteousness of Faith And yet had they any more Faith or knowledge of the significancy than ours have now Was it not an engaging sign And yet were not they as uncapable of understanding either the significancy or engagement as ours are So 3. If you object How can an Infant Covenant with God or be engaged by this Sign And where doth God require the Parent to engage his children c. To this if only the Aged are capable of engagement may you not thence straitway conclude that no Infant was ever circumcised But may not that be the Childs Action Morally and in Law-sence which is onely the Fathers Action Physically When a man puts his Childs name in a Lease and binds himself and his heirs is not the Child thus entred into Covenant and Bond And does not the Law take it as his Act And is it not a plain natural duty of Parents to covenant for their children when it is for their good And doth not the Scripture fully shew that all the people of Israel did by Gods appointment enter their children into the Covenant of God Were they not to circumcise them which God calleth his Covenant and the sign of the Covenant And is it not as plainly spoken as the mouth of man can speak it in Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. Did not the Parents there enter their children into the Covenant and not the Infants themselves And doth not that shew God hath given Parents their interest and authority 4. Another common objection is if Infants must be Baptized why may they not as well receive the Lords Supper To which may not the very external nature of the several Sacraments satisfie you Hath not Christ appointed the first to be such as Infants are capable of May not they be washed as well as the Aged But is not the other such as they are naturally incapable of in their first Infancy And is not the former instituted plainly for all disciples But what Scripture saith that all Disciples as such should presently receive the Lords Supper Is it not restrained to those that can first examine themselves and can discern the Lords Body and keep in remembrance his Death And if every Burgess at Age as such hath power to Trade c. in the City will it therefore follow that every Infant may do so that is born a Burgess 5. It hath been objected that if it be the Will of Christ that Infants should be Baptized it is strange that he hath left it so dark To which will you not grant that all Church-members must be admitted by Baptism Is this dark or doubtful And how many Scriptures are there that prove Infants must be admitted Church-members Can we say the Scripture is dark or sparing in that Again The Scripture speaks most fully in the Controversies which in those times were agitated but was it any Controversie then whether Infants were to be Members of the visible Church Did not the Jews take it for unquestionable all their Infants having actual possession and that upon Gods own grant and Ordination Now if Christ would have dispossessed them should he not somewhere have discovered it And would it not have occasioned great disputes and debates v. Epistle to Bewdley p. 5 6. Further what if it were more obscure than it is Is not the New Testament as silent about Christian Kings or any Christian Magistrates or about an Oath before a Magistrate and about War and about the prohibited degrees of Marriage and about the Sabbath c. Will you therefore say these are not revealed It it not enough that they are revealed in the Old Testament And was not Infants Church-membership revealed clearly there 6. Another objection is The evil consequences of Infant-Baptism as gross Ignorance much occasioned by it c. To which 1. Is not the Lord Jesus himself the occasion of the ruine and damnation of multitudes Luk. 2. 34. Had it been better therefore the World had been without him And is not the Gospel to many The Savour of Death unto Death and to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Gentiles foolishness And must the Gospel be blamed for this What is it that Wicked men will not take hurt by and make an occasion of their destruction And have not many said so about the religious Education of children that it is but the way to make them Hypocrites point-blank against the Will and Word of God Deut. 6. 7. Prov. 22. 6. And do not many make their belief of the Scripture and believing that Christ died and rose again and that he is the Saviour of the World and the profession of his Name to be the ground of their hopes of Salvation and thousands more than that trust to their meer Baptism And what if many amongst you think to be saved because they are Baptized again 2. Can you shew any of you what there is in