THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Infants Church-Membership and BAPTISM Epitomized In two TREATISES The First Shewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants against the Doctrine of the Paedo-Baptists who deny Salvation to all Infants that die Unbaptized either directly or by the natural Consequence of their Arguments The Second Being a plain Confutation of Mr. J. B. his second Book of more than 60 Queries about Infants Church-Membership and Baptism by a proportionable number of Antiqueries Being an Essay towards a more Christian Accommodation between the Paedo-Baptists and the Baptized Believers Published for that happy end By THOMAS GRANTHAM Author of The Querist Examined wherein Fifty Queries gathered and propounded by the said J. B. are Redargued Mr. Baxter tells us in his Saints Rest p. 179. 3 d Edit That in the Primitive Times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the World the Flesh and the Devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey Him LONDON Printed in the Year 1680. To Mr. J. B. Collector of the Queries c. SIR I Shall here requite your Thanks you gave me in your last by returning Thanks to you for your endeavours for Peace among differing Christians and particularly for the terms propounded for an Accommodation and I find the same delivered lately by Mr. Baxter himself for which I return him thanks also For methinks there wants but a little more than is offered towards the obtaining so much Union between the Baptists and Paedo-Baptists as might make them a great Blessing one to another But Sir now give me leave to blame you and Mr. Baxter also for misrepresenting your Friends the Baptized Churches Whilst you in your Epistle and he in his Books do represent us to the World as a People who exclude Infants from Gospel Grace deny them to be capable of Pardon by a gracious Covenant as if we left all Infants in the Kingdom of the Devil took away all Comfort from Parents concerning their dying Infants When yet it is most certain all these things are utterly untrue and it is also certain that our Doctrine concerning dying Infants is far more comfortable than yours as I am persuaded will appear to such as read the ensuing Treatises And I am also persuaded could there be once a free and friendly Debate between the Baptists and Pedo Baptists about Infants interest in the Covenant of Grace and the certainty of their Salvation by Christ without incumbring that Discourse with Baptism it were easie to compose their Difference in that Point Which done it 's hoped might be no impossible thing to accommodate their difference in the case of Baptism it self But whilst these two things are confounded Disputes are Perplexed in so much as that a right understanding can hardly be attained on either side Nor do many Readers understand what Mr. B. means when he would have Infants admitted Members of the Visible Church by the Law of Infants Church-Membership unrepealed any more than they know what is intended on Mr. T 's part by their being taken to be Members by a Transient Fact both passages being too occult for every Reader Sir let me say this farther Could but the Reformed Christians once get over this stumbling-block of Paedo-Rantism and resolve upon the way of Believers Baptism which is so perspicuous in the Scripture and in the mean time take the most solemn way which might be warrantable to dedicate their Infants to God in the Name of Christ It would certainly prove the best Expedient to bring down the Papal Confidence for as they know and acknowledg that usage to stand upon the authority of Tradition and not upon the Scripture Warrant so they glory over the Protestant for his Inconstancy in denying unwritten Tradition and yet their very Baptism hath no other Foundation But were the Doctrine of Baptism purged from this Leven and restored to its Primitive Purity it would find all the Universities of the Papists as much business to defend their Infant Sprinkling as ever they were at to defend their Transubstantiation What you write concerning my Querist Examined I shall take little Notice of especially for that I find it attended with overmuch Levity and at the most is but a kind of Carping at Words rather than a solid Answer and there seems to me an unwillingness in you to understand what you flirt at about the Messenger's Office and about Imposition of Hands which being no Scriptureless Matters as your Paedo-Rantism is requires your more serious thoughts whether you understand or like my Sentiments there or not I am your Real Friend THO. GRANTHAM The Controversie of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism Epitomized The first Treatise shewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants SECTION I. IT is evident by the Writings of many Paedo-Baptists both Papists Prelatists and Presbyterians that they do all either hold absolutely that no Unbaptized Infant can be saved or at least that their Salvation is very doubtful And among these Mr. Baxter and from him Mr. J. B. hath not a little amused the Minds of Men about this Matter Only they have used a more subtle way coupling the Church-Membership of Infants with Baptism confounding thereby the Readers and themselves too they not being able to say which hath the Precedency for if Infants be Church-Members without or before they be Baptized let them say so and let them prove it well I shall be glad to see it done But then let them never say as Mr. J. B. doth in his Epistle and Mr. Baxter in his Books That Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation that Parents can have no comfort of their dying Children Making Baptism the soveraign Antidote against their Griefs and Fears when they are removed in Infancy As will appear more fully in the Examination of the Queries in the second Treatise Now this new art of pleading for Infant-Baptism by virtue of their Church-Membership and not from the Scriptures directly as others have assayed to do but could never perform the Task and therefore have been forced to take sanctuary with the Papists in unwritten Traditions and that with ill success I say considering this new Subtilty of Mr. Baxter I perceived the Controversie to rise very high and Questions thereupon to be greatly multiplied especially upon the Point of Infants Church-Membership Hereupon I thought it needful to consider this Matter for I perceived very good Men engaged on both sides and as I conceive much more straining in the Point than needed by which means the Reader shall sooner fill his Head with amazement than satisfaction in tracing the several windings of their Disputations Nor do I think my self wiser than they but having the advantage to stand and view whilst they engage I hope I have thereby been led to the consideration of a Medium which if duly considered and improved by better Pens than mine will I am much persuaded reconcile the difference about Infants visible
to believe our Infants as happy though not Baptized as any Infant of the Faithful in the Old World And did not Augustine think Infants as miserable if they died without the Lord's Supper as you think them to be if they die without being Crossed or Sprinkled And yet do not you believe he was deceived And are we not as justifiable to believe that you are also deceived Is it not as needful to feed upon Christ in the holy Supper as to put on Christ in holy Baptism Can you have comfort concerning your Infants in the want of the one and must we have none concerning our Infants in the want of the other And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. if Infants can have no benefit by it but on the condition of their Parents works of bringing them into the Church by your Tradition as you suggest in the latter part of this Query J. B. 7. If the Church be not in a worse state now will it not follow that our Children ougbt to be admitted Church-Members c. T. G. Whether this be not a false suggestion which keeps company with most of your Queries viz. That all Infants which are not brought to some Rite or Ceremony are put out of the Church Were the Infants of six days old in Israel put out of the Church Did not thousands of Infants die before they were admitted to Circumcision And if they were in the Church before it were lawful to Circumcise them why may not ours be in the Church as well as the Infants of six days old in Israel before and until it be lawful to Baptize them May we not do well to nurture and fit them for Baptism as they nursed and fitted them for Circumcision And what though our Work may require more Years than they theirs did Days yet we making all the speed that God requires are we not as excusable as they And what though some of our Children die before they can be fitted for Baptism Did not some of theirs die before they could be fitted for Circumcision And why may not we have comfort in our disappointments by Death as well as they when so disappointed And suppose our Children refuse to be Baptized when they come to understanding and will not be fitted for it by all that we can do what comfort would it be to have had them Sprinkled in their Infancy when now we find them reject Faith and Repentance the most substantial parts of true Baptism J. B. 9. If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church are they not in a worse condition than the very Children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ T. G. Do you not abuse the World to talk at this rate as if either God or we put Infants out of the Church when the only Question is about their admission to such or such Duties of Religion Wherein yet you do the same in many cases as I have shewed which we do in the case of Baptism And if any have in the heats of Disputation absolutely denied Infants to be of the Church yet you know their sence is only to deny your way of making them Church-Members Not but that they all assert Infants to be of the Body of Christ of the number of the saved and so of the Church And I here assert they are of the Visible Church because by the Word of God declared to be accepted of God to the Grace of Life through Christ But we put no Infants out of the Church For example I have had many Children for which I give thanks to God as soon as he gives them to me I do by Prayer to God devote and heartily commit them to him and by his Grace I do my best to teach them the Knowledg and Fear of God as they grow up and I bless God with this success that all that yet are capable have been Baptized And now wherein am I to be charged for putting my Children out of the Church And if I be Innocent as I know I am in this then I hope the Churches of the same Faith are as excusable And whether if there were faithful Ministers of Christ in every Parish it might not be a more likely way to bring Souls to true Christianity to instruct the Children twice or thrice a Week especially such Children whose Parents cannot instruct them as soon as they could learn and so to fit them for Baptism than to run to the Minister with them to be Baptized in their Infancy when God knows neither the Infants Priests nor their Parents know what they do J. B. 9. Was not the Covenant Deut. 29. 10 11 12. a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Law which was Repealed How then is it or Infants Church-Membership grounded on it Repealed c. T. G. Seeing this Covenant Deut. 29. obliged the Israelites to the whole Law and left them under the Curse of the Law if they kept it not as appears by reading Deut. 29. and 30th Chapters will it not follow that all the parts of this Covenant was not of the Covenant of Grace Indeed some things repeated or expressed here might pertain to the Covenant of Grace But what then Why Infants Church-Membership say you is grounded upon it And I pray who denies that by the Covenant of Grace Infants are Members of Christ of his Body or the Universal Church But what then must they therefore be brought to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church visibly professing the Worship of God in all Ages as much as in any Age This indeed is your false Inference and with this you delude your self and others And how long will it be ere you make the Covenant Deut. 29. and 30. agree with that which you quote out of Rom. 10. Heb. 10. in all Points And if they differ in any thing why may it not be in this the one admitted Infants to Circumcision and other Rites of the Law the other only brings those that know the Lord by the word of Faith being in their Heart and Mouth to partake of Institutions of the Gospel J. B. 10. If Infants then were entered Members by that Circumcision which was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith How comes that Church-Membership to be Repealed T. G. Not to contend with you whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any that had not the Faith of Abraham though plain Truth and all good Reason seems to be full against you yet to concess a little to see the most you can say how do you prove that none were Church-Members before they were Circumcised And how was Abraham admitted a Member of the Church by Circumcision Was he not a Member of the Church before he was Circumcised Was not Isaac a Member of the Church before he was eight Days old Were they not Circumcised because God had taken them into a Church-Covenant rather than to enter them into a Church-Covenant
Church-Membership And yet I do not at all doubt that Infant-Baptism will remain without any ground at all SECT II. And this I shall demonstrate by shewing That all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Vniversal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed state till by their voluntary departure from God by choosing sinful ways they destroy themselves And here we will make our entrance by a passage out of Mr. Baxter himself who saith All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace which is not vain nor repealed by God But as their abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out For as a Covenant of intire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam Mr. Baxter's more Reasons pag. 8. 6. so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah Now this Doctrine being no more than plain truth we shall apply it to the case in hand by shewing First That this Covenant of Grace was a visible church-Church-Covenant 2. That it was made with all Mankind and takes place in their Infancy 3. That it was never repealed by God 4. That no Infant did ever abuse the Grace of this Covenant And therefore no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant And then fifthly They all stand visible Members of the Catholick Church by virtue of this Covenant however their Parents do abuse or neglect it and hence it will follow no dying Infant is Damned but are all in a visible state of Salvation 1. That this Covenant of Grace first expressed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant or else there was no Church-Covenant in the World that we read of from Adam to Noah this being indeed all the Covenant that is named during these Times besides that Covenant of Intire Nature made before the Fall And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam and in him by all his Posterity it being not a Covenant of Grace could not justifie the Offenders in the â—ight of God There must therefore be some supervening Act of Grace or Mercy from God else Adam even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins must have stood under Condemnation for ever seeing no Man could by any means redeem his Brother nor give to God a Ransom for him It is the received Doctrine of Christians that the Visible Church began in Adam and that his Family was the Church wherefore the whole World being then the Church and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World that was to proceed from Adam and this Covenant yet remaining it follows against all contradiction that whole Mankind considered as they come into the World in all the several Ages of it are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Catholick Church of God But whereas many did Apostatize from the Grace of God's Covenant by corrupting his way Gen. 6. 12. It was necessary that they should be ejected and therefore was the Covenant accommodated and appropriated to those who had not sinned themselves out of it but still the Innocent must not be ejected with the Nocent for it is he only that sinneth whose Name shall be blotted out of the Book which God hath written Gen. 32. 32 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in settling the Covenant of his Grace nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham was exclusive of any Infant in the World as to the Grace of God in order to Eternal Life no more than the establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel in a far more excellent order for distinguishing the Precious from the Vile is in any wise exclusive of any dying Infant for of such is the Kingdom of God Nor can any Man shew either by Scripture or Reason that God will shut out all the dying Infants of wicked Men from Life and Salvation by Christ no nor so much as any one of them for we are sure that the Judgment of God is according to truth that the Judge of all the Earth will do right That the Condemned shall be judged according to the deeds done in the Body but alas as for poor Infants what have they done 2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind is thus cleared because it was made with Adam without the least intimation of the exclusion of any part of his Posterity as they proceed from him to the end of the World neither hath God himself explained the Covenant of Grace to be Exclusive of any but for the cause of their own iniquity and this was evident first in the case of Cain who not being faithful in his offering was not accepted Yet God was pleased to shew him the cause Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted It should seem God never rejected him till this time neither did he now delight to reject him but graciously expostulates with Cain to convince him of his evil and assures him of acceptation if he did well If then Cain had an interest in the Grace of God who can we suppose to be shut out till they with Cain shut themselves out of it Evident it is that the Covenant of Grace extended to those Rebels in the Old World because we read the long suffering of God waited on them and he gave them time of Repentance and sent a Preacher of Righteousness even the Righteousness of Faith among them Heb. 11. 7. 2 Pet. 2. 5. therefore it is said Christ went by his Spirit and preached to them 1 Pet. 3. though none of them believed his Word Now such Acts on God's part are great Evidences of his Graciousness towards Men and shews that he remembers his Covenant made in Christ with them even for them that rebel against him and so perish And then how shall we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants who never rebelled against him 3. The Covenant of Grace was never repealed by God for if it be there is now no Covenant at all nor can it be repealed to one Man but it must be repealed to all Men. 'T is true Men may forfeit the Mercy held forth in that Covenant but the Covenant cannot be repealed for then there can be no certainty of any Mercy for Sinners Christ himself may as soon be made Null as this Covenant For what if some Apostatize or do not believe shall this make the Grace of God without effect God forbid When we continually see that Covenant of God's Grace displayed making overtures of kindness to Sinners even to the chief of Sinners what shall we say if any Infant be without a part in that Covenant Is he not then the chief of Sinners It is not then the Sin of Parents that can repeal the Covenant of Grace with respect to Infants 4. No Infants did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam
Gen. 3. 15. therefore no Infant was 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 to their Infants as the Sin of Adam made his Posterity guilty of the breach of the first Covenant we may then justly cry out Who then can be saved And therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Testament for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament Heb. 9. 15. Wherefore seeing Infants stand acquitted from the Trespasses against the First Testament and having not sinned against the Grace of the Second Testament they cannot come into the Condemnation of Hellish Torments The Papists themselves as * Witness the Massacre in Ireland Cruel as they sometimes are to the Bodies of Infants yet are more merciful to their Souls than the Presbyterians For they say That Infants shall only suffer the punishment of Loss but not of Torment Whilst the other tells the World Infants of a Span long are yelling in the flames of Hell 5. That all dying Infants or Infants in general are to be accounted Members of the vast Body or Catholick Church of which Christ is the Saviour finally is evident because they are all 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 therefore but to prove all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation which I shall further clear by answering what is objected against their Salvation by Mr. J. B. my present Adversary who saith Page 9. SECT III. I gave you thanks before for some things before granted concerning Infants and I here promise more thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants Answer 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 concern'd and so have the same Right And I hope you will not say that any Infant did forfeit this gracious Right by abusing the Grace of the Covenant And then Mr. B. tells you the Covenant is not vain nor repealed by God nor they cast out of it My Proves are such as these Infants are either all Saved dying such or some of them are Damned But none of them are Damned therefore they are all Saved See more of this anon 2. Our Saviour saith It is not the Will of his Heavenly Father that one of those little ones should perish which is certainly as true of Infants as of any Persons in the World 3. Christ dying for all Infants and they do not sin themselves out of the benefit of his Death Shortly thus God will not Damn any no not one of these little ones Men and Devils cannot Damn them they cannot Damn themselves Ergo Christ's dying for them will save them all See the conclusion of this Treatise SECT IIII. J. B. Pag. 11. The overthrow of both these Generations in the Deluge is a strange Medium to prove the Salvation of all Infants c. Answer I do not say that God's destroying the Infants of those that were called his Sons Gen. 6. as well as the Infants of others was an Evidence of God's saving any of them But this I do say That it was an Evidence that they were all in one State or Predicament And how would you or any Body else prove so much as one Infant in all the Old World was saved eternally better than I shall prove the Salvation of them all And shall we suffer it to enter into our Hearts that they were all Damned When therefore we reade 2 Pet. 2. 5. That God brought the Flood upon the World of the ungodly And Jude ver 7. 't is said of those who suffered the Vengeance of Eternal Fire That they were given over to Fornication and went after strange Flesh may we not perceive some Light which may guide us to believe that God did not plead in such Wrath against the Infant-seed as he did against the Wicked themselves And though it is true God suffered the Infants to die with the wicked Parents yet that is no Argument of God's condemning them to Hell Torments For did not the same God suffer his Servant Sampson to die by the fall of the Theatre among the wicked Philistines And we see the Righteous often taken away by the same common Calamities which have befallen Nations and Cities Let us remember how tender the Lord was of the Infants in Nineveh and it may convince us he was tender to Infants in the Old World And he that made those little ones an Argument to justifie his sparing Nineveh against the murmuring of Jonah would certainly make that an Argument for us to believe That had his Judgments proceeded against that City according to the Prophesie of Jonah yet he would have distinguished between the Innocent and the Nocent in respect to their future State and Condition for it was not the Wickedness of the Infants which cried to Heaven but of the Adult When we consider how hardly Almighty God was drawn to inflict those Judgments upon Mens Bodies though grievous Sinners in the Old World in Sodom Gen. 18. and frequently where we reade of the Execution of his Judgments it may justly seem very strange that Men should think that God can be so easily provoked to damn Infants to Hell Torments for him I say to damn poor Infants in Eternal Fire who was so hardly drawn to Inflict on the Ninevites Children so much as a Temporal Judgment Nay he is unwilling to destroy the very Cattel for Man's Sin Jonah 4. which are only capable of Temporal Punishment And can it become us to think that God will send Millions or any poor dying Babes to Hell And pray what have they done thus highly to stir up his Wrath against them Shew the Cause if you can J. B. To the Text Rom. 5. The Free-gift abounded towards all Men to Justification of Life You answer This all must be restrained to all in Christ But by your favour There is none so out of Christ as they come into the World but God hath provided Mercy for them in Christ John 1. 29. so that here is no restraint of the Justification here spoken of till Men abuse the Mercy of God by sinning against their own Souls Nor can your restriction which I suppose would limit this Free-gift to the Elect only hold agreement with the scope of the place for seeing Mankind or all Men are Personated as well in the second as in the First Adam
* The Law entered that Sin might abound but where Sin abounded Grace did much more abound That as Sin hath reigned unto Death even so might Grace reign through Righteousness unto Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord. You can no more exclude any from the Justification of Life as having abounded towards them by Christ than you can exclude them from the Condemnation which abounded towards all Men by the First Adam For tell me How many came under Condemnation by the Sin of Adam Is there any or any Infant that can plead Impunity Why even so saith the Apostle the Free-gift came upon all Men to Justification of Life And may we not now safely conclude that had Mankind never been guilty of any other Sin but that I say upon a supposition that Adam and his Posterity had from the time of the Promise Gen. 3. 15. lived holily and done no Iniquity would you not conclude with me that none should have perished in Hellish Torments And if you grant this then we must either find some Man SO concern'd in the Covenant of Grace AS that if he sinned against it his Posterity is condemned with him Eternally as all Adam's Posterity were exposed to Condemnation for his Sin Or else we must hold that no Infant shall die eternally for Adam's nor for any other Persons iniquity If you name any Man thus concern'd in the Covenant of Grace you can name none so apt for the purpose as Adam seeing we were all in him when that Covenant was made with him and there is no doubt but that he sinned after the Covenant was made Gen. 3. 15. Yet where do we find any Sin which he afterward committed imputed to any part of his Posterity And seeing we cannot prove an Universal Resurrection from 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. unless Mankind be equally concern'd in the Death of Christ We must necessarily believe whole Mankind to be interessed in him and as they are interessed in Christ they are saved of the Lord and in him they are as clearly interessed in God's Mercy as they were Objects of his Wrath by the first Man So being justified from the guilt of Adam's Transgression who shall lay any thing to the charge of poor Infants that may justly cast them into Hell Fire sure 't is but meet Men should be able plainly to Convict them before they thus Condemn them Yea you that hold the Eternal Damnation of Infants ought you not to bring substantial Proof for so dreadful a Doctrine And when you have done your worst that way you have only destroyed your own certainty of Comfort concerning your dying Infants for I am persuaded you are not so unwise to think whatever you make others believe that your Infants are therefore saved because of your pretended Church-Membership and Baptism seeing 't is too evident that many attain to that Estate and yet are unlikely to be saved SECT V. J. B. pag. 13. To assert the Salvation of all that die in Infancy seems to imply that God's destroying the Old World and Sodom c. were eminent Acts of God's Mercy rather than of Justice c. help me over this Difficulty Answ Although it is not unjust for God to take Infants out of the World yet his Justice in destroying the Old World and Sodom lay not against the Infants as I proved in the Section next before but in Justice he punished those wicked Parents in putting a period to their Posterity Did not God in the days of Noah destroy all Beasts and Fowls almost yet who so weak to think he was offended with them was the Lord angry with the Beasts of the Field God was just in taking away David's Child 2 Sam 12. 14 yet who so rash to say That God did this in point of Justice against the Child Or that God was angry with the Child much less that the Child was damned David was far from any such opinion for though that Child was conceived and born in Sin and Iniquity as much as well could be and doubtless had the imputation of Original Sin as much as any yet David nothing feared that Child's damnation but rather intimates his confidence of its Salvation when he said I shall go to it For had it gone to Hell Torments he would not have comforted himself with thoughts of going to it I cannot make your speech to agree with the Justice of God where you say That Infants perish not purely for another's Sin but for their own contracted For though I can hear Men talk big words against Infants as if they were little better than Devils yet I never saw any proof that any Infant had any Sin of its own for which you would here make them perish or at least some of them The Scripture saith Sin is the transgression of a Law and tells us also that where no Law is there is NO TRANSGRESSION You must therefore either shew some Law to be given to Infants or else you cannot make them guilty of any Sin of their own And though I have not seen Mr. Baxter's Book to which you refer me yet I do not deny Original Sin for I know it is come upon all Adam's Posterity and Death passeth upon them for that all have sinned in him Howbeit I do believe that all Infants are as clearly justified from the condemning power of Sin in respect of Damnation as any Saint whatsoever which I think I have also proved from John 1. 29. and other places And seeing you now grant that none shall perish purely for another's Sin it remains for you to shew what Sin excepting Adam's is come upon any Infant to render him subject to Damnation You talk of their Contracting Sin of their own but I am to learn how this can be truly said of them that neither Act nor consent to Sin at all and surely such Scriptureless Notions are fitter to be exploded than embraced And though you seem to have some Charity for those and their Seed that only come up to the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah though they never heard the Gospel whilst you say you do not rank them with Infidels Yet this is but a slender kindness you do not say they shall be saved And you are positive in this That Infants are not saved by the Covenant of Grace if they neither be Believers nor the Seed of such Page 17. How this Doctrine will stand with the justice of a Gracious God I cannot conceive when I consider that God hath neither given to Infants a capacity to believe nor any liberty to chuse whether they will be the Seed of Believers or Unbelievers Will you yet say the most High will be more harsh in the Acts of Justice than the Rules will bear which he hath given to Men Deut. 22. 25 26 It is not the part of a wise Legislator saith a learned Man of the Church of England to recede from his own Laws much less to destroy them by acting contrary
to them It must be a fault then in you thus to represent the God of Justice Is the Covenant of Grace set upon such a tickle point as that the greatest part of Infants cannot possibly have any benefit by it So you teach who affirm they cannot be saved by the Covenant of Grace unless they be Believers or the Seed of such Why call you a Covenant made on such terms a Covenant of Grace to Infants Sure impossible Terms in a Covenant are not very gracious You would condemn this in Men you would not accept such terms of Man especially when the non-observance of such Terms took away the benefit of the Covenant yet thus you make many believe that God deals with the greatest part of Infants But I shall return to your former Instances of God's Justice against Infants as you would have it to wit the destruction of the Old World and Sodom SECT VI. The taking away by Death the Infants in the Old World and Sodom is neither an instance of Justice nor Mercy in the main to Infants any more than the taking away thousands of Infants daily by death throughout the World For when ever they die they are taken away from the evil to come and so it is always a Mercy and so it was a Mercy to the Infants of the Old World and the Innocents in Sodom But when ever they are taken away we know it is for Sin even that of Adam and sometimes their death is hastened for the Sin of the Parents as in the case of David's Child before mentioned as well as the Old World c. and thus their being taken away is always a Judgment And the Judgment lieth much in this that Mens Posterity is hereby either quite cut off or greatly weakened and thus the Old World and Sodom were punished in that they were deprived of all Succession And though it be true as you urge That if these Infants in the Old World and Sodom had lived to Age many of them might have been Damned for wickedness Yet to ballance that it is as true that a far greater Multitude in a few Generations both of Infants and others which might have proceeded from them might have been saved so that though we have no ground to doubt of the Salvation of the dying Infants in the Old World and Sodom yet we may see a most just Judgment of the Lord executed in both Of the same consideration is your Instance of Countries and Cities Destroyed and Depopulated by Tyrannical Princes Pag. 14. For what it the French King as you write should destroy all the Infants of the Pagans with the Adult it neither follows that here is not a Judgment from God in all this neither yet that God hath no Mercy for those Infants But pray consider whilst we all condemn such a Tyrant as should so barbarously Murther so many Innocents we may by no means say or think that a Gracious God will now when the Tyrant hath murthered them take and cast them into Hell-fire for he is a God that delights in Mercy But here you cry out Had the World your Light and Knowledg they ought not to be sorry for the spoiling of their Countries but rejoyce that all their little Ones are saved But this is a non-sequiter For no Man may do Evil that Good may come and let us not murmur against God who when Men have done their worst he knows how to prevent that which might be far worse than the worst they can do to Infants And though I may be satisfied that my dead Child or Friend is gone to Heaven yet I may lawfully be sorry for his Death SECT VII J. B. Pag. 15. And what shall we make of Ephes 2. 3. ver 12. And were by Nature Children of Wrath even as others That at that time you were without Christ without Hope If there be no ground to doubt the Salvation of their Infants is there not some hope Answ I grant that all Adam's Posterity with himself were Children of Wrath and take that Wrath in as large a sence as you please it hurts not my Cause at all seeing it is evident that Christ abolished that Wrath and Death and brought Life and Immortality to light by the Gospel which he preached to whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. and then took whole Adam into his Grace and Favour so that till they or any of them become the Serpents seed they stand in a state of Favour and Grace which shall deliver them from Wrath and Death And it is most certain no Infant is the Serpent's seed it being out of his power to beget them to be his Off-spring seeing they are out of the reach of his Temptations during Infancy Howbeit this place Ephes 2. is best interpreted of the Adult or grown Persons For those of whom it is said They were without Hope c. it is said they were dead in Trespasses and Sins and walked according to the course of this World according to the Prince of the power of the Air which now worketh in the hearts of the Children of Disobedience such as had their Conversation in the lusts of their Flesh fulfilling the desires of the Flesh and of the Mind and SO were by Nature the Children of Wrath. But what is all this to the innocent Babes of the Gentiles they were not thus the Children of Wrath No nor out of the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam having never abused the Grace of that Covenant so that here was Hope or ground of Hope concerning the dying Infants of the Gentiles whether their Parents understood it or not but no hope concerning themselves considered in their wicked Courses Neither could the Hope of these Gentiles when they believed concerning their Infants stand upon the same grounds on which their own Hopes was founded seeing these were saved through Faith and built up an Habitation of God through the Spirit Only this is very true They now understood the riches of God's Grace to Mankind and that God had pity for them when they were dead in Trespasses and Sins and therefore they could not rationally doubt of his good will towards their dying Infants for still his unwillingness to destroy the actual Sinner is argument enough that he will never destroy the innocent Child eternally What hope there is of all Infants entering into Heaven however it may be hid from the Pagans is evident enough from our Saviours Speech Except ye be converted and become as little Children ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Now suppose I take the Infant of a Jew or Pagan for my pattern and labour that my Conversion may answer to such a president in point of Innocency Humility and Simplicity will not this as well accord with the intent of our Saviour's Words as if I took the Child of a Christian for my pattern Certes it would and indeed our Saviour here speaks as much for our comfort concerning all little Childrens
capacity to enter into Heaven as for any one of them As also when the Apostle exhorts us as touching Malice to be as Children does he not hereby justifie the whole in that state of Childhood to be devoid of that evil And why even of our selves do we not judge what is right Could any Man from the beginning to this Day bring the least charge against an Infant much less against one Infant more than another unless God by Miracle shews some special Power upon them no difference can be seen in them in point of Innocency SECT VIII J. B. But have you not forgotten that you told us you do not doubt but the Promises made to the Seed of the Righteous and the Promises of shewing Mercy to the Children of them that love God c. remain unrevoked Answ I have not forgotten that but do still believe that there are many more Blessings pertaining to the Seed of the Righteous according to the Texts by you alledged than to others And that they may be the better considered I will set that down in Words which you writ in Figures Psal 102. 28. The Children of thy Servants shall continue and their Seed shall be established before thee This had doubtless been the Portion of the Sons of God in the days of Noah had they not sinned with the rest of Mankind Psal 103. 17. But the Mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting to them that fear him and his Righteousness to Childrens Children to them that keep his Covenant and remember his Commandments to do them Prov 20. 7. The Just walketh in his Integrity his Children are blessed after him Now what do these places prove Surely nothing less than that no Infants but the Infants of Believers shall be saved and if not how do these places suit your case They prove indeed that God will bless the Posterity of his faithful Servants if they keep his Covenant and remember to do his Commandments and I think David well expounds this place in Psal 37. 25. I have been Young and now am Old yet did I never see the Righteous forsaken nor their Seed begging their Bread And yet I grant though you prove it not that there are many other advantages even in Infancy attends the Seed of the Righteous they being a Seed of many Prayers and devoted to God from the Womb as far as their pious Parents has authority to do it which I have more fully set down in my Book of Primitive Christianity L. 2. P. 5 6. whiles God knows others are destitute of these Blessings being Crossed and Exorcis'd c. among the Papists and offered to Molech among the Jews and the like among the Heathens And yet for all this I can see no ground to think that the Righteous God will punish with Hell Torments those dying Infants for the wrong which their Parents have done them It being to me inconceivable how it can stand with his glorious Attributes either of Mercy or Justice both which must have effect upon these Infants His Justice hath effect upon them that is evident in their Death Sickness and Diseases and the like befalls our Infants now either his Mercy must have effect upon them in the next World or not at all and if not in that World how then shall that saying hold true His tender Mercies are over all his Works SECT IX J. B. You would not have the blessing of Abraham as it concerns Eternal Life to reach to the Infants of the Gentiles which believe not because Gal. 3. 14. it 's said to come upon the Gentiles by Faith Answ I told you that the Blessing in respect of Eternal Life was not peculiar to Abraham and his Seed but was made as well to Adam and his Seed and so common to Mankind and may well be called the Common Salvation being derived from Christ promised Gen. 3. 15. before Abraham was who is therefore the Saviour of all Men. Indeed Abraham and so all Believers have some things in special and which are peculiar to them as a People engaged in the duties of Religion * See and consider Rom. 3. 1 2. whilst the Unbeliever is under the sentence of Wrath because he neglects so great Salvation Heb. 2. 2 3 4. But all this injures not dying Infants who neglect not this Salvation and so forfeit not their right to that common Salvation obtained by Christ for Mankind In Gal. 3. 14. the Apostle speaks of the Promise of the Spirit which as it concerns the Church under the establishment of the second Covenant concerns not Infants it being understood of a greater measure of Wisdom and Power to walk in the Paths of Righteousness than was ordinary under the former Testament 2 Tim. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 2 3 5 7. Gal. 5. 25. Nor can you with any shew of Reason say that I make the Salvation of Infants run in a Fleshly Line when I derive it only from the Free-grace of God manifested in the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World to take away the Sin of the World Nor do I consider Adam as in a state of Nature but as under a Covenant of Grace from whom the second Adam must in time proceed as touching the Flesh and therefore his Descent is reckoned from him Luke 3. 23. to the end In this second Adam the Repairer of Mankind do I place the Salvation of all Men and of the Infant Race I say seeing they never sinned against the second Covenant nor can any other sin them out of the Mercy of God their title to that Grace being not tide to Man's Will it follows that they shall not be hurt of the second Death Shew the contrary if you can To what you say about God s putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own Hand I say That though he put the Salvation of no Creature out of his own Hand according to my opinion yet when he stretcheth forth his Hand to Gain-sayers as Rom. 10. and gives them the Word of Life and they put it from them Acts 13. 46. then Men may truly be said to have a Prize in their Hand and to put it from them even the Salvation of their Souls And then I pray you consider that if their putting Salvation from them be equally or really a putting it from their Infants as that must be your opinion or else we differ not then I say according to your opinion God suffers Men to damn poor Infants whom he would save seeing according to your Doctrine had their Parents believed their Infants had been in the Covenant of Grace but now for their Fathers Sin for what you say of their own Sin contracted is but a Fable they are left by you in the Kingdom of the Devil and that among the Devil and his Angels for ever And here it is that I oppose you as greatly erring from the Truth and this Error was that which first brought in your Pedo-baptism as may be seen in
the Decree made by the African Council †The words of the Council are these All that affirm young Children receive Eternal Life albeit they be not by Baptism renewed they are accursed c. where Augustine was present and President Wherefore remove but this Error and the other will presently vanish SECT X. The Sum of this Controversy I will finish this Discourse by setting down certain Propositions which contain the whole Controversy and which I hope will carry so much Light and Evidence in them as may tend much to the satisfaction of the Reader The thing to be cleared is this viz. That no dying Infants are Damned or all dying Infants are Saved Which will thus be made good 1. Because they cannot damn themselves And it is most certain God will not Damn any to Hell Torments who do not first Damn themselves in sinful Courses This is evident by his unwillingness to destroy those that had so destroyed themselves Hos 13. 9. O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thy help If then our God be thus unwilling to destroy those that have destroyed themselves as that he will help and save them how should it enter into the Heart of a Christian to imagine that the same God will Damn poor Infants who never destroyed themselves neither can they do it 2. No Man can damn Infants This is evident because if any Man have power to damn Infants every Man hath the same for it cannot be proved the peculiar power whether good or bad of any Man And if any will say that every Man hath power to damn his Children he speaks presumptuously there is nothing in the Word of God to countenance such a Doctrine for the contrary is plain Jer. 31. 30. Every one shall die for his own iniquity This is meant or is most true of Eternal Death because we all die the first Death for the Sin of another to wit Adam and though this saying be true of the Adult yet it is the more to our purpose because if God be so gracious to actual Sinners as not to damn them for the Sin of another there is all the ground imaginable to believe that he will be as gracious to Infants 3. The Devil cannot damn Infants This is evident because Infants are out of the reach of Santan's Temptations seeing they know not to chuse the Good or to refuse it they know neither Good nor Evil they know not their right Hand from their left Jer. 7. 16. Jonah 4. 11. Whom Satan cannot Tempt them he cannot Damn 4. God will not damn Infants God will not suffer Men to punish any Person for that which they cannot help Deut. 22. 25 26. If a Man find a betrothed Damsel in the Field and force her and lie with her then the Man only that lay with her shall die but unto the Damsel shalt thou do nothing there is in the Damsel no Sin worthy of Death For as when a Man riseth up against his Neighbour and slayeth him even so is this matter The Mercy which God sheweth in this case may suffice to convince us that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation seeing what Sin soever is upon them iâ— was impossible for them to avoid it Wherefore he will not dâ—â—â— poor dying Infants 5. Christ will not damn poor Infants When Christ denounceth the Damnation of Hell he dir 〈…〉 speech to Hypocrites and incorrigible Sinners Mat. 23. 3 〈…〉 Generation of Vipers how can ye escape the Damnation of Hell But he hath better things in store for Infants for he saith of such are the Kingdom of God which being spoken of Infants or little Children indefinitly shews his Gracious Judgment of them all And he that came not to Condemn the World but to Save the World how shall this be true if he came to Condemn any Infants Seeing there are no Persons in the World who do less deserve Damnation than Infants No not his own Disciples who are therefore sent to little Children to know how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 10. 15 Verily 〈…〉 you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a litt 〈…〉 shall not enter therein What Believer can think himself 〈…〉 Heaven than an Infant Hath he not some Actual Sin 〈…〉 no Infant Hath Christ freed the Believer from Original Sin 〈…〉 e he hath done for all Infants Rom. 5. As in Adam all d 〈…〉 in Christ shall all be made alive John 1. 29 Behold the 〈…〉 God which taketh away the Sin of the World There i 〈…〉 Sin can so properly be called the Sin of the World as Origin 〈…〉 because perhaps a third part of the World dies having no other Sin at all This is the case of Infants this Sin being taken a 〈…〉 hrist how shall Christ their merciful Judg pronounce them 〈…〉 Hell 6. Christ died 〈…〉 Infants therefore they shall not be damned Christ died 〈…〉 Infants Because he gave himself a Ransom for all 1 Tim. 2. 6. He tasted Death for every Man Heb. 2. 9. He bought them that deny him 2 Pet. 2. Therefore certainly he was as gracious to Infants as to those who deny him Seeing then it cannot be denied but he bought them he either bought them to save them or to cast them to Hell Not the latter no by no means The primary end of Christ's dying is Life and Salvation Infants never forfeit this Grace but are just Persons that need no Repentance if there be any such in the World 7. All dying Infants are written in the Book of Life from the Foundation of the World therefore no dying Infants are Damned The Omniscient God knew as well the Date of all Mens Lives as that they should be born or live at all and therefore did he know who would die in Infancy as well as who would live to years of Knowledg Admitting then their opinion to be true That hold a certain number ordain'd to Life from the Foundation of the World yet we doubt not but to make good this Proposition and that by the Text Rev. 20. 12. as expounded by themselves For by the Books out of which the Damned are judged is understood the Actions of Men even the most secret which shall then be laid open Now these Books cannot concern Infants they having done neither good nor evil Here is therefore another Book opened which say they represents the everlasting Election to Life and Glory in Christ In this Book must all dying Infants either be found written or else be Judged without Book The Book of Conscience will not accuse them therefore the Lamb's Book of Life must needs acquit them 8. All dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace therefore no dying Infant shall be Damned When we say Infants are in the Covenant of Grace we mean it as God hath vouchsafed to interess them in his Mercy by Christ That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin so
Justification of Life might abound towards them by the Obedience of Christ Now either Infants are thus in Covenant with God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all For the Covenant of pure Nature as Mr. Baxter terms it made with Adam concerns not Infants but as the breach of it is imputed to the Lump of Mankind And the Law of Works concerns not Infants For to them it cannot be said The Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say Infants are in no Covenant with God is to rank them with Devils and the vilest of Men. But seeing Mr. Baxter grants the Covenant made with Noah Gen. 9. to be the Covenant of Grace and the Scripture tells us That it is an everlasting Covenant and made with Noah and his Sons and with their Seed after them and consequently with all Infants for it is not Vain or Repealed till Men abuse the Mercy of it to this Mr. Baxter consents And indeed should it be otherwise God should deal worse with poor Infants than with the Beasts of the Field for he was pleased to make a Covenant with them even every living Creature of them which also was very gracious according to their state and condition and shall we think that he whose tender Mercies are over all his Works will exclude the Infants of the greatest part of Mankind from his Gracious Covenant No He hath said He will remember his Covenant which he hath made with all Flesh Gen. 9. 9. No Man can prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned in Hell Torments therefore no dying Infant shall be damned There is nothing to be held as an Opinion or Point of Faith but upon clear Proof or Rational Demonstration Now though it has been often delivered from the Pulpits that many Infants are yelling in Hell yea Infants of a Span long for such and such offences of their Parents yet this is only said but no proof to make it good I find Dr. Fulk saying That Calvin holdeth Dr. Fulk all Infants under the sentence of eternal Damnation only he admits that such Infants as are Elect and Born again by the Spirit of God may be saved But I find no proof that any Infants are Reprobated to eternal Damnation neither does the holy Scripture say any such thing And whilst Diodate expounds Rom. 9. 12. modestly and soundly he goes back to his harsh opinion of God's casting Esau when or before he was born out of his Love as a Father in what he says upon the 13th ver as if God's Love were taken away from poor Infants But this is no proof that God hath Reprobated any dying Infant for if we admit their Gloss yet God that knew what Esau would be in time did here foreshew what in time should be effected Esau lived to be a Man and a very 〈…〉 l Man God knew all this before Esau is not to be ranked wit 〈…〉 ying Infants therefore the Instance of Esau is nothing to the puâ—â—ose and this Instance failing as it evidently doth I am sure â—here is not the least shew of proof in the Scripture for the Damnation of dying Infants and therefore no Man ought to believe such a strange and windy Doctrine nor trouble the World nor the Church about it 10. To hold Infants to be Damned is contrary to all good Reason When Paul prayed To be delivered from unreasonable Men for that all Men had not Faith He seems to make Reason a Friend and no Enemy to Faith Now when we hear that wicked Men shall be damned because they received not the Love of the Truth that they might be saved here Reason presently consents to the Judgment of God And when we hear that Men will not be persuaded by Moses the Prophets or one that should rise from the Dead how justly are they punished by that God whose Grace they have so grossly contemned Yea these and many like Instances are according to the common Rules of Justice But now to place poor innocent Babes among these damned ones that they should be tormented with the Devil and his Angels who only was born to cry and die and sometimes to die before they should cry is so cruel a Conceit so inconsistent with Justice as far as the Reason of Man can conceive what is equal that nothing can be more Cruel It looks as if God took pleasure to send poor Creatures to Hell For these poor Infants many of them according to this Scriptureless Doctrine were but created on purpose to be Damned and nothing else some never seeing so much as the Light of this World and yet must be punished with the Devil to Eternity O shameful Doctrine unfit for the Tongue of a Christian to tell the World Infants yea of a Span long are yelling in Hell Will you charge the God of Love yea that God who is Love with these Cruelties Are these his doings Why have you painted him in your Sermons with such bloody Colours Is it to force on your Pedo-rantism O wretched Cause that cannot stand unless the Mercy of God to the greatest part of Infants be impeached We say not that Reason is the chief judge in this Question yet when we meet with Scriptureless Doctrines 't is not unlawful to refute them by Reason And here I again declare that this Error of holding Infants damned without Baptism was the ground of that innovation of Pedo-baptism For thus saith the 5 Con. de Carth. We will that whoever denies that little Children by Baptism are freed from Perdition and eternally saved that they be accursed Wherefore take away this false ground by shewing the Salvation of all dying Infants and then INFANT-BAPTISM vanisheth THE QUERIST EXAMINED The Second Part. WHEREIN More than Sixty Queries taken out of the Works of Mr. R. Baxter by J. B. the Author of Fifty former Queries are Refuted BY A proportionable Number of Antiqueries SHEWING The Insufficiency of the Plea for Infant-Baptism urged by Mr. B. and Mr. J. B. from their visible Church-Membership WHICH Being granted so far and in such a sense as Truth or Reason will Warrant is against and no way for the Baptizing of Infants By THOMAS GRANTHAM Printed in the Year 1679. DIVISION I. About the silence of the Scripture concerning Infant-Baptism IT is certain That to multiply Questions is the ready way to darken Counsel and to intangle the understanding of the weak or unwary Reader Yet thus hath Mr. J. B. been pleased to incumber the Doctrine of Baptism with more than an hundred Queries which being set down in their exact Number would be more than five hundred Queries By which frivolous way of Writing it were easie to involve the Christian Profession in endless Controversies Howbeit as I have formerly redargued the first Book of his Queries so lest he should suppose these to be unanswerable I think it may do some service to the Truth to shew briefly the vanity of his second Book also It would
make my work too bulkie to set down his Queries at large yet I shall endeavour partly by what I shall present of his Queries and partly by the purport of my Anti-queries to give a true understanding of the import of all his Demands And first we shall take notice of his Preparatory Questions which he grounds upon the silence of the Scriptures in the case of Infant-Baptism The first is this J. B. 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 c. T. G. 1. When Mr. Baxter and you from him have born the World in hand that you would offer plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism Is it not a strange way to make this good by telling us the Scripture is more silent in these Cases than in others Or is not one plain proof in any Case enough to forbid any to say the Scripture is more silent in that than other Cases seeing more silent must import not speaking at all or else very darkly And indeed Mr. Baxter does elsewhere grant That many Papists and Prelatists who are all for Infant Baptism have maintained that it is not determined in Scripture And how then shall he being inferiour to so many bring any plain Scripture for it 2. Is not the Scripture plain enough Gen. 3. 15. that the Covenant of God's Grace and Mercy to Sinners concerns all Mankind as they are fallen in Adam And how then can it be silent concerning Infants in any thing needful to their Salvation seeing Christ now by the Grace of God hath tasted Death for every Man Heb. 2. 9. J. B. 2. In lesser points of Faith 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 c. T. G. 1. Who that is truly wise would query this Is any Persons Church-Membership and Baptism to be reckoned among the lesser points of Faith Or is it not of very great moment rather for us rightly to understand who ought to be incorporated into the Church of Christ which is his Body If there was no question in the Scripture-Times about your Infant Church-Membership and Baptism was it not because there was none then that held with your Opinion in that Case And whether it be not Anti-evangelical to make the Age of any Person the rule of his admission to the Christian-Church-Membership and Baptism whiles in the Law the Eighth Day was a time prefixed But is not the time of the New Birth at what Age soever the time of Incorporating Persons into the Christian Church Seeing it is expresly said If any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. And whether Pedo-Baptists must not grant this seeing they are forced to say of the Infants which they sprinkle This Child is Regenerate and Born again though they can never prove this J. B. 2. Will the difficulty of a Point that is not so clear as we would have it prove that it is not a truth The Apostle Peter tells us many things in Paul s Epistles are hard to be understood are they not Truths for all this c. T. G. Whether it be not idle in you to compare Church-Membership and Baptism with the hard things in Paul's Epistles seeing what is needful to meer Church-Membership and Baptism are easie things even that which every Babe in Christ should know and which three thousand learned in one Day by one Sermon Acts 2. 40 41. Then they which gladly received his Word were Baptized and the SAME DAY was added unto them about three thousand Souls And whether the whole carriage of this place do not shew your Vanity in putting your Church-Membership before Baptism sith here as well as else-where this Church-Membership evidently follows Baptism And whether you do not here also plainly enough tell us that your case is very difficult and hard to be understood and indeed you may rightly place it among things unintelligible For as one of your Way going to a Dispute 't is said to hear Infant baptism proved by Scripture told his Companion He was going to hear a Miracle J. B. 3. If never so clear Evidence be produced will not Truth still be dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it And is not this the case of many Godly that are but Children in knowledg T. G. Whether this be not an excellent way to query Men out of their Wits And if that which hath never so clear Evidence may still be dark to the Godly c. How can you blame Men for not seeing that for which you can bring no clear Evidence But for all this whether every weak if a Godly Man may not as easily understand the Mind of God about Church-Membership and Baptism as to know that Jesus is his Saviour unless your 100 or rather 500 Queries have blinded his Eyes And what one Point hath been pestered with such a cloud of Questions as you have invented about this And whether you and Mr. Baxter cannot invent as many more and so make good the Proverb Plura potest interrogare asinus quam respondere Aristoteles J. B. 4. When the case is so difficult that we cannot attain to clearness and certainty must not we follow the most probable way c. T. G. Whether you are not upon a dangerous Point to suggest that the case of Church-Membership and Baptism is to be judged of by Probabilities and not Certainties And if you will needs have our way of Baptism to be more difficult than yours who can know it Seeing there is thus much said by a learned Man of the Church of England against your Way viz. That there is Dr. Baâ—low neither Precept nor President for Infant-Baptism in Scripture That there is nothing in Dr. Hammond or Mr. Baxter 's Discourses about Infant-Baptism that looks like an Argument And whether it will not be hard for any Body to say more for Pedo-baptism and against our way of Baptizing Believers than they have done And yet whether it be not safe for us to see you offer more than your Probabilities before we part with our Baptizing Believers for your sprinkling of Infants J. B. 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 c. T. G. Whether the way of Baptizing Persons upon personal profession of Faith by Immersion be not the old way of Baptizing and granted to be so by the Learned of your own Church for example Ludovicus Vives Grotius and Diodate And then whether you are not the rash and heady who run so eagerly after the new mode of Infant-sprinkling And are not thousands involved in your new Way before they do or can try it And on the contrary whether any can rationally be
Sun Moon and Stars are Christ's Disciples too for they are called God's Servants Psal 119. 90 91. Rub your Eyes from the mist they have attracted by poring upon Mr. Baxters Fables and know that God will shew all the Mercy to Infants which they have need of as is shew'd before though he give them not all the Mercies which he gives to some and particularly this mercy of Discipleship which they have no need of during Infancy sith they cannot discern between the right Hand and the left But you query still Whether the Infants of the Gentiles were so God s Servants as the Infants of the Jews were And do you not here fairly grant that all Infants are God's Servants though not SO as the Jews Infants were But you will not say that all Infants are Christ's Disciples And then have you not confuted your own Fancy seeing it's plain from your own words that the Title of Servants does not necessarily infer the Title of Disciples And why may not God set more by one Servant and so by one Infant than by another and yet love them all sufficiently and may not this satisfie your demand why God should should grant a Year of Jubilee to the Jews and their Infants when he granted not that Mercy to others Else what will become of all Christians and their Infants for pray Sir when had they such a Jubilee as the Jews were allowed once in Fifty Years And yet I hope we have no cause to murmur against God as if he were not Merciful enough both to us and to our Infants J. B. 3. Are not Infants capable of being Subjects of Christ's Kingdom and is not Christ's Church his Kingdom and his School Are not all Subjects of Christ in his Visible Kingdom or Church Christians And are not Disciples and Christians all one Acts 11. 26 c. T. G. What if we grant that Infants are Subjects of Christ's Visible Kingdom in respect of his Purchase common Protection the Designation of them to his Service on the part of true Christians and in respect of the Blessing of Heaven it self Yet how doth it follow hereupon that they are capable of all the Priviledges of his Visible Kingdom Much less of the Duties of his Subjects And do you not your own selves exclude them during Infancy from all Priviledges and Duties of Religion as much as we do except your supposed Baptism And where do you find that any Infants are called Christians Certes the Text Acts 11. 26. says no such thing I see no ground to call any Infant by the name of its Parents Religion for then the Child of a Papist must be called a Papist the Infant of a Presbyterian must be a Presbyterian the Infant of a Quaker a Quaker c. But is not that saying of Tertullian more rational We are not born saith he but made Christians J B. 4. Whether were not some Infants once to be admitted Members of the Visible Church by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God not yet Repealed T. G. Whether Infants once admission to particular Ordinances in the Church be part of the Moral or Ceremonial Law How could it be a part of the Moral Law seeing it had no being in the World till Abraham's time Was not the Moral Law observed by the Faithful in all Ages When yet there was no such admission of Infants to Ordinances in the Church Seeing then this Admission must be a part of the Ceremonial Law was it not for the time being the merciful Gift of God and was not the whole Ceremonial Law the same And yet whether the taking away of the whole Ceremonial Law was not a Mercy and consequently that Admission of Infants by that Law done away in Mercy also And seeing Infants could then but belong to the Kingdom of Heaven with that painful admission by Circumcision is it not a greater Mercy for them to be declared by Christ to be the Children of God and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven without it Matth. 18. 10. And is not this spoken of little ones indefinitely seeing else it will follow Men may despise some of them but does not our Saviour include them all in this speech That which was lost How then can you exclude any of them when he saith He came to seek and to save that which was lost J. B. 5. Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord that he might establish them to be a People to himself Deut. 29. 1â— 11 12. 13. And were not Infants engaged by the Seal of the Covenant Circumcision c. T. G. Whether this Covenant Deut. 29. was not made for many before they were born How then could it be a Covenant for Admission of them to Visible Church-Membership Or dare you say that Infants were by this Covenant obliged to any Act of Obedience in Infancy And how then does it suit your Case Again Do you think it would be lawful by this or any other Law for Christians to enter into a Covenant Oath and a Curse as the Israelites did that our Children should be of our Religion Or are your Infants bound by your Solemn League and Covenant to be for the Presbyterian way of Religion And what ground have we to believe that God will establish our Children for his People as he did promise to the Children of Israel i. e. To be a glorious Nation above all the Nations of the Earth Can you prove that such Promises are made to the Christian Church militant Or doth not Mr. Baxter himself sometimes say all that need be said or can be rightly said on these words Ero Deus tui seminis It sufficeth saith he that God will be to them a God of Mercy Mr. B. Friend Accom p. 361. and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum And we demand whether God did not thus much for all Infants in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace which he confesses is not Vain nor Repealed by God Did he not do all that was necessary to put them into a state of Salvation for the condition of little ones If Infants were engaged by Circumcision as you here observe then they were not Visible Church-Members without it And then doth it not plainly follow that Circumcision being Repealed this their Visible Church-Membership is Repealed also Or will you say they remained in Visible Church-Membership without an Ordinance and so destroy your Master-piece in one Member of it And let that Typical Membership be accounted as it was a merciful Gift yet when the Antitype made that Type null it was a great mercy that it ceased nor shall we fail of proof in this case 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. cum multis aliis J. B. 6. Dare any of you say that God hath Repealed Infants Church-Membership to their hurt in Justice Or can you say it is in Mercy for their good How can it be a
Mercy to take away a Mercy except it be to give a greater Mercy in stead of it c. T. G. Though we might say much of the Justice of God in Repealing the Covenant of Circumcision and therewith the Infant Church-Membership once allowed in the Jewish Church yet how dare you say that this was to the hurt of any Person whether Infant or any other But we will abide by this that God made this Repeal in Mercy And how should you not see that to be set at Liberty from the Yoke of the Law and from Circumcision which made them Debtors to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. was all done in mercy And was it not needful to abrogate the first or old Covenant that he might establish the new or second Covenant In which though we have no particular order to admit Infants to the Duties of this Covenant yet we are sufficiently recompensed in the assurance given us by Christ concerning Infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven and his blessing them without Baptizing them that so they are as happy whilst Infants as we can desire they should be And is not this a greater Mercy than the Old Covenant did give to any Infant by Circumcision As for the Capacity of those who are concerned in the Duties of the Second Covenant is it not expresly thus That the Law of Christ should be put in their Hearts and written in their Minds Heb. 8. And So God to be their God and they to be his People as knowing him from the least of them to the greatest And whether in these respects any Infant can from Truth or Reason be said to be in the New Covenant And how then are they to be admitted Members of this Visible Company or Church seeing they know not God And yet is it not very evident that the Grace of the New Covenant extends to them from our Saviour's Testimony that of such is the Kingdom of God Again Was not Infants partaking of the Passover and other Sacrifices and Rites of the Law as great Mercies as their being circumcised And yet what Mercies of this kind was given them in the taking away of these and yet were they not all taken away in Mercy And whilst you deceitfully lay the stress of the word Mercy upon your Sprinkling of Infants do you not invalidate the substance of those Types which being come for the Salvation of Infants as well as others is their sufficient Passover though they cannot celebrate the memorial of it in Bread and Wine as the Adult ought and do And is not the true Jubilee which came by Christ a sufficient Gain in stead of the Jewish Jubilee both to the Adult and to Infants though neither the one nor the other hath any Jubilee in the nature of an Ordinance in stead thereof Especially not Infants seeing they know not the sound of the Gospel J. B. 7. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate meaning to be without hope but Church-Members c. T. G. Will Ephes 2. 12. prove that no Infants among the Gentiles were saved Does not that Scripture Rom. 2. 14 15 26 27. as clearly prove that the Gentiles which had not the Law and yet did by Nature fulfil the Righteousness of the Law shall be as much excused in the Day of Judgment as the Jews who kept the Law And do you not here espouse that Doctrine Out of the Church is no Salvation Not considering that the Vniversal Body of Christ may comprehend many that had never the opportunity to be incorporated into the Visible Company of such as worship God in the use of Legal or Gospel Institutions And will you thus damn all Infants in the World but those that are Sprinkled or Crossed by the Pedo-baptists And will not the Text Acts 2. 47. alleged by you if compared with Acts 5. 14. make against you Seeing those that were added to the Church were not Infants but Men and Women J. B. 8. If it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven nor 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 c. T. G. If I might follow your Fancy I might ask you what hurt it will be to the Church to see an Infant of a poor Indian in Heaven And why then do not you admit them here on Earth But is it not childish in you to suppose that any shall be Infants when in Heaven Seeing according to Austin they are called Infants A non fando because they cannot speak may we not more rationally believe that what is lost of stature and knowledg by the Sin of Adam shall be restor'd by the Righteousness of Christ And are not Infants as frequently seen in the Assemblies of the Baptists as in yours And do we not devote them to God in our Prayers as well as you And what do your Infants partake of except your Tradition of Sprinkling them which ours do not as fully enjoy And is it not as great a benefit to the Church to delay the Baptism of their little ones as to delay their coming to the Lord's Table If your delay make them more fit for the one does not ours make them more fit for the other If ours die without the one do not yours die without the other What cause then of your murmuring For who casts Infants out of the Church Is not this a Barbarism For if they be in we do all we are allowed of God to keep them there by timely Instruction and by imploring God's Blessing for them and you do no more only you Cross or Sprinkle them This is your all on this you build your hope for your dying Infants This your Tradition is therefore your Idol This is that small parcel of bad Wooll about which you make this hideous Cry as if God had no Mercy for poor Infants unless this be done Why are you so Imprudent DIVISION III. Concerning Rom. 11. 17. J. B. 1. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church Therefore the rest remained in the Gift was not Repealed Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members c. T. G. Here you seem to hold that the Church in her Legal state and in her Evangelical state were both one in such a sense as that he that by Faith was added to the Christian Church was not broken off from the Jewish Church Hence I Query Does not Paul plainly shew Rom. 7. 1. to 8. That the Christian Church was freed from the Law of her former Husband When therefore she ceased to be a Wife upon the account of the Law did she not then cease to be a Church on that account that she might now be married to another even to Christ and so bring forth Fruit unto God Why then should these words some were
And is it not therefore said Gen. 17. 14. That such Men children as were not Circumcised should be cut off from his People because they had broken the Covenant And is it not plain then that these Children were already in Covenant and of the Church else they could not be cut off And yet whether any thing here threatned concern the Eternal State of Infants Shall we think that God would damn them to Hell because their Parents neglected to Circumcise them Or is it like a Covenant of Grace to make such a Ceremony so absolutely necessary to the Salvation of Infants Now seeing Infants were not made Members of the Church much less of Heaven by Circumcision what need we assert the Repeal of their Membership in the Church as it contains the whole People of God but the Repeal of Circumcision is evident and there-withal they are freed from any Obligation to the Duties of Religion unless it can be shewed that God hath appointed the contrary which never yet could be shewed Thus if we give you all the advantage imaginable yet nothing accrues to your Cause from this instance of Circumcision till you can shew Authority from God to Baptize Infants as plain as they had to Circumcise Infants For does not one of your own Way tell us That Circumcision is a fine Historical Argument Mr. Brooks to illustrate a Point well proved before but is not this that wherein you always fail i. e. to prove by plain Scripture what you promised J. B. 11. If the Law of Infant Church-Membership was no part of the Ceremonial or meerly Judicial Law nor yet of the Law of Works how can you say it is Repealed seeing no other Laws are Repealed c. T. G. Whether these words The Law of Infant Church-Membership be a lawful Speech And by what Law will you make it good But not to contend about words if by Law you mean the Covenant of Grace made with lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. Then whether we do not assert it to be in force more fully than you do But if you mean any other Covenant save this for the often repetition of it makes it not another Covenant then we say it is your duty to assign or shew that Law or Covenant and we will consider it mean while take notice That for the Repeal of that temporary Order once used to admit Infants to Ceremonies in Religion is shewed and generally granted to be repealed in the Repeal of Circumcision and no Institution or Ceremony since the Repeal ordained for Infants and this is the Point in question Why then go you about to wheedle us with a noise of words of a Law of Infant Church-Membership unrepealed A Law c. unrepealed And whether you or Mr. Baxter either can in the sight of your own Consciences say that you well understand what you say And here I shall advertise the Reader that as the remainder of the Queries we are to reckon with are less specious than these we have examined so let it be remembred That we have granted and do now once more assert that by virtue of the Covenant of Grace made with fallen Adam and all Mankind in him Infants stand in a state of Grace published by God himself to Man so that they are visibly in a state of Salvation nor will God break this Covenant it is unalterable for he is faithful Infants do not transgress against it therefore they stand in this Covenant This Covenant was and is the Church-Covenant nâ—w confirmed by Christ the faithful Witness of it And by this Covenant Infants are Members of his Vniversal Church his Body that shall be saved In the time of the Law when this Covenant was much Vailed or hid under Shadows Rom. 16. 25 26. God was pleased to admit Infants to sundry of the Carnal Ordinances of the Law but now the Mystery of the Gospel being displayed to all Nations and the Worship of the Gospel being heightned to a very Spiritual Nature God hath not engaged Infants in these Services as he did in the time of the Law Our Adversary thinks otherwise this is our Difference try seriously and judg righteously DIVISION IV. About Infants visible Church-Membership J. B. 1. Is it not clear that there is an Vniversal visible Church and that every one that is a Member of a particular Church is also a Member of the Vniversal And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Vniversal and that this Vniversal is not dissolved Now must not he that will affirm the whole species of Infants are cast out of the Vniversal visible Church prove it well T. G. Whether this Query be not grounded on meer Fancies for though they that are Members of a particular Church are Members of the Universal Church yet dare you say or think that none are Members of the Universal which are not also Members of a particular Church Is not this the Dream with which you are Infatuated to hold the Damnation of all Infants yea of all Persons who are not Members of some particular Church And where do you find that Infants are cast out of the Universal Church if they are not Baptized is the Universal Church no larger than the Number of the Baptized Can you think that the Uncircumcised Infant was cast out of the Universal Church Suppose they were neglected till the 10th 20th or 40th day c. will you imagine them to be the Subjects of the Devil What strange conceits have you of God It 's true the Uncircumcised were cut off from the particular Society of the Jews but did that Society constitute the Universal Church Were none what not an Infant in all the World in a visible state of Salvation except those in that Society Me-thinks Rom. 2. well considered should teach you to think otherwise And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace if Infants be so liable to be cast out of the Universal Church as you suggest But why do you call the Universal Church Visible Is not this a visible Mistake And whether the latter part of this Query be pertinent unless it be against your self For if the removal of Persons whether Infants or others out of a particular Church be no found Argument that they are removed out of the Universal Church then seeing the visible Professors of the Truth in this World are but a part and perhaps no very great part of the Universal Church may not Infants remain in the Universal Church though not incorporated or imbedied with any particular Church practizing the Ordinances of God J. B. 2. Is not that false Doctrine which makes the Children of the Faithful to be in as bad or a worse condition than the Curse Deut. 28. 32 41. doth make the Children of Covenant-breakers to be in c. T. G. Is not this an injurious surmise As if none were blessed in the Fruit of their Body but you whose Infants are Crossed or Sprinkled But who puts Infants out of the whole
Visible Church Do we not maintain the Church-Membership of Infants as far as Scripture will bear it First By the Covenant of Grace made with all Mankind and now confirmed by Christ by whom they are blessed and pronounced to be of the Kingdom of God 2. According to the Law or Covenant of Circumcision during the term of the Law till Faith came or till the time of Reformation J. B. 3. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the Visible Church of Christ leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil c. T. G. Is not this a Diabolical surmise Are any Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil Are your Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till you Sprinkle them Did not Christ declare them to be of the Kingdom of God when yet not one Infant that we read of was Baptized And what if your Crossing or Sprinkling prove no true Baptism will it not follow from this your injurious Doctrine that all your Infants are of the Kingdom of the Devil Are any of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till they submit to his Delusions and can you charge Infants with this Be ashamed O ye Presbyterians of this J. B. 4. And will you leave us no sound grounded hope of the Justification or Salvation of any dying Infants in the World c. T. G. Is not this Query a meer foolish out-cry How plainly do you here damn all Infants that are not Sprinkled Is not this the only cause of all this Clamour What Doctrine can be more mischievous than this J. B. 5. What a full plain Text is that 1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the Children of Believers holy in state then ought they not to be admitted visible Church-Members T. G. How fully and plainly does Heb. 13. 2. explain this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. Is not Marriage honourable among all Men and the Marriage-bed undefiled And is not that which is undefiled holy in state And is not the unbeliever sanctified in this state 1 Cor. 7. 14 Ye who but Men willing to be deceived will say they ought therefore to be Baptized And are not the Children therefore said to be holy because the Unbeliever is sanctified to or by the Believer And how then can that Holiness be any other than Matrimonial And does not Erasmus in his Paraphrase give this very exposition on this Text And does not Austin tell you That whatsoever this Holiness is 1 Cor. 7. 14. yet it is not of power to make Christians or remit Sins And why do you grudg that all Infants procreated according to God's Ordinance should be holy See Malachi 2. 15. Doth not Diodate on the Text say plainly That God's chief end in this proceeding to wit in ordaining Marriage was that the Posterity might be Sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunctions J. B. 6. When it is said Mark 10. 14. Of such is the Kingdom of God Whether this be not more than they may be visible Church-Members c. T. G. Whether we do not readily consent to all that is said Mark 10. 14. concerning Infants do we not grant they are visibly stated in a gracious Right to the Kingdom of God And if this be more than to say Let them come to Baptism Is it not more also than to say Let them come to the Lord's Table And is it not very considerable that though three Evangelists mention these Infants yet none of them so much as hints that they were Baptized And whethese words suffer them to come to me will not be a better plea for us in the Day of Judgment in devoting our Infants to God by Prayer in the Name of Christ than for you in going so much beyond the Text as to Cross or Sprinkle them without the least ground from this or any place of Scripture And whether this your presumption be not the real cause of our differences in Religion DIVISION V. About the Texts objected against the Pedo-baptists J. B. 1. If these Texts Rom. 9. 8. Ephes 2. 3. be objected To the first Text What is it the Apostle mainly drives at but that Men are not therefore saved because they are Abraham's carnal Seed And to Ephes 2. 3. What though we are by Nature Children of Wrath doth it follow that we may not be otherwise by Grace c. T. G. Seeing you here grant that Men but you must mean Infants also are not saved because they are Abraham's Natural Seed and that you dispute not the certainty of their Salvation but only their Church-Membership Have you not meerly trifled all this while Seeing now here is no sound ground it seems from their Church-Membership to prove them saved And seeing none as they are Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh are either saved or Members of the Church so as to partake of Ordinances is it not strange that you should prefer your Carnal Seed before his But how are Infants Children of Wrath in the sence of Ephes 2. 3. otherwise than with respect to that Condemnation which came by Adam And is not that made void by Christ Rom. 5 We readily therefore consent that Infants are otherwise by Grace J. B. 2. If you object that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism To this though Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism yet are they not capable of the principal ends May it not be a Listing Sign c. T. G. Here you grant that Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism nor can you prove them capable of all the benefits which you assign For how are Infants capable of receiving Baptism as a Listing Sign Ought there not to be a free consent on the part of him that is Listed Or do you not rather press poor Infants against their will as appears by their resisting you what they can then truly List them Or how do they engage to be God's People or take Christ to be their Lord as you feign are not these meer Flourishes and confuted by all Experience And do not you consute your self when you tell us here that they understand none of these things And what benefit of Baptism are Infants capable of more than they are capable of the benefits of the Lord's Table If Remission of Sin be held forth in the one is it not held forth in the other And will you narrow up Remission of Sin to your way of Baptism And must we still be ordered by Bonds and Leases to transact Gospel Mysteries Do you think to prevail by these Fancies J. B. 3. And may it not be Operative by its signification as soon as the Child comes to the use of Reason And in the mean time as his Interest is upon the condition of the Parents Faith so may not the Parent have the actual comfort of it as of a Lease that assureth an Estate to his Child c. T. G. It seems then
Baptism operates not by its signification till the Child comes to Reason and you will not say it operates by the Work wrought Why then cannot you let the Child stay till he have the use of Reason And is it not absurd in you to say that your Sprinkling assures the Parent of Heaven for his Infant as a Lease assures him of an Estate And why then did you tell us it was not the certainty of Salvation which you disputed for What strange comfort do you give Parents concerning their Infants Would any Parent value such a Lease as only names his Child but gives no certain right to the Inheritance Nay for ought he knows the Estate is more certain to one that is not named in the Lease for that 's the true Import of your holding some dying Infants are damned but what a wretched Interest do you give the Child whilst it rests upon the condition of the Father's Faith Poor Child if thy Father's Faith be false as many are corrupt in that case or if he fall from the Faith as many do what is then become of thy Interest May not you as Augustine before you be truly called Durus Pater Infantium You suggest as if the Child's Baptism will operate as soon as it comes to the use of Reason but that is false by all Experience he must have better means than your Sprinkling or he shall never be a Christian You urge the Sinlessness of Christ But suppose your Infants were as Sinless as he would that intitle them to Baptism I dare say you would hold it an Argument to the contrary And what though Christ was not buried with Christ in Baptism Yet is that a Warrant for you to Baptize those that cannot be buried with Christ in Baptism And whether would your Fancies lead us at last should we admit your Argumentation in other Cases J. B. 4. If you object How can an Infant covenant with God or be engaged by this Sign To this if only the Aged are capable of Engagement may you not thence conclude that no Infant was ever circumcised But may not that be the Childs action Morally or in a Law-sence which is only the Fathers action Physically As when a Man puts his Childs name into a Lease c. T. G. Whether you do not here grant the circumcised Child did not covenant with God properly but in a Law-sence And do we not grant this because there was a Law for it There was also once a Law for the Circumcision of Trees Lev. 19. 23. Take away his foreskin which is his Fruit. Ital. Transl Now shew us your Law for your Mode of admitting Members viz. Sprinkling of Infants and we will dispute no farther And would you not count us very unwise if we should Baptize our Trees because the Jews did Circumcise theirs And then why may not we count you as unwise to Baptize Infants because the Jews did Circumcise Infants But what Book of God taught you this fine distinction viz. That my Baptism must be anothers act Physically and mine Morally And let this Fancy run and what Ordinance can you deny an Infant which his Father may perform Physically i. e. As he may put his Childs name into a Lease which is the thing you refer us to to understand your distinction by J. B. 5. Another common Objection is If Infants must be Baptized why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper To which may not the very external nature of the Sacraments satisfie you c. T. G. Why do you not see your Error Does not Dr. Taylor tell you The Wit of Man is not able to shew in this case a difference in these Ordinances And are not little Children as capable to receive a small quantity of Bread and Wine as to be Baptized And did not Men admit them to both for five or six hundred Years together Does not the Apostle say of the whole Church who were engaged in the Christian Worship We are one Body and one Bread even as we all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. And might not any Man argue as strongly from hence for Infant Communion as you from any other Text for Infant Baptism And does not God's requiring Repentance of every one that is to be Baptized Acts 2. 37 38. restrain Baptism to such as 1 Cor. 11. restrains the Supper to such as examine themselves And does not your Instance of a Burgess-Infant make against you whilst you confess he is not born to Trade on his Infancy Why then should Infants Trade in the Mysteries of the Gospel though born to the Grace of Life held forth to Mankind in the Gospel J. B. 6. It bath been objected That if it be the will of God 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 c. T. G. Dare you say that all that are under the benefit of the Covenant of Grace must be Baptized And yet are not all such of the Universal Church Are none of the Infants of the Jews of the Kingdom of God and yet you will say they must be Baptized Is it not as plain that all Church-Members must eat and drink at the Lord's Table as that they are all to be Baptized Does not Christ say Drink ye all this Does not Paul say We being many are one Body for we are all partakers of that Bread Let Infants then be never so truly of the Church as she contains the whole Body of Christ yet are they not of that Body which are bound to put on Christ in Baptism and to continue stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine in breaking of Bread and Prayers And whether the remainder of this Query hath not been considered before J. B. 7. Another Objection is The evil consequences of Infant-Baptism as gross Ignorance much occasioned by it To which 1. Is not the Lord Jesus himself the occasion of the ruine and damnation of Multitudes Luke 2. 34. 2. Can you shew what there is in the nature of the thing that should be hurtful to any c. T. G. Is not that of very evil Consequence that naturally tends to deprive all Men of the sacerd Ordinance of God the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sin Can you devise any way so natural to fill the Church with Unregenerated Persons And is not this a great evil when God hath ordained the New Birth as necessary to Membership in his Gospel-Church Do you not evidently turn things upside down And contradict our Saviour John 3. 3 5. and his Apostle Gal. 3. 26. And is not this evil Is it not evil to speak a word in the Name of the Lord which he never commanded How dare you then say you Baptize an Infant in the Name of the Lord when you cannot but know you speak falsly in his Name and can shew no Authority from Heaven for Baptizing Infants if you