Hope Object VIII What shall we make of Ephes 2. 3 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 sense 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 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 Serpents 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 these of whom it was 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 S O 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 there 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 Hope 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 pitty 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 entring into Heaven however it may be hid from the Pagans is evident enough from our Saviour's 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 Conversation may answer to such a Precedent in point of Innocency Humility and Simplicity will not this as well accord 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 justify the whole in that State of Infancy to be devoid of that Evil And why even of our selves do we not judg what is right Could any Man from the Beginning to this Day bring the least Charge against one Infant more than another Unless God by Miracle shew some special Power upon them no Difference can be seen in them in point of Innocency Object IX 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 them that love God remain unrevoked Answ I have not forgotten that but 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 better considered I will set that down in Words which you write 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. 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 sure nothing less than that no Infants shall be saved but the Infants of Believers c. and if not how do they suit your Case They prove indeed that God will bless the Posterity of his faithful Servants if they keep his Covenant and remember his Commandments to do them I think David well expounds this Place in Psal 37. 25. And yet I grant though you prove it not that there are very many other Blessings even in Infancy does attend 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 whilst God knows others are destitute of these Blessings being crossed and exorcised among the Paedobaptists 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 Hellish Torments those dying Infants for the Wrong which their Parents have done them It being inconceivable how it can stand with his Attributes either of Mercy or Justice both which must have Effect upon them His Justice hath its Effect on Infants in Diseases Sickness and Death Now either his Mercy must have Effect upon dying Infants in the next World or not at all if not in that World how shall that Saying be true His tender Mercies are over all his Works Will he never shew tender Mercy to Infants who only lived to cry and die in this World and must they now die eternally in Hell Is this your tender Mercy to Infants O ye cruel Paedobaptists Object X. If the Blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles through Faith Gal. 3. 14. how does it reach to the Infants of the Gentiles which do not believe 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
denied But when I behold the miserable Shifts you are put to to prove Infants Disciples according to Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19. I do with the greatest Admiration bewail your Unhappiness and cannot tell how to imagine that any wise Men among you does really believe your selves in what you say on that account And sure I am the Papists have as strong a pretence from Hoc est Corpus meum for their Transubstantiation as you have from Matheteusaté for Infant-Discipleship And to speak freely they are both incredible things all Sense and Experience militates equally against both Opinions If they be Truths it must be because they are both Miracles but then they want the Character of true Miracles for they are no ways demonstrable that there is any Miracle at all in either of them we are only told that they are so i. e. that the Bread in the Eucharist is Real Flesh That the Child in your Rantism is born again of Water and Spirit made a Disciple of Christ c. but no mortal Man knows any of these things to be true And what is it that we may not believe if we must believe such things as these Prayer for the Dead Purgatory fire c. will come upon us armed with our own Arguments if we admit the former And to conclude as to your first Argument Give me leave to say if your Hearers can receive your Dictates and ill-prov'd Affirmations I know not but they may believe you in whatsoever you will be pleased to tell them What you say of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism I shall here consider in few words for since you insist only upon Cyprian's Testimony whose Grounds for Infant-Baptism you confess to be unsound I need say little here that which was built upon bad Principles then by him and stands upon as unsound ones now by you does gain nothing by either of you But will you know that it is plainly granted by some of the most Learned of your way That there is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism Here it wants the best Antiquity nor any just Evidence for it for about two hundred Years after Christ. Yet it came in upon a gross Mistake of the Scripture that in what Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond has said for it there is nothing that looks like an Argument Dr. Barlow This is enough at present PART II. Wherein is considered Mr. Petto's second Argument which he delivers in these Words If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham then by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized BEfore I answer this Argument I shall consider a few things And 1. That as Mr. Petto grants God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham twenty four years before he gave him the Covenant of Circumcision see Gen. 12. 1 2 3 4. with 17. 24. so that the Covenant of Grace had no external Sign as it was made with Abraham Gen. 12. But when God was pleased to add to this Covenant the Promise of the Land of Canaan c. then it was that he gave him the Law of Circumcision and these additional Parts I take to be most properly if not only that which is the Covenant of Circumcision 2. It is to be understood that Abraham was not the only Person in the World which was under the Covenant of Grace at this time when God made Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 'T is observed by some that Salah lived after the Covenant of Circumcision was made about 50 years Arphaxad lived thirteen years after and that Heber lived till Jacob was about twenty years old which was long after Abraham died Now these with Melchisedeck if he were not one of these with many others amongst whom was just Lot were not only true Worshippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace but some of them superiour to Abraham himself for Melchisedeck blessed Abraham being the King of Salem and Priest of the most high God. 3. And as neither these nor their Posterity were liable to any loss of the Covenant of Grace by their not being circumcised after the manner of Abraham so neither Job nor other worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh had any obligation to Circumcision from whence it must needs follow that God intended not the sign of Circumcision to belong to Persons as they were in the Covenant of Grace but that it was appropriate for some great Ends respecting a special preservation to the Family of Abraham as of the Kindred from whom Christ should proceed and with whom he would presence himself in a Land of Promise by a distinct way of Worship from all Nations who at that time were falling very fast into Idolatry 4. And besides this it is certain that this Sign of Circumcision was by God's Appointment to be affixed to some to whom the Covenant of Grace might seem to have the least extent or at least they did forfeit all Interest in it this was the case of Ishmael and Esau who proved very wicked and it is to be questioned whether the Bondmen or Slaves in Israel had that Ceremony as a Badge of the Covenant of Grace Men may talk high of these things and prove little or whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any Person in the World save to Abraham And in what sence it was so to him who had so many things peculiar to him is not easy to be demonstrated 5. Our Practice in Religious Institutes is not to be gathered from such uncertain Conjectures but to stand upon the clear Direction of the Instituter or the Practice of such as God hath thought fit to make Precedents to us and it is certain we are not at all concerned in the Law of Circumcision and for us to take our Rules thence for the Subjects of Baptism is very childish and reflects Dishonour upon Christ and his Apostles who never sent us to learn Infant-Baptism from Infant-Circumcision nor indeed have they taught it at all These things premised I answer to the Argument by these ensuing Distinctions 1. If by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumcision as he does for he quotes Gen. 7. 9 10 11. to prove his Assumption and by some Infants he means the Infants of Christians as such as that is his meaning then I deny his Minor. 2. Or if by Covenant he mean that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. distinct from the Covenant of Circumcision and by some Infants being in this Covenant externally he means Infants are concerned in the outward Profession or Practice of Worship still I deny the Minor for God by that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. never required the Performance of such Duties of Infants 3. If by Covenant he mean the gracious Pardon of
are Abraham 's Seed and hence he would infer their Baptism He has many Words and very often repeated the substance of all has I think already been answered however seeing he talks here of a threefold Seed of Abraham under the Titles of Natural Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Seed I will seriously consider the Scriptures which he brings to prove Infants to be the Ecclesiastical Seed of Abraham For the Scriptures which he brings to describe the Spiritual Seed of Abraham speaks not one word of Infants Gal. 3. 8 9. shews that God would justify the Heathen through Faith and concludes thus So then they which be of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham This is not spoken of Infants yet they shall be blessed The Texts he brings to prove Infants to be the Ecclesiastical Seed of Abraham are many first Matth. 25. 1 2. where the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to wise and foolish Virgins but I suppose no wise Man takes Infants to be of either sort for they are neither wise nor foolish but they are innocent Two Texts more we have Rom. 11. 20. John 15. 6. where we learn that the Jews were broken off for Vnbelief and the Gentiles stood by Faith that some Branches in Christ not bearing Fruit are taken away and those which bear Fruit are purged to bring forth more Fruit But what all this is to Infants no Man can tell He quotes these over again and with them Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10. 13 14. Luke 18. 15. Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Rev. 1. 12 13 20. Now he that from these Texts would prove Infants to be Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed must prove that in the three first Texts the Word Kingdom must needs signify the Church-militant and that Christ admitted these Infants into the Church by Baptism or else that they have Authority to do more than Christ himself did For if these very Infants were not baptised they must have very great Confidence that can pretend from hence to find ground to baptise others The next Christ tells Peter that he would build his Church upon a Rock But must all that are saved be Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed Sure some Infants may be saved who were never baptised for all this Rom. 16. 16. bids Christians salute one another with an holy Kiss and tells them also that the Church of Christ salutes them I see nothing from hence to prove Infants visibly Christ's so as to be Abraham 's Seed sure his Proposition will fail of Proof The Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 27. tells the Corinthians that they were the Body of Christ and Members in particular But not one word to prove that there was one Infant of this Communion Yet all Members of that one Body were partakers of that one Bread in which their Unity was demonstrated Rev. 1. 12 13 14. only describes the Vision that John saw of the Son of God and the seven Golden Candlesticks But no Man can yet find in any of these Candlesticks so much as one Infant concern'd bearing up the light of Truth in the profession of the Gospel Now for his Argument I would know the meaning of this Speech Some Infants are visibly Christ's If he means some Infants only are Christ's by Redemption how can he possibly know the Redeemed from the Damned for so they are supposed to be in this Mans destiny The work of Redemption is visible because God's Word tells us who Christ died for and that is for every Man Heb. 2. 9. and here Infants are equally Christ's visibly But so long as Mr. Petto thinks that Christ died but for some Infants only and those very few in comparison of the whole he cannot name one for whom Christ died it being impossible for them to give any Demonstration by which he may know such a thing and therefore he can have but small comfort in baptizing any of them if indeed it were lawful to baptize some Infants as he supposes Nay were he as sure that Christ died for some particular Infants as I am that he died for them all yet would it not follow that they are Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed so as to be baptized for Christ knew that the Infants whom he took in his Arms were his and yet he did no such thing to them and I shall never think Mr. P. wiser than our Saviour nor so kind to poor Infants as he was Mr. Petto argues thus Some Infants are visibly of the Faith and so are Abraham's Seed Here I deny the Antecedent I say no Infants are visibly of the Faith. And Mr. P. tells me in this very place That he does not say that Faith semenal and habitual or actual is in all Infants baptized for then saith he all of them must be saved which they are not or else they might lose that special Faith But they are invisibly invested in the Covenant or Promise which is the Word of Faith and may bear that Name c. I answer Here are two kinds of Faith which the Scripture knows nothing of i. e. seminal and habitual However I perceive he knows not one Infant that has any of these kinds of Faith he therefore has found out a fourth and that is a reputative Faith or a thing which he says may bear that name Sure these are meer Dreams and Fancies and so let them go Actual Faith Infants have none and this is all the Faith that Man can make Judgment of by God's Word He does indeed grant all Infants which are baptized have not this Faith and if he dare affirm it â—f any of them all the Experience of the World will confute him and so he has lost his Argument as a meer Story without Truth and against all Experience For seeing Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God he cannot without a Miracle shew any Infant to be visibly in the Faith for the poor Babe knows not its right hand from its left He might as well say some Infants are visibly in Repentance and I marvel why the Poedobaptists do not insist upon that as well as Faith to entitle their Children to Baptism Mr. Petto tells us If Infants have not Faith for the present yet visibly they are under a Promise of it which Promise Baptism may be a Sign and Seal of it may seal a Doctrine of Faith even where a Principle of it is yet wanting These and what follows are meer Dictates and Presumptions without Proof Yet he brings Deut. 30. 6. where God promises to circumcise the hearts of the Israelites and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord with all the heart and with all the soul But God spake not this to Infants nor as a thing to be done to them in their Infancy for when they should thus be circumcis'd they should be able to know the Lord very well for they should love him then with all the Heart and Soul. Now this Promise is made to all Men upon future Contingencies for God commandeth all