make it Is it a fundamental point and duty of absolute necessity to salvation why then was not Baptism in the Creed called the Apostles Mark 16. 16. saith only He that believeth not is condemned not He that is not Baptised Doth not the Apostle speak of Baptizing as a small part of his work in comparison of Preaching 1 Cor. 1. 14 17. Though all Christs commands both great and small must be obeyed so far as we know them yet if Christians make that which is comparatively so small a point a chief part of their study and conference and lay out at least one half of their zeal about it are not such deluded And if they were in the Truth here yet is not that Truth a snare to them 11. Tho the point of Infant-Baptism be comparatively of less moment yet whether the grounds on which it stands and which are usually denied with it be not of great moment Now to the Question whether some Infants ought not to be Baptized 1. Ought not all Christs Disciples ordinarily to be Baptized Mat. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make ye Disciples Baptizing them And are not some Infants Christs Disciples May not the word Disciple be taken in a larger sense Relatively for one that is of the number of those that belong to Christ as Master and King of the Church and devoted to his oversight and rule and teaching for the future as well as in a narrower sense for those who are actual Learners And 1. Doth not the Holy Ghost call them Disciples Acts 15. 10. Is it not evident that those on whose necks the false Teachers would have laid the yoke were Disciples If you say not All but some of them are here called Disciples that is only them at Age then will it not follow that it is but some only whose Circumcision the Apostle and the Synod doth conclude against that is those of age Then for any thing the Apostle saith or this Synod all Infants might be circumcised still and is not this absurd 2. If no Infants are Disciples what is the cause Is it because they are not capable or because God will not shew them such mercy Can you find out a third cause which is not reducible to one of these And 1. If Infants are capable of being servants of God how can they be thought incapable of being Disciples If you will make a difference is not more required to a Servant than to a Disciple Yet is it not plain that Infants are capable of being Gods Servants Lev. 25. 41 42. If God call Infants his Servants though they are uncapable at present of doing him Service what forbids but that we may call them Disciples tho at present they are uncapable of learning Were not the Jews and their Infants called Gods servants in a sense peculiar as chosen and separated from all others that the Gentiles at age were not so Gods servants as the Jews Infants were Otherwise how could it be a reason for releasing them in the year of Jubilee any more than for releasing any other 2. Are not Infants capable of being Subjects of Christs Kingdom And is not Christs Church both his Kingdom and his School and every Member of it under him both as King and Prophet Are not all Subjects of Christ in his visible Kingdom or Church Christians And are not Disciples and Christians all one in the Language of the Holy Ghost Act. 11. 26. Again can it be that Infants are not Disciples because God will not shew them such Mercy Were not Infants in the Jewish Church Servants and Disciples of Christ tho not so fully and explicitly as now was not Christ then the King of the Church as Mediator upon undertaking to pay our debt And if Infants in the Jews Church were Servants and Disciples doth not God shew as great and greater mercy to his Church now under the Gospel And to your common objection that Infants cannot learn 1. Yet can they not partake of the protection and provision of their Master and enjoy the Priviledges of the Family and School and be under Christs charge and Dominion 2. And be devoted to Learning if they live and consecrated to him as their Master 3. And why should any be more vigorous with Christ in this case than with Men Is it not common to call the whole Nation of the Turks both old and young by the name of Mahometans or Disciples of Mahomet And what if Infants cannot at first learn to know Christ Is that the first Lesson Is it not somewhat if they can be taught any of the duty of a rational creature And doth not Scripture require to teach Children the trade of their life in the time of their youth as early no doubt as they are able to understand and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord And does not this nurture belong to them as Schollars of Christ 2. Ought not all ordinarily to be Baptized that ought to be admitted visible Church-Members Since Baptism was instituted have we any Precept or Example of admitting visible Members any other way Will you not grant that all visible Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism Now what plentiful proof may be brought that some Infants ought to be admitted visible Church-Members And does there need any more to prove that they ought to be Baptized 1. 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 Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord that he might stablish them for a people to himself and might be to them a God Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. And were not Infants engaged to God by the Seal of his Covenant Circumcision If you say That this merciful gift of God to Infants and ordinance for their Church-Membership is repealed does it not lie on you to prove it yet how will you fail herein whereas it is easie to prove the contrary 1. If this Ordinance and merciful Gift be repealed and revoked whether is it in Mercy or in Justice whether is it for their good or for their hurt Dare you say that God hath repealed Infants Church-Membership to their hurt in justice Did he ever revoke his Mercies in Justice to the parties hurt till they first brake Covenant with him and so procured it by their own desert Now were there not many Jews that believed and did not forsake the Covenant of God How then could these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt Or can you say that 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 instead of it Now is there any greater mercy given to Infants than Church-Membership Those Infants which were in the Church before Christ had
they not God engaged in Covenant to be their God and to take them for his peculiar people Deut. 29. 10 11 12. And those that were aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel were they not strangers to the covenant of Promise and without hope and without God in the World Eph. 2. 12. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate but Church-Members And when God addeth to the Church such as shall be saved can it be any known way of mercy to be cast or put out of the Church Did Christ come in tho flesh to put Infants out of his Church in mercy Will you say he could more fitly save them out of his Church than in it And if it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven nor any hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth or any hurt to the Church to see them Members here And whatsoever it may be to strangers yet how can it seem such a mercy to Parents to have their Children put out of the Church why then hath God made such promises to Parents for their Seed as if much of the Parents comfort lay in their Childrens Welfare And hath God no mercy for Infants or can he not shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way than by casting out all their Infants What great comfort would follow this conclusion That all your Infants are out of Christs visible Church Can you prove that Christ will save those that are no Christians not so much as visibly or seemingly Subjects of his Kingdom If some priviledges were taken away as the Release of the Jews servants c. yet are there not far greater given in their stead 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church Therefore to the rest that remained in the gift was not repealed Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members with their Parents that but some were broken off from this Church and how far is the whole Church from being dissolved And who can imagine that God should cast out the Infant that came in for the Parents sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 3. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief And consequently that Believers and their seed were not broken off Will you say that the Apostle speaketh there of the Invisible Church Doth he not speak of that Church whereof the Jews were natural Branches v. 24. and was not that the Visible Church And if the breaking off was visible such wherein Gods severity was to be beheld by the Gentiles as v. 22. was it not from the Visible Church directly Could there be a visible breaking off or removal from an invisible term 4. If it be into their own Olive which they were broke off from and of which they were natural branches that the Jews shall be re-ingraffed at their recovery as Rom. 11. 24. then how is Gods Ordinance for their Infant Church-Membership repealed Is not their own Olive their own Church And did not their own Church ever contain Infants as Members As it will when it is but part of the Catholick Church tho they be not restored to the Mosaical Law or Covenant of peculiarity but taken into the Catholick Church 5. Is it not the same Olive or Church which the Jews were broken off from that we Gentiles are graffed into as Rom. 11. 17 19 24 And if their Church admitted Infant-Members and ours be the same must not ours admit of Infant-Members also Is it not plain from the Text that the Olive or Church it self remained still only some Branches were broken off and others of the Gentiles ingraffed in their stead Then how is it taken down any further than as to ceremonial accidentals 6. Would not Christ have gathered Jerusalem which is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish Nation Mat. 23. 37 38 39. And is it likely that he would have unchurched all their Infants when he would have gathered to him whole Jerusalem or the whole Nation 7. Can ye suppose the believing Jews children and so the Parents in point of comfort to be in a worse condition since Christ than they were before Did Christ come to make Believers or their children miserable or bring them into a worse condition And is it not a far worse condition to be out of the visible Church than in it Hath not Christ made larger promises to his Church Visible than to any in the world that are not of the Church what promise is there to others except the conditional upon their coming in 8. If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now in regard of the Childrens happiness and the Parents comfort than it was before Christs coming then will it not follow that our children ought to be admitted Church-Members and consequently that Ordinance and merciful Gift is not repealed 9. If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church then are they not in a worse condition than the very children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ Is it not the express Letter of Gods Law that any stranger that would come in might bring his children and all be Circumcised and admitted Members of the Jews Church 10. Was not the Covenant Deur 29. 10 11 12. which all the Jews with all their little ones were enter'd into with God a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Laws which was repealed How then is it or their Church-Membership grounded on it repealed Is not that a Covenant of Grace wherein God taketh them to be his people and engageth to be their God Hath God entred into such a Covenant with any since the Fall but in Christ and upon terms of Grace Is not that a Covenant of Grace wherein the Lord promiseth to Circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their Seed c. See Heb. 10. 16 17. And doth not the Apostle Paul cite those words of faith Rom. 10. 5 6 7 8. out of this very Covenant Compare Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14. with the Text last cited 11. If Infants then were entred and engaged Church-Members by that Circumcision which was a Seal of the Rightcousness of Faith and was not given on Legal grounds as Rom. 4. 11. how comes that Church-Membership of Infants to be repealed Is it any other than a shift to say that it was only such a Seal of Abrahams righteousness of Faith Is not the nature end and use of Sacraments or holy engaging Signs and Seals the same to all though the fruit be not alway the same 12. If the Law of Infants Church-Membership was no part of the Ceremonial or meerly Judicial Law
nor yet of the Law of Works as such how can you say that it is repealed seeing no other Laws are repealed Will you say it was part of the Law of Works which knows no mercy to those who have once offended Was not Church-membership a mercy And if it was part of the Ceremonial Law what was it a type of What is the Antitype that hath succeeded it And how could this be part of the meerly Judicial Law seeing Infants were Church-members long before the time of Moses when the Jews were formed into a Common-wealth and the Judicial Laws given them And can you say that this was proper to the Jews Was it given to them only that is only to Isaac and his Seed on whom the Jewish priviledges were entailed Were not many hundreds circumcised as Church-members and among them many Infants in Abrahams family before Isaac was born and so all the Proselites with their Infants afterwards that would come in 13. Is it not clear that there is an Universal Church visible And that every one that is a Member of a particular Church is also a Member of the Universal And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Universal And that this Universal Church is not dissolved Now must not he that will affirm the whole species of Infants are cast out of the Universal visible Church prove it well And since we find that they were once in it what need we any more proof that they remain in till it can be shewn where it is revoked And is it any good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the Universal If a Jew had been forced into a strange Country yet had not both he and his children there been Members of the Universal Church 14. 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 Is it not said v. 4. that those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their Body And of Covenant-breakers v. 18. 32 41. Cursed shalt thou be in the Fruit of thy Body Thy Sons and thy Daughters shall be given to another people They shall go into Captivity Now is it not a sorer curse to be put out of the whole Visible Church of Christ than to go into Captivity To be in Captivity is but a Bodily judgment directly but is it not directly a Spiritual judgment to be out of the Church 15. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the visible Church of Christ leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil Doth not the World and the Church contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture-distribution If you say Infants may be of the invisible Church is not the visible Church wider than the invisible That ordinarily we may not judg any to be of the invisible Church who are not of the visible 16. And will you leave us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying Infants in the world Can we have any true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of Salvation and so die To judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is it not likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgment And if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of Salvation then will it not follow that they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of Salvation 17. 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 Are not all Divines agreed in the definition of the Church That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God Will not this Text prove children holy by a stated separation to God Is not the constant sense of the word holy a separation to God And were not the Infants of the faithful Church-members and so holy before Christs time And is it not most probable that the Apostle speaks of the same kind of holiness which was the ordinary priviledge of the faithful before But utterly improbable that he should speak of no other holiness here but legitimation which is common to the children of Pagans And if to be holy in the Apostles sense here be no more than to be lawfully begotten then may we not call all persons holy that are not Bastards Then is not almost all the world holy Because Bastards are called clean will it therefore follow that the legitimate may be called holy The Beasts that chewed the Cud and had cloven feet were clean will you therefore say they were holy 18. 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 And whether these which Christ took up in his Armes and Blessed were not Members of his visible Church Are any visibly Blest without the visible Church And is it not considerable that all the three former Evangelists make full mention of these passages of Christ Is it not evident that they were taken for Doctrines of moment for the Churches information And whether those words of Christ so plain and earnest suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not be not a better Plea at Judgment for our admitting Infants than any that ever yet you have brought for refusing them Turn over your Bible and see if you can find where Christ or his Apostles have said as much against our admitting Infants Church-members and then consider which way is safest Now to the Common Objections 1. If these Texts be objected Rom. 9. 8. They that are the Children of the flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed Eph. 2. 3. We are by Nature the Children of Wrath. 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 consequently not because they are the carnal seed of any other And is it their certain Salvation or their Church-Membership that we dispute for in regard of Individuals And further doth the Apostle speak one word against the priviledge of those Infants whose Parents violated not Gods Covenant nor fell away If a man should affirm That all the Infants of the faithful so dying are certainly saved is there a syllable in the Text against him Were they not aged unbelievers that the Apostle excludeth here And to Eph. 2. 3. What though we are by nature the children of wrath Doth it follow that we may not
as any whatsoever Antiq. 10. p. 9. As for the gracious Covenant made with Adam do we not grant that it extends to Infants yea we say with Mr. Baxter it was never abrogated Antiq 19. p. 14. Whether the Blessing of Abraham if you understand it of Eternal Life was not the Blessing of the Fathers that were before him And whether that Blessing did not belong to their Infants which is not at all opposite to my 19 Query And in what follows there you plainly shoot short as I noted before And Antiq. 23. p. 17. you fairly grant that Promises made to the Seed of the Righteous to the children of them that Love God c. are unrevoked you doubt not but these Promises yet remain Though I confess I do not well understand what you mean by those words Antiq. 21. p. 16. Whether all men that follow the rules of Morality are not within the reach of these Blessings also These you speak of are either Righteous and such as love God or they are not If they be such then certainly they belong to the Universal Church and are real Members of it if they are not such then they have not an interest in the promise made to such as love God neither can they lay claim to Blessings promised But to go on with your concessions Antiq. 11. p. 9. And whether the difference between the Baptists and Paedobaptists be not chiefly if not only about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants Antiq. 12. p. 10. Seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sense acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church viz. by Redemption pious Dedication to God c. Antiq. 30. p. 23. And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-Relation Obligation or Right Or who opposeth their being devoted to God in their capacity Antiq. 31. p. 24. Whether you do not greatly wrong your self and those you call Anabaptists in saying they vehemently plead against devoting their Children to God yea sure they do it actually as far as Gods word requires Prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of grace for your Infants more than we whom you call Anabaptists Here we have as you say in your Preface your Concessions in respect of Infants Relation to God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace and the Devotion of his people c. I shall be very glad if I may know you are all agreed in these things And here methinks you offer as fair as any of your way I have ever met with to end our difference about Infant-Baptism If the premises be granted the conclusion will follow If you grant our Infants within the Covenant then they have right to the investing sign To whom the promise belongs to them Baptisme belongs Acts 2. 38 39. If you yield our Infants Church Members then you should not deny their right to solemn admission by Baptism See Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof c. p. 23. c. And Mr. T. your Champion yielded this would follow You grant Antiq. 6. p. 4. and Antiq. 22. p. 16. That Infants are of the Redeemed Church And in the close of Antiq. 25. p. 19. That Infants still retain Member-ship in the Invisible Church And Antiq. 16. p. 13. They are Members of the Universal Church invisible you mean for you like not of an Universal Church Visible And otherwise as you say How shall they be saved seeing Christ is only the Saviour of his Body Only I query whether it be not a contradiction when you say Antiq. 28. p. 21. How can Infants be said to be a spiritual Seed Are any but a spiritual Seed Members of the Invisible Church Are not they a spiritual Seed that are of Christs Body and saved by him But if Infants be not Members of the Visible Church how can you prove they are Members of the Invisible Church To be probably Members of the Invisible Church is to be Members of the Visible Church or Visible Church-Members Further you say The Baptists do in a good sense acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church viz. by Redemption pious Dedication to God c. Antiq. 12. pag. 10. before-cited now do but make sense of it and I have enough Either these Infants visibly belong to the Kingdom of Christ or to the Kingdom of Satan for these two Kingdoms divide and share the whole world that such as are not of the one are certainly of the other and such as are not visibly of the one are visibly of the other And will you say that such as are of the redeemed-Redeemed-Church related to the Church by Redemption and further related by Pious Dedication to God c. are visibly the seed of the Serpent and of the Kingdom of Satan But this Pious Dedication leads me to another of your self-contradictions Antiq. 30. p. 23. Where are Christian Parents required to devote their children by consenting to any Covenant for them Though you grant there the Jews were required to Covenant for their children in matters of Religion And yet under the next Anti-query p. 24. you say Prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of grace for your Infants more than we How properly may these be called Anti-queries Or to get off will you say you consent to the Covenant of grace for the Infants but not as a thing required I gave you thanks before for some things granted concerning Infants and I here promise more thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants This you insinuate p. 5. Seeing then all Infants for ought you know have the same right But I doubt your proof of this point will be as lame and weak as your sentence there is imperfect and abrupt You should not wrong us To say we restrain the love and grace of God to such Infants as in your new phrase partake with Parents in practicals of Religion Antiq. 3. p. 2. as if we held that no Infant dying unbaptized could be saved is a charge you cannot prove Antiq. 4. p. 3. Whether the Parents consent to wickedness is the childs consent Peruse Mr. Baxter of Original Sin You your self do not deny Antiq. 7. p. 6. but the wickedness of Parents may expose their Infant-children to external calamities Yea Antiq. 21. p. 16. whoever doubted but that Infants are greatly disadvantaged by the wickedness of their Parents even so as to bear their Fathers iniquities many times as is evident in the overthrow of the old World c. Now God is not injust in what he inflicts on such children If they bear the Fathers iniquities they are some way guilty with their Parents You enquire further Antiq. 4. p. 3. And whether this do not give the Parents power to save or damn their Infants But you will not say I suppose that you are your own Saviour when you perform the condition of the Covenant to which Salvation for Christs sake is graciously promised Neither will we say that any Infants perish purely for
Much in a Little OR An Abstract of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-Proof for INFANTS Church-Membership OR BAPTISM VVith a few Notes upon the Anti-queries of T. G. By the same hand that wrote the Fifty Queries LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers-Chappel 1678. Reader WHat Artifices and assaults the Devil hath made and used to supplant the weightiest Principles to darken the most clear and comfortable Truths and to break the Peace and Concord of the Church is grown too evident to require proof And how he hath perplexed this present Doctrine of the Church-Membership and Baptism of Infants with Controversies we need not now insist upon But surely were not our little ones as well concerned and interested in the Covenant of Grace as their Parents are your strange and deep compassions towards them so rooted in Nature and cultivated and enlarged by Grace would become their dreadful torment and distress And why Infants should feel the smart 〈◊〉 dreadful punishments of the violated Law 〈◊〉 Covenant of innocent nature as is evident in their early diseases pains and death and not be capable of redress and pardon by a gracious Covenant I am yet to learn And what their capacity should be for if not to be answerably treated and regarded supposing what God by his Son and in his Gospel hath prepared and tendred to us I cannot understand All Laws consider Infants at in their Parents until maturity make them capable of chusing and acting for themselves And why we should exclude them from Covenant redresses seeing God once took them in by an Act or Law of Grace not yet repealed I am not able to conjecture Were they excluded from Gospel-Grace their Parents would want 1. That Cogent Argument which now they have to be devoted unto God themselves and to be true to such a Dedication as ever they regard the present and eternal welfare of their Infant-Seed And 2. A Soveraign Antidote against their griefs and fears when their children are removed in their Infancy For if God hath no-where promised to save our little ones by his Son to pardon them and to adopt them into his Family what can perswade us that they belong not to the Devil and that they are not gone to dwell with him when they are dead And then with what dejected hearts and looks must mournful Parents follow their deceased Infants to their Graves But I shall and need not say any more seeing this Abstract of Mr. Baxters larger and elaborate Treatise comes on this Errand to its Reader who is desired to take notice that it was ready many Months agone soon after the publication of the Anti-Queries though its own publication hath been obstructed until now Peruse and judge impartially A few Notes upon the Querist Examined YOur Anti-Queries very lately sent me by one of your party as A full Answer to the Fifty Queries I have considered impartially I hope and cannot think them worthy of a Book in Answer Yet that you might not take my Silence either for consent or for a contempt I have written these few pages here Now in the first place I must tell you Those Fifty Queries will remain unanswered until that Book of Mr. Baxters be answered to which every Query refers which for ought I know you never yet lookt into And whether your Anti-Queries so far as they concern the main point in Question be not cut off and answered again and again in that Book and divers other extant and common I leave to the judgment of indifferent Readers Further I might tell you of your playing upon the word Church Antiq. 1. p. 1. which is immediately explained in my first Query by Kingdom of God which prevents your exception And I might take notice of your newcovn'd Term Practical Ordinance which you have so often as if there were some other Ordinances speculative or not practical I might take notice of your Illogical distinction of being a Member of the Church Essentially and being a Member Formally Anti. 18. p. 14. And your not allowing an universal Visible Church Antiq. 16. p. 12. I might take notice how you misunderstand or misapply those Texts Except ye eat the Flesh of Joh. 6. 53. And Except a man be born of water Joh. 3. 5. As if the former spake of the Lords Supper and the latter of Baptism vid. Antiq. p. 5. Again I might take notice of your shooting short in many of your Antiqueries As because there was a time when Infants within the Church were not devoted to God by any such engaging sign as Circumcision or Baptism no such engaging sign being then instituted therefore Infants are not to be so solemnly devoted to God when such an engaging sin is instituted and belongeth to all within the Church And your shooting wide is plain in some others I might tell you how you have the same things over and over again Though you accuse me of continual tautologizing Antiq. 38. p. 30. I am willing the Impartial Reader should judge whether of us be most guilty here Turpe est Doctori c. I take notice of your citing Mr. Baxters Cure of Church-Divisions p. 7. no less than thrice soil in Preface and p. 10. and p. 32. yet a man may turn thrice to p. 7. in that book of Mr. Baxter for that which you refer unto and lose his labour So I take notice of your vain flourishing and braving it with Mr. T 's confident challenge both in the end of your Preface And know this c. and again Antiq. 49 p. 38 39. when also you shoot wide not one word to my Query As concerning Mr. Baxter I may say Know this that others that are sober and judicious tell him he hath clear'd those points sufficiently that any further debate concerning them is needless Further I might take notice of the many Et caetera's you have put to my Queries sometimes leaving out what was most lively to pinch yea you cut off the chief part of fiftieth and last Query without so much as an c. unless it was the Printers fault Again I might take notice where you are not very consistent with but rather contradict your self One or two places I may have occasion to observe But I must take notice of your fair concessions and I thank you for them I will not dispute it with you whether these of yours be properly called Antiqueries Let the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be either pro or con with you I should not spend time in criticising on the word But whether in composition the word of an Apostle or Messenger of the Churches as I have heard some do call you should be both yea and nay may be a question Now what do these following Queries o◠yours imply Antiq. 5. p. 4. Whether the Baptists do not as clearly assert Infants right to the grace of God in the first Edition of the Covenant made with Adam