Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	infant_n	visible_a	2,976	5	9.7844	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B23662	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 Pædo-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 accomodation between the Pædo-baptists, and the baptized believers, published for that happy end / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.; Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. Querist examined.	1680 (1680)	Wing G1529	50,899	65

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. 1● 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

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

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

broken off be understood to suppose that some yet did stand by God's Appointment in the former Church Or is it not evident that Mens eagerness to stand in the Old Church which now was ceased de jure was the cause why they were rejected Again Is it not said of the believing Gentiles That they were grafted in among the Branches to wit the Jews sure this is not meant of the Jews that stood in the House of Moses or the Old Church-state but of the Church or House which was builded by Christ for Old things were passed away all things became New Wherefore now consider seeing the believing Jews themselves did not stand by virtue of their Old Church-Membership that being now Repealed Matth. 3. 9. Rom. 7. 4 5 6. whether it be rational to imagin that the Infant Church-Membership which was of the same Law should yet remain And wherefore do you so boldly say the believing Parents do remain in the same Church But further Is it safe by the good Olive Rom. 11. to understand the Jewish Church Was not Paul willingly broke off from that Church Phil. 3. that he might be in Christ Is it not more safe to understand the place of Abraham not as a Natural Father for so the Gentiles could no more be grafted into him than into the Jewish Church But as a Spiritual Father into whom as such the Faithful were grafted or rather into his Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed even Christ the true Vine and the Faithful both Jew and Gentile are the Branches united to him J. B. 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief T. G. And is there any thing more clears the Point that this breaking off was not from the Jewish Church for their unbelief caused them to stand in that Church And seeing these two things are both evident that the breaking off here meant was by unbelief and the standing here meant is by Faith is it not thence very evident that the poor Infants are not concern'd either in this kind of breaking off or this kind of standing in the Olive Tree Alas poor Souls what have they done Have not Infants a more sure interest in Christ than to be jetted into or out of him by the Faith or Unbelief of Parents What wise Man will think so And what need have we or any Body else to talk of the Invisible Church it being a thing unknown to Man And suppose this Olive Tree be meant of the Visible Church Christian walking in all the Commands and Ordinances of Christ blameless yet seeing no Natural Branches as such do stand in this Olive Tree but must be grafted in by Faith before they can stand there Is it not evident even hence that no Infant meerly as the Seed of a Believer is concern'd in the Duties of this Church seeing the very Natural Branches of Abraham himself have not that priviledg on that account J. B. 3. If it be into their own Olive Tree which they were broke off from and of which they were Natural Branches that the Jews shall be engrafted at their recovery as Rom. 11. 24. then how is God's Ordinance for Infant Church-Membership Repealed c. though they be not restored to the Mosaical Law or Covenant of Peculiarity but taken into the Catholick Church T. G. Though it be never so true that the Jews upon their return shall be grafted into their own Olive viz. Abraham as a Spiritual Father and into Christ the Promised Seed in whom all Nations are blessed yet do you not here fairly grant that they shall not be grafted into the Covenant of Peculiarity or Mosaical Law And then whether their bringing Infants to the Mysteries of Religion which was one main thing which was peculiar to the Jewish state is not consequently granted by you to be now Repealed unless you can prove that the Catholick Church hath Command from Christ to bring their Infants to the Mysteries of Religion And who exyour selves did ever exclude the Jews Infants from the Catholick Church viz. the Assembly that are written in Heaven But how will you prove that the Infants of the Jews or any dying Infants are cast out of that Church Or are not all those of the Catholick Church who are of the Kingdom of God And does not Christ state Infants there without excepting any J. B. 4. Is it not the same Olive or Church which the Jews were broken off from that we Gentiles are grafted into as Rom. 11. 17 19 24 And if theirs admitted Infants must not ours admit of Infant-Members also c. T. G. Whether the Church was not the same Church in all Ages and yet whether she did not differ in her external order by God's Appointment and whether this difference was not in the case of Infants being brought to or left unconcern'd in the Rituals of Religion as much as in any thing And seeing you here say She was taken down as to accidental Ceremonies whether this will not justifie us in not Baptizing Infants as well as you in not Communicating them seeing God hath not commanded the one any more than the other J. B. 5. Would not Christ have gathered Jerusalem 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 Matth. 25. 37 38 39. T. G. Whether it be not evident we unchurch no Infants in respect of their relation to Salvation by Christ but only say they ought not to be brought to the Services of Gospel-Ordinances And do not you your self say the same that we do except your pretended Baptism And suppose Christ had gathered all Jerusalem would not he have gathered them after the same manner Would he not have gathered them by Preaching by Repentance and by Faith and Baptism which were capable of these things But how should their Infants be thus gathered Could he not have gathered their Infants in the sende of this Text without Preaching to them without Faith or Repentance required of them And could and would he not have gathered them without Baptism as well as without these And should not the Infants in Jerusalem and Judea have escaped the destruction which came upon them by the Romans if the Adult had but received the Gospel and can you think that though the Infants suffered in that Desolation of Jerusalem that therefore they were damned with the unbelieving Jews And if not were they not still of the Catholick Church though their Parents were rejected J. B. 6. Can you 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 c. T. G. Was not Enoch Seth and Noah when Infants as happy though not Circumcised or brought to any Ritual in the Church as Isaac Jacob c. were in their Infancy though Circumcised And have we not as much ground

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

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 n●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