anon and Acts 21. 4 5. This Place informs us That the Disciples told Paul by the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem Is it possible that * Infants who are not mentioned here should be of the number of these Disciples It is true 't is said that the Wives and Children went with Paul to the Sea-shore and kneeled down and prayed But are all Children Infants Or if there were any Infants did they kneel down upon the Sea-shore and pray with Paul And if not to what purpose has he brought these Scriptures 4. He brings a Cloud of other Scriptures in Figures for had he read them his Folly would have been seen with more ease Let us hear what these Scriptures say 1 Pet. 1. 15. As he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy What must these Places prove I will set down your own Words As to the Name of the Trinity that of being holy is attributed often to Father Son and Holy Spirit And this very Name of the Lord holy he hath imposed upon the Children of Believers But what a wretched Consequence is here as if it would follow that all for whom Christ offered up himself or for whom he was God's High-Priest has thereupon the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit on them Why according to this Logick Saul had the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon him when he persecuted all that called on that Name And the Scripture is very plain that whilst we were Enemies Christ died for us but we had not then the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit imposed on us And how follows it that because Christians are exhorted to be holy in all manner of Conversation that therefore Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Might not a Man by this kind of reasoning prove that all the Infants in the World have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them I am sure that God is the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and that all Nations are in respect of his gracious Providence his People and Sheep of his Pasture and exhorted to enter into his Ways with Praise and Thanksgiving Psal 100. The Places you bring from the Epistle to the Ephesians cap. 1. 13. and 4. 30. informs us that after Men believed they were sealed with the Holy Spirit this shews these Persons were no Infants Rom. 11. 16. shews that an holy Root has holy Branches 1 Pet. 2. 9. tells us Christians are a chosen Generation a royal Priest-hood a holy Nation a peculiar People that you should shew forth the Praises of him that hath called you out of Darkness into his marvellous Light. As for Rom. 11. 16. it evidently refers to the great things which God will do when he calls the Jews which were cast off and so it little concerns our Question otherwise it were easy to shew that at that time how holy soever Abraham had been yet his Children were prophane enough But Mr. Petto's Drift is to make Men believe that each of them whom he calls Believers are as holy a Root in respect of conferring Church-Priviledges as Abraham was and so their Children must needs be holy for Baptism But this is a very unlawful consequence seeing Abraham never did nor ever can confer that Holiness upon so much as one of his Offspring which shall entitle them to Baptism because every particular Person 's Repentance and Faith is required as the true Antecedents to Baptism as is granted by the Church of England in her Catechism But how well she keeps to her Doctrine therein admits of consideration Upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. you teach that Infants are holy by separation to God and his Service But Sir can you tell us what Service of God Infants are fit for If other Men may judg as well as you then as they are not able to serve God in spiritual things so God requires it not of them whilst Infants But so strangely are you transported here that you tell us from Mr. Cotton That Sin it self is sanctified to Believers This is another Strain of new Doctrine and will it not follow from your Doctrine that Sin hath the Name of Father Son and holy Spirit upon it Let Mr. Cotton look to it You must have a care how you take up such Notions You will by no means admit the Holiness here mentioned to be meant of a Matrimonial or Legitimate Holiness And yet I pray what Sanctification of the Unbeliever can that be but Matrimonial so as the believing Husband and the unbelieving Wife might cohabit together as Husband and Wife without Sin The Childrens Holiness is derived from this Sanctification of the Unbeliever as the Word else being rightly referred does shew it doth This Holiness therefore in true Construction of the place is most fitly interpreted as Erasmus doth expound it of Legitimacy and so did the eminent Man Augustine of Hippo long before Erasmus take the sence for he tells us whatsoever that Holiness is it is certain it is not of Power to make Christians or remit Sins 5. The Figures which you give us out of the Old Testament are Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Exod. 16. 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. 2. and 26. 19. and 28. 9. All which do shew That God was the Lord that Israel should know that he is the Lord that he is a holy God and that they should be a holy People But what is all this to your purpose God spake not these things to Infants he tells us so himself Deut. 11. 2. And know you this day for I speak not with your Children which have not known and which have not seen the Chastisement of the Lord your God his Greatness his mighty Hand and stretch'd out Arm c. ver 7. but your Eyes have seen c. Therefore ye shall keep all the Commandments c. Sure you have not proved your Argument by any thing you have yet brought for that purpose For By all that you have said it appears not that some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Nor are you able to name so much as one such Infant now in being and consequently you can with no shew of Reason baptise them I consider again Who must do this previous Work to Infant-Baptism Must the same Minister do both And what Order have you to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost upon Infants twice once before you sprinkle them and then again when you sprinkle them There is one thing remarkable from your self and others in these later times who espouse this Controversy You all seem to be convinced that none are to be baptised but Disciples according to Matth. 28. 19. and indeed the Text is so very clear to that purpose that it cannot be
Example of Christ who when little Children were brought to him for Prayer did not refuse but perform it and wills that little Children be brought to him and accordingly we do dedicate our Children to him from the Womb according to our Capacity 2. Little Children are also by this means i. e. of their Parents Conversion under the Blessing of an early Education in the Christian Religion by which means through God's Blessing I have known some who were not sprinkled in Infancy attain to more true Knowledg of Christianity and Experience of the Work of Grace so far as Man may judg at 7 or 8 years of Age than multitudes of those who were sprinkled in their Infancy have attained at the Age of 70 or 80 years 3. Our gracious God by Jesus Christ hath left us an open Declaration that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants in which Declaration he has not excepted so much as one of them This is more than Circumcision and more clear than any thing before declared concerning Infants tho there was evidence of God's Love to them before From all which you may see that God hath left us in the room of Circumcision a far more excellent Testimony of his saving pleasure concerning Infants than that was or any legal Rite whatsoever As for Mr. Baxter's Argument which you borrow 't is answered in what is said to your Questions Howbeit I have more particularly Answered it in my Examination of no less than five hundred Queries gathered by one of his Admirers out of his voluminous Works all which have been redargued by a proportionable number of Anti-Queries in which all his Devices for Poedorantism is in some measure discovered to be but the cunning craftiness of human subtilty or a copious Brain Of whose Books on this Subject and Dr. Hammonds also take thus the Judgment of a Learned Doctor of the Church of England now living I have seen what my learned and worthy Friend Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in defence of Infant Baptism and must confess I do not a little wonder that Men of so great Parts should say so much to so little purpose for I have not yet seen any thing like an Argument for it Dr. Barlows Letter to Mr. Tombs Thus much in Answer to your Questions See more in the last Part. One thing I take special notice of in your Discourse of Infants You tie up the Salvation of all Infants that shall be saved to their having Faith some way yea you say else they must all perish p. 90. And you allow Faith to no more Infants than are elected in your seme of Election The rest of Infants even of believing Parents are reprobate and damned for all the Noise which ye make of their Covenant-Interest Church-Membership Holiness c. Miserable Infants If there be none to plead your cause better than Mr. Firmin has done it 's uncertain whether so much as one of you shall be saved out of a thousand And whilst his Book may cause many weak Readers to think that Circumcision did and that Infant-Baptism doth great things toward their Saltion it 's evident he can believe no such thing himself For if they be elect saved they shall be tho they be not baptised And for those Infants which are reprobated damned they must be tho they be baptised He is so far from making Baptism of Infants to be of that Concernment which you may imagine from some Passages in him that he plainly tells you p. 20. That he does not think that a sound Believer dying without Baptism shall be damned And then how an innocent Infant dying without Baptism should be damned is not easy to be imagined But by his favour if such a Believer had opportunity to be baptised and neglected his Baptism he will hardly pass for a sound Believer in the Day of Judgment because in this thing he believed not his Lord who told him Thus it becomes us to fulfil all Righteousness Mat. 3. 15. Deut. 1. 33. Act. 3. 22 23. And I must in Faithfulness tell Mr. Firmin that such a sound Believer I take him to be for after all the Improvement which he tells us he has made of his Fathers Covenant which would make a well Man sick even to see what pittiful work he makes with it pag. 68 69 70 71. for after all his shifting from Post to Pillar he only gets Stomach to reject the Counsel of God against himself being not baptised with the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins as some of the Learned have done before him Luk. 7. 30. And seeing it is the known Practice of Infant-sprinklers to sprinkle them when they are fast asleep and it is odds but Mr. Firmin was asleep when he was sprinkled and crossed and therein these wonderful things done which he talks of without Scripture or Reason to warrant his Conceits I desire to know of him what Ground any Man hath his Parents or himself to baptise any Person when they are asleep This is no idle Enquiry but calls for the Consideration of all serious Christians In these and the following Pages you will find this to be Mr. Firmin's sense That the Covenant as it concerns Infants hath two Parts the inward and the outward That some Infants have the outward Part who are not concern'd in the inward Part and that the first sort of Infants cannot fall but the rest may and shall fall because they have not seminal Faith and Regeneration but only reputative Faith. And yet sure this was not the Infants Fault for it could not chuse of what Seed it should be produced And what the Seminal Faith is I suppose Mr. Firmin may know as much as those Infants do whom he supposes to have it Dr. Hammond was a great Man for Infant-sprinkling yet he rejects this Fable of Mr. Firmin's For he tells us he must confess that Faith is so necessarily founded in Understanding that he which hath not Vnderstanding cannot have Faith. And Dr. Taylor confesses whether Infants have Faith is a Question to be disputed by those who care not how much they affirm and how little thâ—y prove This damning all Inâ—â—â—â—â— which have not Faith I take to be a very damnable Doctrine because it represents God to be so cruel as to make millions 〈◊〉 Infants on purpose to send them to Hell who could by no means help 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 want of Faith. What Man would kill his new-born Child because it does not call him Father as soon as it is born And shall mortal Man be more just than God shall Man be more righteous than his Maker I am ashamed of the Doctrine of our Presbyterians and Independents which as I am informed teach that Infants are yelling in Hell yea that Infants of a Span long are yelling in Hell. I am also ashamed of Mr. Firmin's Conceit pag. 90. where from Dr. Ames he would have us believe that an Infant is as capable of a passive Reception of
Innocent was ejected with the Guilty For this is God's Order It is he only that sinneth whom he will blot out of the Book of Life Exod. 32. 32 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in setling the Covenant of his Grace nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham Gen. 12. was exclusive of any Infant in the World as to the Grace or Mercy of eternal Life no more than the Establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel in a far more excellent way for distinguishing the precious from the vile is in any wise no not in the least iota exclusive of any dying Infant of ill Men but contrary-wise the Right of Infants without excepting any of them is asserted by Christ in this last and most ample Edition of the Covenant of Grace Nor can any Man shew either by Scripture or Reason that God will shut out all the dying Infants of wicked Men from Life and Salvation by Christ no nor so much as any one of them For we are sure that the Judgment of God is according to Truth that the Judg of all the Earth will do Right That the condemned shall all be judged according to the Deeds done in the Body But as for poor Infants what Evil have they done Demonstration 2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind because it was made with Adam without the least Intimation of the Exclusion of any part of his Posterity as they proceed from him to the End of the World. Neither has God himself explained the Covenant of Grace to be exclusive of any but for the Cause of their own Iniquity And this was evident first in the case of Cain who not being faithful in his Offering was not accepted yet God was pleased to tell him how he might be accepted Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted It should seem God never rejected Cain till now neither did he now delight to reject him but graciously expostulates with Cain to convince him of his Evil and assures him of Acceptance if he did well If then Cain had an Interest in the Grace of God who can we suppose to be shut out of it Or how should Infants be cast out of his Favour till they with Cain shut themselves out of it Evident it is that the Covenant of Grace extended to those Rebels in the old World because we read that the Long-suffering of God waited in the Days of Noah upon them and he gave them time of Repentance and sent a Preacher of Righteousness even the Righteousness of Faith among them Heb. 11. 7. 2 Pet. 2. 5. therefore it is said Christ went by his Spirit and preached to them 1 Pet. 3. though none of them believed his Word Now such Acts on God's part are great Evidences of his Graciousness towards Men and shews that he remembers his Covenant made in Christ for them even for them that rebel against him and so perish And then how should we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants who never rebelled against him Demonstration 3. The Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. was never repealed by God. For if it be there is now no Covenant at all Nor can it be repealed to one Man but it must be repealed to all Men. 'T is true Men may forfeit the Mercy of God held forth in that Covenant but the Covenant cannot be repealed for then there can be no certainty of Mercy for Sinners Christ our Lord may as soon be made null as this Covenant For what if some do apostatize shall this make the Grace of God without effect God forbid When we continually see the Covenant of God's Grace displayed making Overtures of Kindness to Sinners by beseeching them to be reconciled to God 2 Cor. 5. What shall we say Has the chief of Sinners this Benefit by the Covenant of Grace And shall poor innocent Babes have no Benefit by it Is he not worse than the chief of Sinners that is thus exposed to Damnation Sure there are better things with God for poor Babes and chiefly in this he has not given Parents power to make void the Covenant of his Grace with respect to their Infants For he hath said the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father The Soul that sinneth it shall die Demonstration 4. No Infant did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam therefore no Infant was ever cast out of it Although it is most true that Original Sin is come upon Infants and Death by Sin Yet this is as true That Original Sin was not committed against the Covenant of Grace And therefore Infants are not guilty of any Sin committed against the Covenant of Grace and consequently are not deprived of the Benefit of it Otherwise if the Sin of subsequent Parents should make void the Grace of the second Covenant as the Sin of Adam made his Posterity guilty of the Breach of the first Covenant we may then cry out who then can be saved But therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Testament for the Redemption of the Transgressions which were under the first Testament Wherefore seeing Infants stand acquitted from the Trespasses committed by Adam against the first Testament or Covenant and having not sinned against the Grace of the second Testament they cannot come in the Condemnation of Hellish Torments The Church of Rome who make Baptism as necessary for Infants as any Body does yet they have so much Kindness as to condemn Infants only to a State of Loss but not of Torment Whilst those of Calvin's Spirit do send them by their Doctrine to yell among the damned in Hell-fire Sure this is no part of the Gospel I will not call it so Yet I will say those that reject that great Salvation held forth in the Gospel are justly condemned but this is not the case of Infants Demonstration 5. That all dying Infants are Members of that vast Body of which Christ is the Saviour finally and so of his Church considered as universal is evident because they are in a visible State of Salvation And I think no Man will deny the Catholick Church to contain the whole Number of the saved I have nothing more to do but to prove all Infants in a visible State of Salvation which shall be done more particularly by answering such Objections as I have met with more especially from Mr. Barret Objection I. I gave you thanks for some things before granted concerning Insants and I here promise more Thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants Answ When I speak of the Right which Infants have to Life by Christ I intend it only of that Right derived to them by the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. wherein they are equally concerned and so have the same or equal Right And I hope you cannot charge them with forfeiting the Grace of that Covenant and then they cannot
is not unjust for God to take Infants out of the World at any time yet his Justice in destroying them in the old World and Sodom lay not against the Infants as I proved in the precedent Answer But in Justice he punished those wicked Parents in putting a Period to their Posterity And did not God in the Days of Noah destroy the Beasts and Fowls of Heaven yet who so weak to think that he was offended with them Was the Lord angry with the Beasts of the Field God was just in taking away David's Child 2 Sam. 12. 14. yet who so rash to say that God did this in Justice against the Child much less that the Child was damned or that God was angry with the Child David was far from such an Opinion for tho that Child was conceived and born in Sin as much as any yet David nothing feared the Damnation of the Child but rather shews his Confidence of its Salvation when he said I shall go to it For had it gone to Hell Torments he would not have comforted himself with Thoughts of going to it Object V. We do not say that Infants do perish purely for anothers Sin but for their own contracted Answ I cannot see any Agreement with God's Justice in this Objection nor Truth in it self I can hear Men talk big Words against Infants as if they were very great Sinners yet I never saw any Proof that any Infant had any Sin of its own for which you would here make them perish The Scripture saith Sin is the Transgression of a Law and tells us also where no Law is there is no Transgression You must therefore either shew some Law to be given to Infants or else you cannot make them guilty of any Sin of their own And seeing you have granted that none shall perish purely for anothers Sin it remains for you or some body else to shew what Sin has been committed by them or any of them for which they incur the Damnation of Hell. You may talk of Infants contracting Sin of their own but I am to learn how this can be said of those who neither act nor consent to Sin at all Such Scriptureless Notions are fitter to be exploded than embraced And though you seem to have some Charity for those and their Seed who only come up to the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah though they never heard the Gospel whilst you say you do not rank them with Imsdels yet this is but a slender Kindness you do not say they shall be saved and you are positive in this that Infants are not saved by the Covenant of Grace if they be neither Believers nor the Seed of such How this Doctrine will stand with the Justice of a gracious God I cannot conceive when I consider that God hath not given to Infants either Capacity to believe or Liberty to choose whether they will be the Seed of Believers or Unbelievers Will you yet say a gracious God will be more harsh in Acts of Justice than the Rules will bear which he hath given to Men Deut. 22. 25 26. Here he will not have a Damsel punished though her Body be defiled because she could not help it And yet you would have him send Infants to Hell for that which they cannot help It is not the part of a wise Legislator saith one to recede from his own Laws much less to destroy them by acting contrary to them It must be a fault then in you thus unjustly to represent the God of Justice Is the Covenant of Grace set upon such a little Point as that the greatest Part of Infants cannot possibly have any Benefit by it So you teach who affirm Infants cannot be saved unless they be Believers or the Seed of Believers Why call you a Covenant made with Infants on such Terms a Covenant of Grace sure such absolutely impossible Terms in any Covenant are not very gracious when the Non-observation of them is Damnation without remedy and that of the Innocent too You would condemn this in Men you would abhor to hear or receive such Terms of Man yet thus you make many believe that God deals with the greatest part of poor Infants Object VI. According to your Doctrine the taking away the Infants of the old World and of Sodom was a great Mercy because had they lived to Age many of them might have been damned for Wickedness Answ The taking away by Death of the Infants of the old World and Sodom is neither an Instance of Justice nor Mercy to Infants in the main any more than the taking away thousands of Infants daily by Death throughout the World For whenever they die they are taken away from ALL EVIL TO COME and so it is always a Mercy ' and such was the Mercy of God to Infants in the Old World and in Sodom But whenever they are taken away we know it is for Sin even that of Adam And sometimes their Death is hastened for the Sin of their Parents as in the case of David's Child and the Old World and Sodom and thus their being taken away is always a Judgment And the Judgment lieth much in this that Mens Posterity is either quite cut off or much weakened thus was the Old World and Sodom punished their Succession was cut off And though it is true if those Infants in the Old World and Sodom had lived to Age many of them might have been damned for Wickedness yet not to insist upon the Prescience of Almighty God to ballance that it is as true that a far greater Multitude in few Generations both of Infants and others which might have proceeded from them might have been saved So that though we have no ground to doubt of the Salvation of these dying Infants in the Old World and in Sodom yet we may see a just Judgment executed in both Object VII Should the French King destroy all the Infants of the Pagans would not this be a Judgment Sure had the World your Light and Knowledg they ought not to be sorry for the spoiling of their Cities and depopulating their Countries Answ What if the French King should do thus it follows not that here is not a Judgment in all this neither yet that God hath no Mercy for those murthered Infants But pray consider whilst we all condemn such Cruelty in Tyrants we must by no means think or say that our gracious God when the Tyrant has murthered them will take these Infants and cast them into Hellish Torments Were not this to represent Almighty God to be the worst of Tyrants And let no Man murmur against God for saving such Infants or all Infants who when Men have done their worst he will prevent that which would be far worse to poor Infants than the worst that Man can do And though I may be satisfied that my Child or Friend is gone to Heaven yet I may lawfully be sorry for both so that I sorrow not as one without
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