Christ and Grace as a Man. Now if this be true that Men are no more capable to suffer the Grace of God to act upon their Souls than Infants I am persuaded they would fare better than they are like to do For it is certain if Infants receive any thing of Christ or Grace it is meerly by Miracle as in the case of John the Baptist when he was in the Womb and hence it must needs follow that unless God will work a Miracle upon every one at the Beginning of his Conversion he is excusable according to this Fancy of Dr. Ames and Mr. Firmin Is not this an Adulterous Generation who without a Miracle will not admit that any Man can receive Christ more than an Infant who it's certain cannot receive him without a Miracle But let such vain Disputers know that the Record which God hath given of his Son concerning his Death and Resurrection will be sufficient to leave them without excuse if they believe it not and that it is their Duty not the Duty of Infants to receive Christ as made known to them in his Doctrine which if they believe not it shall judg them not Infants in the last Day Some indeed do abuse Ephes 1. 19 20. to uphold this false Opinion that none can believe without such a Power as by which Christ was raised from the dead Whereas it is evident the Apostle only shews that the Faith of Christians agrees with or is according to the Power of God which he wrought in Christ when he raised him up from the dead i. e. they doubt not at all but that the same God which had Power to raise up Christ from the dead has Power to do whatsoever he pleases and so to raise us up also by his Power 1 Cor. 6. 14. 2 Cor. 4. 14. For the Power by which Christ was raised from the dead being irresistable all the Power of Men and Devils cannot resist it All that have true Faith do believe that no Power shall be able to withstand God in the Resurrection but that his People shall be raised from Death to Life and set with Christ in Glory maugre the Devil and all his Power But the Power of God's Grace by which God works in Men in an ordinary way is not irresistable Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost Act. 7. 51. and 13. 46. Christ marvelled at the Unbelief of the Jews Mar. 6. 6. because they had a sufficiency of means by which to believe otherwise he could not have marvelled at their Unbelief But what needs many words Unbelief shall be the condemning Sin John 3. 18 19. Mark 16. 16. It follows therefore against all Contradiction that Men perish not for want of an Object of Faith but because they reject that Object and neglect that great Salvation which God offers them Heb. 2. 1 2 3. otherwise it will follow that all which shall be damned were created to be damned without any Remedy And how unlike this is to that God whose tender Mercies are over all his Works and to that Christ who wept for the Destruction of his Enemies Luk. 19. 41 42. let all Men of Reason judg as they would judg in any case where Justice and Mercy must both stand inviolate This strange Doctrine of damning the greatest Part of the World and that before the World was is so pernicious that it makes God Author of all Sin for which Damnation is due For if he have destin'd the greatest Part of the World Infants and grown Persons to a damned State without any Intention of their Salvation or means to prevent their Destruction because it was his Pleasure to damn them He that was thus Author of their End must also be Author of that which conduces to the end but far be this from God. And let it be far from us to think thus hardly of God that he should be so unmerciful as to send poor Infants to Hell-torments who only had time in this World to cry and die and sometimes too to die before they could cry Presumption no Proof OR Mr. Petto 's Arguments for Infant-Discipleship and Baptism Considered and Answered PART 1. MR. Petto entitles his Book infant-Infant-Baptism of Christ's Appointment and lays down this Position That it is the Will of Christ that some Infants should be baptised But why some and not some Are Infants so diversified in the Will of Christ as that he has excepted some of them It had been fit that the Scripture which excludes some Infants from Baptism and admits othersome had been produced But alas this is only Man's Invention and none of Christ's Distinction they are equally precious in his Sight yet he requires none of them to be baptised Two things you premise before you set down your Arguments 1. You complain that some call for plain Scripture for infant-Infant-baptism and speak slightly of Scripture Consequences But this is your Mistake if they be Scripture Consequences rightly deduced as you seem to allow they must be such then you have no Adversary But perhaps you are displeased that your Consequences are not taken for such as our Saviour's was for you quote Mat. 22. 31 32. but his Deductions are unquestionable yours are not and why may not our Consequences be equally valuable with yours 2. You are pleased to tell us There is no express Scripture against infant-Infant-baptism therefore Infants may be baptised And this Argument is sufficiently answered by saying There is no express Scripture for infant-Infant-baptism therefore Infant-baptism may be omitted If you fly to Consequences for it 't is odds but we shall find as good Consequences against it But I will deny the Consequence of your Argument and answer it by an Author of your own who writes thus All things in God's Worship must have a Warrant out of God's Word must be commanded It 's not â—â—â—…ugh that it 's not forbidden or what hurt is there in it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded When any Creature is raised in a religious way abov◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it hath by Nature if I have not Scripture to warrant me I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supâ—â—stitious We must be willing Worshippers we must not be will-Worshippers You see how severe God was to Nadab and Abihu but for taking other Fire than that which God appointed tho there was no direct Command against it In matters of Worship God stands upon little things For there is nothing wherein the Prerogative of God does more appear than in Worship Thus he To which we add Tertullian's Rule If it be said it is lawful because the Scripture doth not forbid it it may equally be retorted it is therefore not lawful because the Scripture doth not command it And truly by your Argument as of all that 's brought it is the best you will never be able to withstand any Innovation which is not expresly forbidden in Scripture And then why do you disgust the Common-Prayer with the Rites and Ceremonies there required which are not expresly forbidden more than your
denied But when I behold the miserable Shifts you are put to to prove Infants Disciples according to Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19. I do with the greatest Admiration bewail your Unhappiness and cannot tell how to imagine that any wise Men among you does really believe your selves in what you say on that account And sure I am the Papists have as strong a pretence from Hoc est Corpus meum for their Transubstantiation as you have from Matheteusaté for Infant-Discipleship And to speak freely they are both incredible things all Sense and Experience militates equally against both Opinions If they be Truths it must be because they are both Miracles but then they want the Character of true Miracles for they are no ways demonstrable that there is any Miracle at all in either of them we are only told that they are so i. e. that the Bread in the Eucharist is Real Flesh That the Child in your Rantism is born again of Water and Spirit made a Disciple of Christ c. but no mortal Man knows any of these things to be true And what is it that we may not believe if we must believe such things as these Prayer for the Dead Purgatory fire c. will come upon us armed with our own Arguments if we admit the former And to conclude as to your first Argument Give me leave to say if your Hearers can receive your Dictates and ill-prov'd Affirmations I know not but they may believe you in whatsoever you will be pleased to tell them What you say of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism I shall here consider in few words for since you insist only upon Cyprian's Testimony whose Grounds for Infant-Baptism you confess to be unsound I need say little here that which was built upon bad Principles then by him and stands upon as unsound ones now by you does gain nothing by either of you But will you know that it is plainly granted by some of the most Learned of your way That there is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for infant-Infant-Baptism Here it wants the best Antiquity nor any just Evidence for it for about two hundred Years after Christ. Yet it came in upon a gross Mistake of the Scripture that in what Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond has said for it there is nothing that looks like an Argument Dr. Barlow This is enough at present PART II. Wherein is considered Mr. Petto's second Argument which he delivers in these Words If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham then by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized BEfore I answer this Argument I shall consider a few things And 1. That as Mr. Petto grants God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham twenty four years before he gave him the Covenant of Circumcision see Gen. 12. 1 2 3 4. with 17. 24. so that the Covenant of Grace had no external Sign as it was made with Abraham Gen. 12. But when God was pleased to add to this Covenant the Promise of the Land of Canaan c. then it was that he gave him the Law of Circumcision and these additional Parts I take to be most properly if not only that which is the Covenant of Circumcision 2. It is to be understood that Abraham was not the only Person in the World which was under the Covenant of Grace at this time when God made Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 'T is observed by some that Salah lived after the Covenant of Circumcision was made about 50 years Arphaxad lived thirteen years after and that Heber lived till Jacob was about twenty years old which was long after Abraham died Now these with Melchisedeck if he were not one of these with many others amongst whom was just Lot were not only true Worshippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace but some of them superiour to Abraham himself for Melchisedeck blessed Abraham being the King of Salem and Priest of the most high God. 3. And as neither these nor their Posterity were liable to any loss of the Covenant of Grace by their not being circumcised after the manner of Abraham so neither Job nor other worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh had any obligation to Circumcision from whence it must needs follow that God intended not the sign of Circumcision to belong to Persons as they were in the Covenant of Grace but that it was appropriate for some great Ends respecting a special preservation to the Family of Abraham as of the Kindred from whom Christ should proceed and with whom he would presence himself in a Land of Promise by a distinct way of Worship from all Nations who at that time were falling very fast into Idolatry 4. And besides this it is certain that this Sign of Circumcision was by God's Appointment to be affixed to some to whom the Covenant of Grace might seem to have the least extent or at least they did forfeit all Interest in it this was the case of Ishmael and Esau who proved very wicked and it is to be questioned whether the Bondmen or Slaves in Israel had that Ceremony as a Badge of the Covenant of Grace Men may talk high of these things and prove little or whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any Person in the World save to Abraham And in what sence it was so to him who had so many things peculiar to him is not easy to be demonstrated 5. Our Practice in Religious Institutes is not to be gathered from such uncertain Conjectures but to stand upon the clear Direction of the Instituter or the Practice of such as God hath thought fit to make Precedents to us and it is certain we are not at all concerned in the Law of Circumcision and for us to take our Rules thence for the Subjects of Baptism is very childish and reflects Dishonour upon Christ and his Apostles who never sent us to learn Infant-Baptism from Infant-Circumcision nor indeed have they taught it at all These things premised I answer to the Argument by these ensuing Distinctions 1. If by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumcision as he does for he quotes Gen. 7. 9 10 11. to prove his Assumption and by some Infants he means the Infants of Christians as such as that is his meaning then I deny his Minor. 2. Or if by Covenant he mean that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. distinct from the Covenant of Circumcision and by some Infants being in this Covenant externally he means Infants are concerned in the outward Profession or Practice of Worship still I deny the Minor for God by that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. never required the Performance of such Duties of Infants 3. If by Covenant he mean the gracious Pardon of
sprinkling Infants Nay the Church of Rome will by this Argument stand on equal Terms with you for many of her Ceremonies which you disallow For admit one Error and a thousand will follow Thus by your Argument Men may run they know not whither and return they know not when I now come to your two main Arguments for this you seem not much to rest upon but you use it ad hominem Mr. Petto's first Argument for Infant-Discipleship Some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit upon them Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptised Answer This Argument supposes that some Infants have the Name of Father Son and Spirit upon them before they be baptised This I take to be the newest Piece of Doctrine in the World and therefore must needs enquire what Infants these are How Mr. Petto knows them from others And at what time before their Baptism and also by whom this Name is put upon them and in what manner it is done For all these things he ought to know before according to his own Logick he may baptise them Till he do this and he must do it well too I deny his Antecedent Saying also that no Infants are discipled at all much less so as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them My Reasons are such as these 1. God hath not made this distinction in Gospel-times between some Infants and other some so as to disciple some of them by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them He has taken down the Wall of distinction between Jew and Gentile accounting the one as clean as the other Act. 10. 28. And has given the same Order for discipling to all Nations Matth. 28. 19. but not a word in that Order to put his Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any Person before they be baptised 2. No Man has Authority by the Word of God to make Infants Disciples at all much less by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them before Baptism But the only Way assign'd by God to make Disciples is first by preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every Creature which shews the true Intent of our Saviour in the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which you refer us And our Criticks do allow that it signifies an actual teaching both in the Hebrew and Greek But the best Interpreter of that Verb is the Practice of our Saviour and his Apostles who made Disciples by actual teaching John 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly evincing the Truth of this 3. If it could be proved that the Name of the Trinity were upon the Infants of Christians yet this would not bear your Conclusion that they must be baptised any more than it will bear Augustin's Conclusion that they ought to partake of the Lord's Table Dr. Jer. Taylor and Dr. Barlow confess you may do both as well as either and that the Wit of Man cannot shew a difference in the Sanctions And indeed all your Arguments for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism if they were good might be improved against you concerning the other Ordinance for admit one Error and another will follow But let us examine your Scriptures by which you would prove your Antecedent 1. You bring Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple ye all Nations Now if these Words did oblige the Apostles to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all Persons or Nations before Baptism it quite spoils your Argument which would restrain it to some Infants only Why do you thus abuse the Word Did the Apostles put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any one Infant Is not the Scripture silent as to this Or did they put the Name c. upon any to whom they preached till they received their Doctrine Or did they do this before they baptised them In that solemn Institution they did put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all such as gladly received the Word Act. 2. 40. Act. 10. ult And for this they had full Authority Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. even to preach to and so to disciple all Nations baptising them viz. Mathet as subintelligitur in verbum Mathetusate as the Practice of Christ had directed them John 4. 1. Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John. And Junius and Tremelius adds the Particle Et Ite ergo docete omnes populos baptisate eos c. 2. You tell us they are Disciples not only who actually learn but who are in the School of Christ his Church in order to their future Learning This is not true 1. Infants are not in the School or Church of Christ as it is a School to learn any thing whilst they are Infants God has neither bound his Ministers to teach them whilst such nor enabled them to learn as such If you say this future teaching respects not the time of their Infancy then were you very fallacious in your Argument for this will prove all the Infants in the World to be Disciples as well as any of them seeing Christ's Church is the Light of the World and all that come to Years of Discretion having opportunity are bound to learn of her 2. But yet it does not follow that all who are under present means of Instruction are therefore to be accounted Disciples For you know many heard Christ preach who yet were none of his Disciples but his Persecutors many heard his Apostles teach who yet were not their Disciples for they put the Word of God from them and judged themselves unworthy of eternal Life I suppose also that all that hear Mr. Petto are not his Disciples how much less poor Infants that never heard him at all And here I require Mr. P. to name one Infant that he ever made a Disciple according to Matth. 28. and that will do more a great deal than his empty Dictates 3. You bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. which shews how Saul made havock of the Churches entring into every House haling Men and Women to Prison and that he breathed out Slaughter against the Disciples Sure you may blush to bring such Texts to prove Infants Disciples nor will Act. 15. 10. bear your Inference The false Apostles would indeed have had the Disciples among the Gentiles to have been circumcis'd but it does not follow at all that every one were Disciples whom they would have circumcised This is just such a Consequence as this You would have Infants to be sprinkled Ergo all are Infants whom ye would have sprinkled This Consequence you will deny because you would have others also sprinkled who are no Infants And for the same reason I deny your Consequence for the false Apostles would have circumcis'd some who were no Disciples to wit Infants You bring here Gen. 17. but this we will consider
are Abraham 's Seed and hence he would infer their Baptism He has many Words and very often repeated the substance of all has I think already been answered however seeing he talks here of a threefold Seed of Abraham under the Titles of Natural Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Seed I will seriously consider the Scriptures which he brings to prove Infants to be the Ecclesiastical Seed of Abraham For the Scriptures which he brings to describe the Spiritual Seed of Abraham speaks not one word of Infants Gal. 3. 8 9. shews that God would justify the Heathen through Faith and concludes thus So then they which be of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham This is not spoken of Infants yet they shall be blessed The Texts he brings to prove Infants to be the Ecclesiastical Seed of Abraham are many first Matth. 25. 1 2. where the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to wise and foolish Virgins but I suppose no wise Man takes Infants to be of either sort for they are neither wise nor foolish but they are innocent Two Texts more we have Rom. 11. 20. John 15. 6. where we learn that the Jews were broken off for Vnbelief and the Gentiles stood by Faith that some Branches in Christ not bearing Fruit are taken away and those which bear Fruit are purged to bring forth more Fruit But what all this is to Infants no Man can tell He quotes these over again and with them Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10. 13 14. Luke 18. 15. Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Rev. 1. 12 13 20. Now he that from these Texts would prove Infants to be Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed must prove that in the three first Texts the Word Kingdom must needs signify the Church-militant and that Christ admitted these Infants into the Church by Baptism or else that they have Authority to do more than Christ himself did For if these very Infants were not baptised they must have very great Confidence that can pretend from hence to find ground to baptise others The next Christ tells Peter that he would build his Church upon a Rock But must all that are saved be Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed Sure some Infants may be saved who were never baptised for all this Rom. 16. 16. bids Christians salute one another with an holy Kiss and tells them also that the Church of Christ salutes them I see nothing from hence to prove Infants visibly Christ's so as to be Abraham 's Seed sure his Proposition will fail of Proof The Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 27. tells the Corinthians that they were the Body of Christ and Members in particular But not one word to prove that there was one Infant of this Communion Yet all Members of that one Body were partakers of that one Bread in which their Unity was demonstrated Rev. 1. 12 13 14. only describes the Vision that John saw of the Son of God and the seven Golden Candlesticks But no Man can yet find in any of these Candlesticks so much as one Infant concern'd bearing up the light of Truth in the profession of the Gospel Now for his Argument I would know the meaning of this Speech Some Infants are visibly Christ's If he means some Infants only are Christ's by Redemption how can he possibly know the Redeemed from the Damned for so they are supposed to be in this Mans destiny The work of Redemption is visible because God's Word tells us who Christ died for and that is for every Man Heb. 2. 9. and here Infants are equally Christ's visibly But so long as Mr. Petto thinks that Christ died but for some Infants only and those very few in comparison of the whole he cannot name one for whom Christ died it being impossible for them to give any Demonstration by which he may know such a thing and therefore he can have but small comfort in baptizing any of them if indeed it were lawful to baptize some Infants as he supposes Nay were he as sure that Christ died for some particular Infants as I am that he died for them all yet would it not follow that they are Abraham's Ecclesiastical Seed so as to be baptized for Christ knew that the Infants whom he took in his Arms were his and yet he did no such thing to them and I shall never think Mr. P. wiser than our Saviour nor so kind to poor Infants as he was Mr. Petto argues thus Some Infants are visibly of the Faith and so are Abraham's Seed Here I deny the Antecedent I say no Infants are visibly of the Faith. And Mr. P. tells me in this very place That he does not say that Faith semenal and habitual or actual is in all Infants baptized for then saith he all of them must be saved which they are not or else they might lose that special Faith But they are invisibly invested in the Covenant or Promise which is the Word of Faith and may bear that Name c. I answer Here are two kinds of Faith which the Scripture knows nothing of i. e. seminal and habitual However I perceive he knows not one Infant that has any of these kinds of Faith he therefore has found out a fourth and that is a reputative Faith or a thing which he says may bear that name Sure these are meer Dreams and Fancies and so let them go Actual Faith Infants have none and this is all the Faith that Man can make Judgment of by God's Word He does indeed grant all Infants which are baptized have not this Faith and if he dare affirm it â—f any of them all the Experience of the World will confute him and so he has lost his Argument as a meer Story without Truth and against all Experience For seeing Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God he cannot without a Miracle shew any Infant to be visibly in the Faith for the poor Babe knows not its right hand from its left He might as well say some Infants are visibly in Repentance and I marvel why the Poedobaptists do not insist upon that as well as Faith to entitle their Children to Baptism Mr. Petto tells us If Infants have not Faith for the present yet visibly they are under a Promise of it which Promise Baptism may be a Sign and Seal of it may seal a Doctrine of Faith even where a Principle of it is yet wanting These and what follows are meer Dictates and Presumptions without Proof Yet he brings Deut. 30. 6. where God promises to circumcise the hearts of the Israelites and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord with all the heart and with all the soul But God spake not this to Infants nor as a thing to be done to them in their Infancy for when they should thus be circumcis'd they should be able to know the Lord very well for they should love him then with all the Heart and Soul. Now this Promise is made to all Men upon future Contingencies for God commandeth all
Presumption no Proof OR Mr. PETTO's ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM Considered and Answered AND Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace without Baptism asserted and maintained Whereunto is prefixed An ANSWER to two QUESTIONS propounded by Mr. Firmin about Infants Church-membership and Baptism By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Earth also is defiled under the Inhabitants thereof because they have transgressed the Laws changed the Ordinance broken the everlasting Covenant Isa 24. 5. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you 1 Cor. 11. 2. London Printed in the Year 1687. To the READER IT appears by Mr. Pett's Epistle to the Reader that he took hold of a very slight occasion to write against the Baptized Believers it was because one without acquainting him with it came over to their Communion I could wish he had been more patient under so small a trial and thereby saved me this labour which whether it will end here I know not that may be as he pleases I hold it no convenient time for Dissenters to write one against another Friendly Conferences might do much better But I have found Men of Mr. Pett's Principles very averse to that when it has been offered I have not answered each particular Page in Mr. Pett's Book for that one and the same thing is very often repeated I have chiefly dealt with his two main Arguments on which his whole Discourse depends What he says about the mode of Sprinkling I have not meddled with nor is it needful For we see that generally such as are seriously convinced of their Duty in the case of Baptism will not if they might receive it but in the way of Immersion They are presently apprehensive that no way can be so safe for them as to follow Christ himself who it's certain was baptised so For it is granted by the Learned that Mark 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be truly read And was dipped of John into Jordan This account of our Saviour's Baptism is sufficient to decide this Controversy about the manner of Baptism if the highest and most perfect Example that ever was be of any force at all What I have offered on behalf of Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace may perhaps seem too full of Charity in the Judgment of Mr. Petto and some others But if that offend thee do but consider from whom this Doctrine of Infants Damnation has proceeded it 's either of God or Man. I have searched the Scriptures but could never find his Word that is Truth it self declare such a dreadful Sentence against any one Infant much less that the greatest part of dying Infants are damn'd Could Men be satisfied of the certainty of the Salvation of their dying Infants the Controversy about baptising them would come to an End for as far as I could ever learn it came into the World upon this Mistake that they could not be sav'd without it And tho Mr. Petto seems to dislike Cyprian's Judgment herein yet what does he say less himself in p. 1. where he insinuates that those who deny the Baptism of Infants exclude millions out of the great Charter of Heaven But this may perhaps be found their Fault who exclude all but the Infants of such as they count Believers when the reckoning comes to be truly stated I never saw Mr. Firmin 's Book till I had answered Mr. Petto And at the request of some as also for that his Questions may seem to be serious and considerable I thought it needful to give a serious and Christian Answer to them which I hope I have done And as I must commend Christians in their Enquiry what Evidence of God's Love we have concerning Infants and therein be an Enquirer as much as any having Children of my own so I think it needful to caution my self and others that we set not up our own Devices for such Evidences lest our Hope be thereby lessened seeing our imposing that upon Infants which God has not required at our hands is no sign of his Love to them at all Tho. Grantham The PREFACE Containing Brief Answers to two Questions propounded by Mr. Giles Firmin in his Book called The Plea of the Children of believing Parents BEcause Mr. Firmin's Questions bear date four years before Mr. Petto's Arguments I will give them Precedence in my answering them Their Books are much of one quality save that Mr. Firmin's abounds with more unhandsom Reflections upon many in which kind of dealing it were easy to give Retaliation but that is not commendable What he writes against Mr. Danvers I leave to him to vindicate himself as he has done against others and that very well either by justifying his Authorities or rectifying such Over-fights as might easily befal the most accurate Writer in such a multitude of Quotations and which I am persuaded would much satisfy Mr. Firmin himself would he impartially read the Controversies Mr. Firmin being a wiser Man than to engage closely in the Question about the Divine Authority for Infant-Baptism maintains his Fight at a great distance save that he plays a little with some Arguments rather of other Mens devising than his own He at last comprehends the whole strength of his Discourse in two Questions and ONLY desires some Answer to them from those whom he is pleased constantly to call Anabaptists I know no such Creature yet I know that he means those Christians who according to God's Word Heb. 6. 1 2. make Baptism the third not the first Principle of Christ's Doctrine In which order the first and best of Gospel-Churches received it even that which was founded by Christ himself in the exercise of his Ministry and which is therefore the Mother of all Churches Christian in which Church consisting of believing Jews their Children had as clear an Interest in the Covenant of Grace as any can pretend to and as great Priviledges in the Church Christian as was or is needful for any and yet whoever reads the Plantation and Progress of that Church or the Epistle which was written to them on the occasion of some Decays which afterward befel them shall never find so much as one Infant baptised in that Church nor indeed in any other during the Apostles Days which Consideration alone is enough to cause a modest Enquirer to question the Legality of Infant-Baptism Mr. Firmin has got Infant-Baptism into a very little Corner it belongs only to Children of believing Parents in an Independent or Presbyterian Sense so that a great Part of the World called Christendom will have no Right to it And he makes it very insignificant to a great number of these two for pag. 33. he does not make God to be INDEED their God till with his Call he gives them Faith to answer his Call. And this is the reason I suppose why they deny these so pretendedly holy Infants whom they sprinkle any Priviledg in their Church at the Lord's Table till
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
Men every where to repent and wills that the Gospel which contains this and many other precious Promises should be preached to every Creature And if Baptism may be a Seal of this Doctrine even there where there wants a Principle of Faith as you tell us it may then we may go and baptise every Creature and not higgle as you do about some Infants only but should we do thus God's Word would trip up our Heels as it does yours for tho he has proclaim'd Peace to the World by the Gospel yet he makes Faith necessary to the Pledg of its Reception He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst be baptised When they believed they were baptised not one Person admitted without and then what is Mr. Petto that will adventure to give Baptism even there where there is not Faith no nor so much as a Principle of it How shall Baptism be the Answer of a good Conscience without a Principle of Faith And what good will it do you without Faith He quotes Isa 44. 3. I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed c. Well but not in Infancy when was this done to any of your Infants Or has not God made good this Promise in the Gospel Men must be thirsty before this Water be poured out upon them You bring Isa 59. 21. which might have shewed you that these Promises belong not to Infants seeing they cannot understand either the Word or Spirit which yet is here promised to be in the mouth of the Church and her Seed for ever or if you please in the mouth of Christ and his Seeds Seed for ever But Infants are so called saith Augustin à non fando because they cannot speak You bring Psal 25. 13. and 112. 2. where 't is said The Seed of good Men shall inherit the Earth and be mighty upon Earth and be blessed But I think these are unfitly applied to Infants in Infancy and yet if they concern'd them here 's no Proof that they are visibly in the Faith during Infancy But what shall become of the Infants of ill Men by Mr. Petto's Doctrine they are put by him in a Condition contrary to that of the Infants of good Men as if the Infants Blessing or Cursing must be measured out as the Parents are Believers or otherwise Let us see his Scriptures Psal 37. 28. The Seed of the wicked shall be cut off But why must this be applied to Infants Sure he has Mercy for them so as not to turn them into Hell. For he hath told us if those Children of wicked Men which live to years do but turn from the wicked Ways of their Fathers they shall not dy and so equal are God's Ways that if the Son of a righteous Man follow the Ways of wicked Men he shall die as to temporal Judgments I grant the Infants do sometimes suffer for the Sin of their Parents but our Discourse is about their Salvation You bring Rom. 11. again and thence you infer that the Infant-seed of the Jews was broken off for the Parents Unbelief But if this Breaking-off be understood of an Exclusion of Infants to Hells Torments it is a most false Opinion as I shall fully shew anon That Abraham by virtue of his Faith which he had being uncircumcised is a Father of the faithful both Jew and Gentile is very true But that any of them are his Children so as to be Members of the Church militant to do and suffer for Christ without actual Faith is not true nor does Rom. 4. 10 11 12. prove the contrary let us hear your Text How then was it reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Vncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision And he re-received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the Father of them that believe though they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed to them also And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised May the God of Heaven give you a good understanding of this Place and then all your struggling for Infant-Baptism would soon vanish For there is nothing more evident than this that none but such as so believe as to walk in the Steps of that Faith which Abraham himself had which was true actual Faith are the Children of Abraham in a visible Church-state to worship God either in Baptism or other Ordinances From pag. 48. You proceed to answer many Objections and in all you say this seems to be your great Stick That Infant-Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is not cut off by any thing so objected as you have set them down and unless this be shewed all Objections signify nothing to you 1. To which I answer Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision and have the same Right now which they ever had to that blessed Covenant of this more by and by 2. No Person 's Right to Circumcision did arise out of the Covenant of Grace but did only issue from the Command of God otherwise all good Men then living must needs be circumcised for they were in the Covenant of Grace as well as Abraham 3. As Circumcision did not give Abraham's Seed an Interest in the Covenant of Grace so the Abrogation of Circumcision did not take that Interest from them Nor did the omission of it when in being cut Infants off from the Covenant of Grace It only cut them off from the Land of Canaan and the external Priviledges of the Jewish Churchstate For the delay of the Circumcision of Moses's Child did not cut it off from the Covenant of Grace nor did the omission of it fourty Years in the Wilderness cut them Infants off from the Covenant of Grace who died in that time howbeit before they possessed the Land of Canaan they must be circumcised which evidently shews that the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumcision are to be distinguished And therefore though Infants have now no Part in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they lose nothing by it because though it was very useful till Christ came for the Ends for which it was ordained respecting the Church-state of the Jews and the Birth of our Saviour of that Seed according to the Flesh yet the Removal of it was a great Mercy whether we respect the Severity of the Service it self or the Obligation to which it bound all that were circumcised Neither does any Man's Right to the Covenant of Grace arise from the Covenant of Circumcision neither does his Right to Baptism arise from the Covenant of Grace without a Divine Command appointing to whom and how it should be performed Now the Gospel being preached for the Obedience
of Faith to all Nations Rom. 16. 26. And that Typical Covenant of Circumcision being made void and the Gospel appointing no Ceremony for Infants yet assuring them of Heaven but making Repentance and Faith the two first Principles of the Christian Religion and Baptism the third Principle in order to a due Profession of Gospel-worship in a Church-way it is manifest that Infant-baptism is an Innovation and makes a Breach upon the sacred Doctrine contained in St. Paul's Catechism as set down Heb. 6. 1 2. And therefore all good Men should labour that Truth herein according to Primitive Crder may be restored Nevertheless that Infants even all of them dying such have an undeniable Right in the Covenant of Grace to Life and Salvation I hope to make very evident both from the Scripture and right Reason in the last Part of this Treatise to which I now apply my self and though herein I shall not directly answer to Mr. Petto yet I shall scarce fail to remove those things which may seem to be of any moment in his often and unnecessary Repetitions PART III. In which Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace without Baptism is asserted and maintained IT is evident from the Writings of many Paedobaptists both Papists and Protestants that they do hold either absolutely that no unbaptized Infant can be saved or at least that their Salvation is very doubtful and amongst those Mr. Baxter and from him Mr. Barret and now Mr. Petto has not a little amused the Minds of Men about this matter First Mr. Baxter tells us and Mr. Barret also that Infants are not so much as seemingly in a State of Salvation without Baptism And secondly Mr. Petto thinks they are cut out of the great Charter of Heaven These are his Words It is the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-seed only of visible Believers that I plead for and there are such vast Numbers even millions of these that if Men unduly exclude and raze out the Names of so many out of that great Charter of Heaven they will have a dreadful Account to give thereof to God. In answer to these childish Fears and undue Reflections upon us I shall take the pains to transcribe what I have formerly written upon this Account it being yet unanswered This new Art of pleading for infant-Infant-baptism by virtue of their Church-membership Covenant-Interest c. and not from the Scriptures directly but altogether by remote obscure and far-fetch'd Consequences I say considering these Subtilties of Mr. Baxter and others I perceive the Controversy to rise very high and Questions thereupon to be multiplied insomuch that I have had for my share not less than five hundred of them sent out by Mr. Barret abovenamed which has been redargued in two Books of Antiqueries Hereupon I conceived it needful to consider this matter for I perceived very wise and good Men engaged on both sides and as I believe much more straining in the Point of Church-membership or Covenant-Interest of Infants than needed By which the Readers of the Controversy as handled between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Tombs shall sooner fill their Heads with Amazement than their Hearts with Satisfaction in tracing the several Meanders of their Scholastick Disputations And though I am abundantly short of the Accomplishments of either of these Champions yet standing to view till they engage I hope I have thereby been led to the Consideration of a Medium which if well considered and improved will reconcile the difference about Infants visible Church-membership and Covenant-Interest and yet do not doubt at all that Infant-baptism will be found unnecessary and unlawful To which purpose I shall lay down once more this Position That all Infants as such are in a visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace and so are of the universal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed State till by their voluntary Departure from God by chusing sinful Ways they destroy themselves And the better to convince my present Adversaries I will make my Enterance hereunto by a Passage out of Mr. Baxter's Book of More Proves c. pag. 8. where he saith All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace which is not vain nor repealed by God but as their Abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out For as a Covenant of intire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah Now this Doctrine being no more than plain Truth we shall apply it to the case in hand by shewing 1. That this Covenant of Grace was a visible Church-Covenant 2. That it was made with all Mankind and takes place in their Infancy 3. That it was never repealed by God. 4. That no Infant did ever abuse the Grace of this Covenant and that therefore no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant And then fifthly they all stand visible Members of the Catholick or universal Church by virtue of this Covenant however their Parents do abuse or neglect it And hence it will follow no dying Infant is damned but are all in a visible State of Salvation These things I hope to shew to Satisfaction Demonstration 1. That this Covenant of Grace first expressed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant or else there was no Church-Covenant in the World that we read of from Adam to Noah this being indeed all the Covenant which is found in Scripture during these times besides that Covenant of intire Nature made before the Fall. And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam and in him by all his Posterity it being not a Covenant of Grace could not afford means to justify the the Offenders in the Sight of God. There must therefore be some supervening Act of Grace or Mercy from God else Adam even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins must have stood under Condemnation for ever seeing no Man could redeem his Brother nor give to God a Ransom for him Psal 49. 7. It is the received Doctrine of Christians that the visible Church began in Adam and that his Family was the Church wherefore the whole World being then the Church and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World which was to proceed from Adam and this Covenant yet remaining it follows against all Contradiction that whole Mankind considered as they came into the World in the several Ages of it are in that Covenant and so in a visible State of Salvation and therefore of the Universal Church of God. But whereas many did apostatize from the Grace of God's Covenant by corrupting his Way Gen. 6. 12. it was necessary that they should be ejected and therefore was the Profession of this blessed Covenant accommodated and appropriated to that Part of the Adult who had not sinned themselves out of it But still we do not find that the
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
therefore the Saviour of all Men. Indeed Abraham and so all Believers have many things in special or peculiar Blessings as a People engaged in the Duties of Religion Whilst Unbelievers are under a wrathful Sentence because they neglect so great Salvation But all this concerns not dying Infants who neglect not this Salvation and so forfeit not their Right to that common Salvation obtained by Christ for Mankind In Gal. 3. 14. the Apostle speaks of the Promise of the Spirit which as it concerns the Church under the Gospel-frame does not concern Infants It being understood of a greater measure of Wisdom and Power to walk in the Paths of Righteousness than was ordinary under the former Testament 2 Tim. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 2 3 5 7. Gal. 5. 25. Nor can you with any shew of Reason say that I make the Salvation of Infants run in a fleshly Line seeing I derive it only from the free Grace of God manifested in the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World to take away the Sin of the World. Nor do I consider Adam in a State of Nature but as under a Covenant of Grace from whom the second Adam must in time proceed as touching his Flesh and therefore his Descent is reckoned from him Luk. 3. 23. to the end In this second Adam the Repairer of Mankind do I place the Salvation of all Men. And of the Infant-Race I say their Title to this Grace is not tyed to Man's Will to sin them out of it at their Pleasure nor can the Devil himself deprive them of this Grace of Life And therefore they being thus written in the Book of Life and not being under the Sentence of the Book of Conscience they cannot be hurt of the second Death To what you say about God's putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own Hand I say that though he put the Salvation of no Creature out of his own Hand according to my Opinion yet when he stretched forth his Hand to Gain-sayers as Rom. 10. and gives them the Word of Life and they put it from them Act. 13. 46. Then Men may truly be said to have a Prize in their Hands and to put it from them even the Salvation of their Souls And then I pray consider that if their putting Salvation from themselves be equally or really a putting it from their Infants as that must be your Opinion or else we differ not then I say according to your Opinion God suffers Men to damn poor Infants whom he would save Seeing according to your Doctrine had the Parents believed their Infants had been in the Covenant of Grace But now for their Fathers Sin for what you say of their own contracted is but a Fable they are left by you in the Kingdom of the Devil to suffer with the Devil and his Angels for ever Now this dreadful Doctrine can never be proved by the Scriptures though some have assayed to do it I find indeed Dr. Fulk saying That Calvin holdeth all Infants under the Sentence of Eternal Damnation only he admits that such Infants as are Elect and born again by the Spirit of God may be saved But I find no Proof that any Infant dying so is reprobate to Eternal Damnation The Scripture says no such thing Indeed Diodate would have us believe that God cast Esau even before he was born out of his Love as a Father But here is no Proof For if we should admit his Gloss upon Rom. 9. 13. yet we are to consider that God knew what Esau would be in time and did here foreshew what in time should be done concerning him Esau lived to be a Man and a very sinful Man. God knew all this before Esau is not to be ranked with dying Infants therefore the Instance of Esau is nothing to the purpose And this Instance failing as it evidently doth I am sure there is not the least shew of Proof in the Scripture for the Damnation of Dying Infants And therefore no Man ought to believe such strange Doctrine nor trouble the World nor Church of God with it When our Saviour denounces the dreadful Sentence of Hell's Damnation he directs his Speech to Hypocrites and grievous Sinners But he has better things in store for poor Infants testifying that to them belongs the Kingdom of God. In his gracious Arms therefore we shall leave all dying Infants for the obtaining that Blessing of Life without which they are more wretched than the fallen Angels for they had once a blessed state but proudly fell from it But here it is poor Infants are above these Angels Infants have a Redeemer but the fallen Angels have none Glory to God in the Highest for his free Grace towards all Dying Infants and let all good Christians say Amen FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Offspring of Growth or Stature but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Infant * Manual of Contro p. 372 to 377. S. n. Antid