Infancy as well as I. Shew me a reason now why my dying Infants might not have the application of Christ's Blood by the holy Spirit as well as yours As for the manner of the Spirit 's operation herein I suppose we know it both alike that is not at all Nevertheless I do believe the Father Son and holy Spirit does what is needful in their respective operations tho I know not in all Points how it is done in the case of dying Infants It is enough that we have Christ's Testimony that to them belongs the Kingdom that is to all in that state for he rejects not any one of them neither in these words nor in any other that proceeded from his sacred Lips nor from the Pens of the Writers of the Holy Scriptures And then what is Mr. Firmin that he should by this presumptuous Argument send many Millions of them to Hell because in his conceit the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with them in the business of their Salvation the Spirit 's Operations being limited by him herein to the Infants of Believers only and if you look well to his Notions there is not a few of them too who have no help from the holy Spirit for they being not all elect must be damned for all their Baptism and this is the kindness he has to write a Plea for Infants Divis 3. Wherein is considered whether the Covenant of Grace was taken from the whole World and appropriated only to Abraham and his Seed from the time of the making the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. Mr. Firmin p. 20. Now I come to my Question and shall make it appear your Answer signifies nothing You tell me of a Covenant of Grace made with the whole World in the promised Seed to Adam c. I tell you while Adam Noah and Abraham lived under that Covenant made with the whole World God was pleased to make a Covenant with Abraham and with none other but Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed and sealed this Covenant by which Covenant and Seal God did separate and divide all Abraham's Seed from the World living under the Covenant you speak of Answ 1. It is evident that either Mr. Firmin holds That the Covenant made with Adam Noah and Abraham before that mentioned Gen. 17. was not the Covenant of Grace or else that Covenant Gen. 17. was not the Covenant of Grace or that the Covenant of Grace was now taken from all the World and appropriated and restrained to Abraham and his Seed only The latter is clearly his sense that God was now only the God of Abraham and his Seed in the Covenant of Grace and of none other But this Doctrine is most false and absurd as I evidently shewed to Mr. Petto to this effect We ought to understand that Abraham and his Seed was not the only Persons in the World which were under the Covenant of Grace at that time when God made with Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. For as Mr. Broughton observes Sem lived 50 Years after the Covenant of Circumcision was made with Abraham and divers other holy Men lived long after the Covenant of Circumcision was made who were all true Worshippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace Melchisedeck blessing Abraham from whence St. Paul infers that he was greater than Abraham Heb. 7. 7. yet neither he nor the rest of the Patriarchs were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And as neither these nor their Infants or 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 had no necessity at all to be concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision From whence it must needs follow That God did not intend the Sign of Circumcision as necessary to entitle Men to the Covenant of Grace nor that none could be Saved who were not under the Covenant of Circumcision But certain it is the Covenant of Circumcision was appropriate to Abraham and to his Seed for very great Ends respecting special Preservation to the Family of Abraham as being now the Family from whence Christ should proceed according to the Flesh And with whom God would presence himself in a Land of Promise by a distinct way of Worship from all other Nations who were then falling very fast to Idolatry Again Mr. F. telling us That God made that Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham and none other By this he has given a fatal Blow to his Cause which he is so zealous to defend Because by this it is evident that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. considered as it was peculiar to him and his Seed and no other no not of the Patriarchs then living it was therefore at least so considered not the Covenant of Grace But it was only so considered the Covenant of Circumcision as it is also called Acts 7. 8. without any such adjunct as the Covenant of Grace as if all that were not in that peculiar Covenant throughout the World must be damn'd without Mercy No no God had his tender Mercies for others tho this Covenant was peculiar to Abraham God was no such respecter of Persons when he made the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. But in every Nation from the beginning even to the end of the World all that feared the Lord and wrought Righteousness found acceptance with him This old Truth Peter himself being tinctured with this Notion that God had no Grace for any but Abraham's Seed could not perceive till God by Miracle did reveal it to him no tho his Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. did oblige him to teach all Nations and to preach the Gospel to every Creature yet till now he durst not preach to the Gentiles Acts 10. And therefore it is the less strange that Mr. Firmin and such as he who take themselves to be Abraham's Seed because they are born according to the Flesh of such as they take to be Believers should be so cruelly dark in this glorious Truth that God is no respecter of Persons Nor do I see any thing more liable to puff Men up with Pride than this that they were in the Covenant of Grace from their Infancy because their Parents were Believers or at least one of them or their Grandfather c. was so as Mr. F. words it This Opinion undid the Jews generally and I doubt it has spoiled many of the Gentiles Our blessed Saviour John 8. has a long Disputation to deliver the Jews from this their vain Confidence which they built upon their being Abraham's Seed And St. Paul bent his Stile against the same thing Rom. 2. 26 27 28 29. and Chap. 3. ver 19. to the end But the more they laboured to undeceive these deceived Jews the more they were hated by them and if we meet with the same measure we must bear it For indeed scarce any
Infants are not made clean from their Pollutions and freed from Condemnation without having Faith and Repentance I say they may because God requires not these things of Infants But you argue further Mr. F. All the Members of the Kingdom of Heaven are holy but Children are Members of the Kingdom of Heaven Not by Birth it is by Regeneration Answ First Here I think you have given your Cause its deaths blow It seems now that the Infants of Believers are no more holy by their Birth of believing Parents than others and whether they be regenerated you cannot tell for you do not hold that all the Children of Believers are saved What is now become of the Birth-priviledg so much gloried in by Mr. Baxter and others We have been told Infants are holy by Birth if one Parent be but a Believer and that Children of Believers are holy by Prerogative of Seed But now you confess the Truth and I grant Infants are not holy by Birth let their Parents be never so Christian And I have already granted that Infants must be cleansed from all Sin before they come to Heaven But yet you touch not the Question Whether they cannot be cleansed from Sin without they have Faith and Repentance one would think you begin to be afraid of the Question and I am sure you have cause so to be Arg. 3. Mr. F. tells us If Adam had continued in Innocency his Children had born the Image of God from the Birth I never heard it denied That which I infer hence is that Children are capable of the Image of God and receiving the Seeds of all Grace it was so then why not now Answ What manner of the Image of God Infants should have born had Adam continued innocent is unknown to Man and 't is but vain to concern our selves about that which cannot be known but this we know it should not have stood in Faith and Repentance as now because in both these we confess our selves Sinners and this is enough to shew the vanity of your Question if so then why not now But you proceed thus Mr. F. Shall the sin of one Person be so mischievous to deprive Adam and all his Posterity of the Image of God and bring the Seeds of all Corruption into their Nature and shall the Grace of God be denyed to renew his Image in little Children when and where he pleaseth Children being a great part of the World shall the Spirit of God have nothing to do in their Hearts Answ I know no Man more faulty than Mr. F. in this matter for he will not allow the Grace of God to have any thing to do with the greatest part of Infants I doubt not but God doth all things needful for them to make them holy by the Blood of Christ his Grace and Spirit But all this shall be done without Faith and Repentance because God does not require it of Infants if he does name your Text. Mr. F. now tells us Adam's Disobedience far exceeds the Obedience of Christ which he compares in Justification Rom. 5. 16 17 18. for his Disobedience could defile all his Posterity but Christ's Obedience doth not cleanse and regenerate one Child Answ Come St. Paul thou hast told us that such as thou art by Letters when absent such thou wilt be indeed when present 2 Cor. 10. 11. Wherefore I shall give place to thee to answer for thy self by the very places which Mr. F. has quoted out of thy Epistle to the Romans Chap. 5. 16 17 18. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the Gift for the Judgment was of one to Condemnation but the free-Gift is of many Offences to Justification For if by the Offence of one Death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the Gift of Righteousness shall reign in Life by one Jesus Christ Thâ—refore as by the Offence of one Judgment came upon All Men to Condemnation even so by the Righteousness of one the free-Gift came upon All Men unto Justification of Life And whereas Mr. F. boldly tells us that Christ's Obedience doth not cleanse and regenerate one Child I ask him whose Obedience then does cleanse Infants Let St. Paul answer again ver 19. As by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners SO by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous Blessed Paul thou hast answered to the Life Mr. Firmin says Christ's Obedience doth not cleanse and regenerate one Child Thou sayst Christ's Obedience made many righteous and they that are made righteous are clean and regenerated sufficiently Blessed Apostle thou hast turned the Wisdom of the Wise into Foolishness What follows in this Paragraph is answered before and for his uncivil Expressions in the close of it I shall pass them by Mr. Firmin's Arg. 4. If all Children dying such are justified and saved then there will be Millions in Heaven in whom the Spirit of God as the third Person in the Blessed Trinity had nothing to do in their Salvation Answ First I take notice that Mr. Firmin by this Argument would have Millions of Infants damned because in his Judgment the Spirit of God hath nothing to do with Millions of them in the business of Salvation This this is that wicked Doctrine which I oppose 2. But how will he prove that the Spirit hath to do in the business of the Salvation of any of them more than I shall prove he hath to do in the Salvation of all dying Infants He would prove it by two things 1. Because the distinct Subsistences have their distinct manner of working 2. Because Regeneration is given to the Spirit Now suppose this be true it does not prove that some Infants have the assistance of the Spirit and some dying Infants have no assistance from him Thus he beats the Air but proves not any thing at all relating to the Point in Question 3. But I will prove that all dying Infants have all that assistance of the Spirit in the business of Salvation which is any way needful for them I do it thus All those dying Infants for whom Christ shed his precious Blood have sufficient assistance from the Spirit in the business of their Salvation But Christ shed his precious Blood for all dying Infants Ergo All dying Infants have sufficient assistance from the Spirit in the business of their Salvation The Major is evident because no dying Infant does resist the Holy Ghost and because God is no Respecter of Persons The Minor is evident because Christ died for all tasted Death for every Man he bought them that deny him and bring upon themselves swift Destruction And seeing his tender Mercies are over all his Works the holy Spirit is not wanting to further the Salvation of any dying Infant Deut. 10. 17 18. 1 Tim. 2. 6. Heb. 2. 9. 2 Pet. 2. 1. Psal 145. 9. Come Mr. Firmin let me come near you it may be you have had some Children that died in their
knowing this we know our Gracious God will deny them no Supplies which is needful for them If this do not satisfie Mr. F. then let him give some account to the World now he is grown up how the Spirit did work in the business of his Regeneration in his Infancy and if he can give no account of his own Infant-Regeneration then I think it will be hard for him to give it of the manner of the Regeneration of other Infants Mr. Firmin 3. You must demonstrate that tho Infants have not actually sinned against the Covenant of Grace yet they have not unbelief and impenitency seminally which are quite opposite to the Covenant of Grace Answ 1. I conceive nothing can be spoke more irrationally nor unrighteously than to suggest that poor Infants have Unbelief and Impenitency in them And yet so 't is the seeds of those Impieties at least Mr. F. will have to be in them And I demand of him how he knows this And how he can tell when these Sins against the Covenant of Grace are purged from Infants Seeing he has told us they are not holy by their Birth I would know whether they be purged before their Birth or after But let us hear our Saviour's Judgment of little Children which all will grant to be more worth than Mr. Firmin's He speaks of some just Persons which need no Repentance whom he opposes to such as have gone astray I will not presume that this is only meant of Infants to whom our Lord tells us the Kingdom of Heaven belongs but I humbly conceive as it is true of them so it does include them as being of that Number Again He tells us Except we be Converted and become as little Children we cannot see the Kingdom of God. But if Infants be guilty of Vnbelief and Impenitency in such a degree as these Sins in them are quite opposite to the Covenant of Grace we should have but little benefit by such Conversion And thus he reflects upon Christ in his Directions to his Followers as if Christ gave not good Counsel herein St. Paul exhorts Christians as touching Malice to be Children in which Speech he is directly contrary to Mr. F. And St. Peter would have us like new-born Babes i. e. to lay aside all Malice Guile Hypocrisie and evil Speaking But if Unbelief and Impenitency be in them Seminally these Impieties are there also and then they are bad Presidents being as wicked as it is possible for them to be in Mr. F's judgment However Mr. F. is compelled to confess Infants are not guilty of any Actual Sin against the Covenant of Grace And then who made you a Judg of their Hearts Sir Sure this is an Attempt too high for any Man. But I must demonstrate that Infants have not unbelief seminally Well I will plead their Cause as well as I can and I Argue for them thus They who have no object of Faith propounded to them seminally can have no unbelief seminally But Infants have no object of Faith propounded to them seminally Ergo They can have no unbelief seminally If Mr. F. deny the Minor I will hold him to his own Law Affirmanti incumbit probatio If he affirm that Infants have an object of Faith propounded to them seminally let him prove it As for the Major our Saviour's words John 15. 22. do establish it and indeed This is the Condemnation that Light is come and Men love Darkness He that has no Light cannot be blamed because he cannot see Our Lord charges not the sin of Unbelief till means to believe was rejected And will he be more unkind to the Infant than to the grown Person Who can have so vile an opinion of the Almighty But I must demonstrate also that Infants have not Impenitency seminally yea such Impenitency as is quite opposite to the Covenant of Grace Well I reply first by way of Admiration That ever such wild Notions should issue from a Learned Head that so he might have some specious pretence to damn poor Infants But God hath said He will turn the Wisdom of Wise Men backward and make Diviners mad Isa 44. 25. 2. Impenitency supposes the Party charged first to be guilty of some Sin committed or desired or conceived But nothing of this can be justly charged against Infants Consider them acquitted of Original Sin by the Mercy of God in their Redeemer Who shall lay any thing to their charge What have they done Mr. Firmin Do you ask what have they done Did you never see Revenge Wrath Pride Envy Rebellion against and Striking of Parents acting in little Children Answ 1. These are not Infants of Eight days old c. but such who by the ill Example of their Tutors quickly may learn these things Otherwise if the Child thinks it has cause to be Angry and to make Defence it does no more than you will vindicate in your own Cause And why does not Charity make you think the best of Infants seeing you ought to think no evil of the weak actions of grown Persons O thou that canst see such Beams as Revenge Wrath Pride Rebellion c. in the Eyes of poor Infants pluck these Beams out of thine own which evidently are thy Distempers from the Books which thou hast written in which not many Pages are free from Tincture of some of these Diseases But you add Blessed Austin observed a Sucking Child that was not able to articulate one word look with a Countenance even pale with Envy upon his fellow-Suckling which shared with him in the same Milk which made the holy Man cry out Ubi Domine Quando Domine Reply How did Austin know that the Child was pale with Envy Suppose this good Man himself had sat down to Dinner and another snatch it all away from him perhaps he would have look'd Pale also for such we must suppose the Child's case to be when another takes the Breast it thinks all is gone for it yet understands not the Rules of Hospitality or Good-fellowship being unsensible of the others Necessity The poor Child attended its own preservation as Nature taught it a poor ground on which to build so severe a Charge Should the best of God's People be tried how duly they make others sharers in their Blessings who have need of Relief they may perhaps be more justly charged than that Sucking Child Judg no poor Infants lest ye be judged To conclude Seminal Faith Seminal Repentance Seminal Vnbelief and Seminal Impenitency are things of which we have no account in Scripture And though I would not offend Mr. Firmin nor at all disparage his Scholarship which I acknowledg to be abundantly more than mine yet when I consider Learning in Saint Paul's sense 2 Tim. 3. 14. I cannot but think these to be very wild and unlearned Notions which no Man can be assured of nor give a good account that he learned them of any of the Master-Builders the holy Apostles And who ever asserts these things shall never