Redeemer's Army against the proclaimed Enemy and to teach her posterity to do the like V. p. 94. And did they not continue visible Members of Christ's Army and Kingdom till such time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation and as the Seed of the Serpent fought against Christ and his Kingdom V. p. 95. for Satan and his Kingdom Q. VI. V. p. 82 83. Whether in that first Proclamation of Grace to fallen man or in the first promise of Redemption to sinners Gen. 3.15 An Infant of the Woman be not promised to be General and Head of the Church And whether the promise of an Infant Head doth not declare God's mind that he will have Infants Members because the Head is the principal Member Whether God doth not assure us hereby that he doth not exclude the infant-Infant-state or Age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the Laws of Creation Would he have made the Head first an Infant if he had excluded the infant-Infant-state from the visible Church Is not the Head a Member even the principal Member And are not Infants hereby clearly warranted to he Members of a lower Nature If an Infant may be Soveraign then may not Infants be Subjects If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then may not Infants be Disciples if it be said they are no Disciples that learn not may it not as well be said he is no Prophet that teacheth not If it be granted that Christ in Infancy was the Prophet of his Church by designation V. p. 86. though not in actu exercito Why may not Infants be Disciples too by Designation or Separation though not yet actual Learners How doth their Infancy incapacitate them to be in Covenant with God V. p. 84. to be Church-members c. when Christ in Infancy bare all the Connter-relations and was in the Covenant of God as Mediator and that as far as we can judge only by a virtual and not actual consent in his Infancy and Humane Nature to the Covenant of Mediation If an Infant qua talis V. p. 88. as such be excluded from Church-membership then will it not hold ad omnes universally and then had not Christ himself been excluded Q. VII V. p. 118 119. Why are those two Titles put on those two distinct Generations scil the Posterity of Cain and the Posterity of Seth calling one the Sons of God and the others the Daughters of men Gen. 6.2 But that the one was a Generation separated from the Church from their Birth their Progenitors being cast out before them when the other was the Seed of Saints not cast out but Members of the Church or the Sons of those who were devoted to God and so devoted to him themselves a separated Generation belonging to God as his visible Church Were these called the Sons of God in regard of their godliness who were so wicked that God repented that he had made them and destroyed them in the Flood or for their Relation church-Church-state and visible Separation from open unchurched Idolaters like those Deut. 14.1 2. Doth it not hence appear that the Generation of the righteous then even from the Womb V. p. 119 120. were numbered among God's people in that they are not mentioned as a people called out here and there and initiated at Age there is no mention or hint of any such thing but as a Stock or Generation opposed to the Daughters of men or of the unchurched who were such from their Infancy as all will grant were they the same men that were Parents of those here called the Daughters of men and of those called the Sons of God Q. VIII V. p. 122. Whether it was not the same Church before and after Abraham's time that was called the Tents of Sem Gen. 19.27 Was not the Jewish Church denominated the Tents of Sem And does it not hence appear that the Church-priviledges of that people did not begin with or from Abraham but that they were before And how was it the same Church that was of Sem and of Abraham if it had not the same sort of Members or materials if Infants were not Members before Abraham's dayes as well as after And if Japhet's Children must dwell in Sem's Tents V. p. 123. then will it not follow that as Sem's Infants were Church-members so Japhet's or the converted Gentiles Seed are not cast or left out Q. IX V. p. 7â— Whether if we could shew no written Law or promise at first constituting the Duty or granting the priviledge of Church-membership it were the least disparagement to our Cause as long as we can shew those following Laws which presuppose this If Moses at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had been without any written Law found all the Infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit what need was there of a new Law about it Or why should God promise it as a new thing Q. X. V. p. 115. Whether there being certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-membership but none except that before alledged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it but all speaking of it as no new thing we have not great reason to assign its beginning which from Gen. 3. is before spoken of Q. XI V. p. 97 98. Is it not unquestionable that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham the Father of the faithful comprehended Infants for Church-members And was it not the same with that Gen. 3.15 But in some things clearlier opened Were not both these the Covenant of Grace and free Justification by Faith in the Redeemer And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed comprehend Infants And should not the same promise expressed more concisely be expounded by the same expressed more fully Q. XII V. p. 115. Whether though the Hebrews had their peculiarities it be at all credible that the Infants of that one small Country only should be so differently dealt with by God from all the World else even Enoch's Noah's Sem's and all from Adam to the end of the World that these Infants only should be Church-members and no others Q. XIII What can be more absurd than to maintain a Transient Fact as Mr. T. hath done making Infants Church-members without any Law Promise or Covenant Grant of God giving them Right Whether a Gift that was never given be not a contradiction V. p. 32 35 39 44 45 151. And if there was any such Promise or Covenant-grant of Infants Church-membership when or where was it revoked Q. XIV V. p. 19. Was it only the Infants of the Hebrews or of those that were at their absolute dispose that were Church-members Were not the Infants of free Proselytes Church-members too Q. XV. V. p. 21. Was it not then the Duty of all the Nations round about that could have information of the Jewish Religion to engage themselves and their
as to the age of the Subjects And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints of Heaven lived in till the other day as a few Anabaptists did attempt an Alteration Q. XLIII V. p. 160. Whether considering Christ's own Infant-membership and his kind reception of Infants and his chiding those that would have kept them off and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation Matth. 23.37 and that they were broken off by unbelief V. p. 143. and consequently the Seed of Believers not broken off from the Church Universal and that whole Housholds are oft said to be baptized and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy and that Christ expresly Matth. 28. commandeth his Ministers as much as in them lieth to disciple all Nations baptizing them and that it is prophesied that the Kingdoms of the World shall be made the Kingdoms of Christ and there is no Nation or Kingdom on Earth that Infants are not Members of whether in all this and much more there be not a plain notification of God's will that as he never had a Church which excluded Infants so neither doth he now exclude them And if any will take him for Antichrist that taketh Infants into the visible Church V. p. 305. whether it will not prove to be Christ himself Q. XLIV V. p. 209 In summ whether 1. God would not have Parents devote their children to him and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant 2. Whether also he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him and be not peculiarly their God that such children are holy 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members according to an Infant capacity of the visible Church as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their Salvation than of those without 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their Salvation certain if they so die 6. Whether the Investiture and Solemnization of their Covenant with Christ should not be made in Infancy Whether ever it can be proved V. p. 233. that granting Infants visible Church-membership yet they are not to be baptized and that Baptism was appointed for initiating none but adult Members Whether Baptism be not the common entrance into the Church and the plain Law of Christ Matth. 28.19 and the Exposition of the Universal Church doth not stand on Record to confute such an Opinion Q. XLV Preface p. 4. How inconsiderable a part of the Universal Church do the Anabaptists hold Communion with And do they not unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth may we not think that they rob Christ of more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom or Church Universal V. p. 305. Q. XLVI Preface ib. Whether they can possibly hope that ever the Church on Earth will unite upon their terms of rejecting all their Infants from the visible Church and renouncing all our Infant Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of Grace Q. XLVII Preface ib. And whether if they continue to the World's end to separate from almost all the Churches and unchurch them their employment will not be still to serve the great Enemy of Love and Concord against the Lord of Love and Peace and against the Prosperity of Faith and Godliness and against the welfare of the Church and Souls and to the scandal and hardning of the ungodly Q. XLVIII V. p. 189. Whether too many well-meaning but weak Christians are not disaffected to lawful and warrantable things in the Worship of God meerly because they see such as are ungodly use and own them And whether if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers that were against Infant-baptism and singing of Psalms c. and would make Laws for their own way and impose it on others so that the ungodly multitude should fall in with them it would not presently cure many that are now for such Opinions Q. XLIX Whether Mr. Baxter in the second and third part of that his second Defence of our Infants Rights have not sufficiently detected the great and notorious Untruths in Fact and History wherewith Mr. H. D. Treatise of Baptism and Reply to Mr. Willes is fully stuffed Q. L. V. p. 228 229. Whether the Anabaptists Schism or Separation from Communion with our Churches be not worse yet than their simple Opinion And whether it be not desirable and possible that some way be found out and terms layd down in which good and sober men on both sides would agree and hold Communion As v. g. If the Anabaptists would consent to and profess as followeth or to this sence Though we judge Infant-baptism dssonant from Christ's instituted Order yet finding that God hath made many Promises to the Seed of the Faithful above others and that Christ expressed his readiness to receive little Children when they were brought to him for his Blessing and knowing that all Christian Parents should earnestly desire that their Children may be the Children of God through Christ and should devote them to him as far as is in their power and knowing that there are difficulties about the extent of this Power and Christ's Promises we do here solemnly profess that we thankfully desire all those Mercies for this Child which God hath promised to such in his Word and that we heartily offer devote and dedicate this Child to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as far as he hath given us power to do it beseeching him accordingly to accept him And we promise faithfully to endeavour to educate him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and as we are able to perswade him when he is capable to believe in Christ and solemnly devote himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in Baptism If thus much were done in the Church or so openly as may satisfie the Church that they are not despisers of God's mercies nor of their Childrens Souls And much more if those that profess that they cannot satisfie their Consciences in their Infant-baptism V. p. 230. 231. would but do as the Liturgy doth by those whose Baptism is uncertain If thou be not baptized I baptize thee and so would say Being uncertain whether my Infant-baptism be valid if it be not I now receive that which is And when they have satisfied their Consciences would live quietly in the Love and Communion of the Church who would not receive them though we approve not of their way And should not we be willing to give satisfaction by such an answerable profession as this Though it be our Judgment that Infants have ever been Members of God's visible Church since he had a Church and there were Infants in the World and do believe that Christ hath signified in the Gospel that it is his gracious will that they should still be so and that he hath made Baptism the regular orderly way of solemn entrance into a visible church-Church-state and therefore we devote this Child to God in the Baptismal Covenant yet we do also hold that when he cometh to age it will be his duty as seriously and devoutly to make this Covenant with God understandingly himself and to dedicate himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as those must do that never were baptized in Infancy And we promise to endeavour faithfully as we have opportunity to instruct and perswade him so to do hoping that this his early Baptismal Dedication and Obligation to God will rather much prepare him for it than hinder it Whether might not some such Professions put off the chief matter of Offence and Exception against each other as to the ill consequents of our Opinions and would not sober good men by such a mutual approach be more disposed to live together in Love and Holy Peace which we should all pray for and what in us lieth as far as possibly we can promote FINIS
old save only that a more full and express Revelation of Christ requireth a more full express Faith Is it not evident that they were to profess consent to God's Covenant which whoso denied Asa would put to death v. p. 4â— And was not circumcision a covenanting Act And did they not thereby profess to take God for their God Or would God else have taken them for his people And would not renouncing God have cut them off V. p. 78. Q. XXX Whether God's Law obligeth not persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God by consenting to God's Covenant for themselves and them V. p. 50. Whether it was not the Duty of the Israelites to engage and devote their children to God in Covenant Whether this be not evident from the penalty even to be cut off from his People annexed for the non-performance And whether this be not as much our Duty still V. p. 105. Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to every one his own due And are not Infants God's own due Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God by acknowledging his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereof If Infants are not capable of doing present Service yet are they not capable at present of a legal Obligation to future Duty as also of the relation following the Obligation V. p. 49. And is it not the very nature of our own holy Covenant that in it we give up to God our selves and all that is ours according to the capacity of the all Are not Infants capable of Infant-relation Obligation and Right What is it that a sanctified man must not devote to God that is his V. p. 308. Are we allowed to except children Should not Infants therefore be devoted according to their capacity which God himself hath expounded And if Parents may and must devote them privately by heart-consent V. p. 106. will it not follow they must do it publickly in the instituted way Q. XXXI V. p. 198 199. Whether Anabaptists themselves all of them that are truly pious do not vertually though not actually devote their children to God and consent to their Covenant-relation while they vehemently plead against it Q. XXXII V. p. 152. Is it not a desperate undertaking and dare any adventure on it to justifie all the World before Christ's Incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God And do not they that say there is no Law in this case V. p. 153. say there is no Transgression And dare any in like manner undertake to justifie at the Bar of God all the World since Christ's Incarnation from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children to Christ and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect Q. XXXIII V. p. 34 35. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledge to be a visible Church-member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible Is it not a benefit in it self besides the consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body Is not such a Relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to the Church an honor And how great is the misery of the contrary state And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit V. p. 33. then how were they that had iâ—â— when they came to age or their Parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it Will any say that neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account Q XXXIV Is it not certain V. p. 111 112. that Infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged And is it not certain that they are actually Members of all the Common-wealths in the World perfectè sed imperfecta membra And does not nature seem actually to have taught most people on Earth to repute their Infants in the same Religious Society with themselves as well as in the same civil Society Q. XXXV V. p. 113 114. Whether according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace God will not vouchsafe to be their God and take them for his people that are in a natural or Law-sence willing to be his people and to take him for their God And whether the Infants of believing Parents are not thus willing When Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in a natural sence must not the reason and will of another be theirs in Law-sence that is of the Parents who have the full dispose of them and are warranted by the Law of nature to chuse for them for their good till they come to the use of reason themselves Whether in God's acceptance the child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents and doth not covenant with God V. p. 286 287. as a child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a party in a contract as in a lease for his life or the like And so granting the Relation of Church-membership to be founded in a mutual contract covenant V. p. 68 69 169 171. or consent betwixt God and us yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of Infants and the adult Were not the Israelites Infants Church-members who consented not actually in their own persons but virtually and reputatively Q. XXXVI V. p. 110 111. Whether it be not the duty of Parents by the Law of nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children The Infant being not sui Juris but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good have not the Parents power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly for their own good And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own child And doth it not deserve to be called the unthankful Error that opposeth childrens Rights and Blessings V. p. 339. Q. XXXVII V. p. 100. VVhether it may be thought or any dare maintain that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the VVorld Are they all excluded And why Are they worse than their Parents If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth to Parents must it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents or such as are so far entrusted Or can this be called a Covenant V. p. 10â— for God only to say I will save all such Infants as I elect and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition nor give a title to
any person that can be known by themselves or others Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant And what Right or hope doth this give to Christians for their children more than to Pagans Whether they that will lay all the Right of Infants to the pardon of sin V. p. 209 205. and salvation upon secret election only as if all that we knew of Infants salvation were that God would save some whom he hath elected but that there is no promise of Grace or Salvation to any particular Infant in the World as under any condition or qualification Whether they must not say that no Infant hath any Right to Pardon Grace and Salvation given him by the Covenant of Grace no more than any elect person at age hath before Faith and Regeneration And must they not say too that we have no assurance that God will save ten or three Infants in all the World For he hath not told us whether he hath elected so many Or that they may all or almost all be saved while the number of the Elect is unrevealed Or can they say that any more of the children of the faithful are saved than of the Heathens or Infidels of those that love God and keep his Commandment than of those that hate him Yea how can they have any proper hope upon Covenant-right that God will save any one Individual Infant in the World For how can we hope in this proper sence of any thing but what we do believe And how can we believe what is not promised or revealed And so must not Parents thus far be left hopeless And if God will save more yea V. p. 205 206. so great numbers as we hope are saved in Infancy than ever he promised to save and gave any Antecedent Right to Salvation to whether will it not open such a gap to the hopes of presumptuous Heathens and Infidels this way as will cross our common Doctrine As some will say why may he not do so also by Parents at least renewing them in transitu And further V. p. 1â—2 if God hath given no condition or character Antecedent as a differencing qualification of those that he will save from those that he will not but only told us that he will save whom he listeth whether this maketh not Infants to be no Subjects of his Kingdom under no Law and so liable to no Judgment nor to stand in judgment with the rest of the World but only to be used as Beasts or Stones by Divine natural motion as he will And then if there be no Law that giveth Right to pardon and salvation to any one Infant in the World and yet many are saved will it not follow that God is as the prophane say better than his word and will save many to whom he never gave right to it by promise Q. XXXVIII Though all that are saved V. p. 203 204. are saved for the meritorious righteousness of Christ by way of free gift yet whether the condition be not a sutable acceptance And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his child who hath no will to accept it for himself Shall he be certainly shut out unto damnation Or shall he have that gift absolutely which is conditional to all others Or is he not concerned in the Donation at all And have not Infants guilt and misery from their Parents And though life and pardon be by Christ only yet is it not congruous that the meer condition of acceptance may be performed by the Parents while they cannot accept for themselves Q. XXXIX V. p. 106 107. Whether it be no advantage for children to be under an early engagement to God and Jesus Christ Whether to dedicate them betimes to God doth not tend to secure God's right and childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery they being thus under a double Obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God And may it not do much to awe the minds of children yea V. p. 107. and cause them to love that Christ which hath received them and that Society to which they belong And is Infant-covenanting any hinderance in Nature or Reason from personal serious covenanting with God at age Do we not tell our children and all the adult that their Infant-covenanting by Parents will serve them but till they have Reason and will of their own to chuse for themselves If it were deferred till ripeness of age would not one part neglect it and continue Infidels V. p. 222 223. and another part do all formally as we see they do now at the other Sacrament where the same Covenant is to be renewed Is there not a better remedy that all that are baptized in Infancy should as understandingly and as seriously and if it may be conveniently as solemnly own and make that Covenant with God when they come to age as if they had never been baptized if not more as being more obliged Is it not much liker to tend to the good of Souls V. p. 109. and the propagating Christianity and the strength of the Church for to have both the obligation and comfort of our Infant-covenant and church-Church-state and as serious a covenanting also at age when we pass into the Church-state of the Adult than to be without the former and left only to the expectation of the latter Whether to be seriously devoted to God by our Parents first V. p. 223. and to be brought at age as seriously to devote our selves to him as any Anabaptist can do be not a much likelier way to fill the Church with serious Christians than to leave all men without an early Infant-obligation Q. XL. V. p. 156 157. Whether it can be proved that ever there was one Age or Church particular on Earth since Adam till about 200. years ago that the Anabaptists rose wherein Infants were not de facto taken for Members of the Church Q. XLI Whether it can be proved V. p. 157 104. that ever there was any one Infant of true Church-members that was not rightfully a Church-member himself from the Creation till Christ's dayes Or from the Creation till this day except the Anabaptists who reject the benefit whose case we will not presume to determine Q. XLII V. p. 157 158. Seeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the Creation to this day as far as any Records can lead us Is it likely that the Lord and Head and all sufficient Governour of his Church would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such Subjects as in regard of age be disallowed and suffered his Church to be wrong framed till now Or is it a reasonable modest and lawful undertaking to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new framed Church