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
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
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-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-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-baptism therefore Infants may be baptised And this Argument is sufficiently answered by saying There is no express Scripture for 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
Original Sin to some Infants only or the Salvation of their Souls dying such and by some Infants he means that some few of them only are visibly in that Estate and all the rest in a visible State of Damnation to Hell Torments still I deny his Minor. For God has not said and therefore Man ought not to say it that so much as one poor Infant shall be damned but he is so far from that that he has no Pleasure in the Death of the Wicked but rather that they turn and live and hath assured us that the Son should not bear the Iniquity of the Father which can only be true in respect of Damnation for all Infants do bear the Sin of their Father Adam and sometimes in temporal Punishments they bear the Sin of their immediate Parents 4. If his Arguments were so good natured as to allow Infants indefinitely to be in a visible State of Salvation viz. a declared Right to the Kingdom of Heaven as their dear Saviour hath testified they have yet I would deny the Consequence of his Major because the Covenant of Grace considered as abstracted from the Covenant of Circumcision never required the Application of any Ceremony to Infants as a Pledg of it either before the Law or as it is now established by our Saviour in the Gospel Oeconomy so that his Conclusion is far from Truth which tells the World that by the Will of Christ some Infants are to be baptized Now let us examine his Proof 1. He begins pag. 7. with Gen. 17. which speaks not one word of Baptism and himself tells us in the next Page That the Covenant in Gospel-times cannot be kept by Circumcision for that saith he is abrogated and ceased to be the Token of it so that Gen. 17. can be no Proof for his Minor. But he quotes Act. 2. 38 39. and Heb. 10. 16 17. And this he says is a full Command to baptise all in Covenant now But for Answer consider that no more are commanded in this place to be baptised than are first commanded to repent nor no more were baptised than gladly received the Word And the Promise is expresly of the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon all Parents and Children as God shall call them But no Command nor Promise respecting Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost before the Lord shall call them whether Parents or Children Again these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you and to your Children is not applicable to Children in Infancy but to a Succession or Posterity qualified for the things required and promised That Text he brings out of Heb. 10. tells us That God will write his Laws in the Minds and put them in the inner Part of his People under the new Covenant and that he will remember their Iniquities no more This is not meant of Infants who as they have no Iniquities for God to remember but only original Sin for him to pardon as to the condemning Nature of it so he never did remember their Iniquities Nor need they any Laws to be written in their Hearts during Infancy for they can understand none and God speaks not with them about the Observation of his Laws as he tells us Deut. 11. 2. The second Commandment is brought to prove Infant-Baptism but Mr. P. should know it does not command any particular Form of Worship at all Only this is true what God has elsewhere instituted and never repealed the second Commandment may serve to enforce the Performance of such things But here he beggs the Principle which he cannot prove no not by Gen. 17. Let us hear the most Learned of his way I mean in point of Infant-sprinkling speak their Judgments and these be their Words That Promise Gen. 17. 7. concerns literally peculiar Protection and worldly Felicity not the Remission of Sins and everlasting Life And another tells us to argue from Circumcision to Infant-Baptism is a cunning Argument by which it will follow that Females are not to be baptized Mr. P. tells us there is no Warrant to delay the Application of Baptism And I grant it But then he should consider that where there is no Authority nor Capacity to dispense Baptism there is no delay And this is the case of Infants Nor does their being under the merciful Covenant of Salvation by Christ oblige them to Duty in Infancy because they can perform none And therefore your arguing from Foederati to their being signati is better Rhyme than Reason for if you follow that Consequence it will unavoidably bring Infants to the Lord's Table where you will not be pleased with them And pray consider what Multitudes were foederati before and in and after Abraham's time who yet in your own Judgment were not signati such were the Patriarchs before-mentioned and those under their Conduct such were the thousands of Males who died before the eighth day in Israel Such were all the Females who alone were one half of Abraham's Seed all these were foederati yet were none of them signati What you are pleased here to add of some that can and some that cannot fall away As it 's impertinent so I think it far better for Men to cease such idle Disputes and to exhort one another daily to take heed that they do not fall away For my part I am far from thinking that any Man can stand by his own Strength or do any thing in Religion as he ought without the Help of God I likewise grant that God does much more for some than he does for all Men. Yet all this gives us no occasion or Authority to tell any Person in the World that it is impossible for him to fall so as to perish And if we may not tell another Man this confident Story it 's bad venturing to tell our selves that we cannot fall so I think it 's only proper to say of God He cannot lie and then it follows all Men may lie and this Lie may be their Ruin for ought they know Rev. 21. 27. I will not dispute whether there be a State attainable in this World in which Men shall certainly be saved I doubt it not but when Men have got to that degree is so hard to be demonstrated that I take him for no wise Man that will affirm it of himself or any other in particular It remains therefore the best way in the World to do as Paul did 1 Cor. 9. 27. Beat down the Body and bring it into Subjection lest while we preach to others we become Cast-aways And if any confident Gentleman shall here tell me the Word only intends reprovable I 'le make bold to tell him he does neither understand the Greek nor his own Heart much better than I do and that is not very perfectly I will assure him I have done with Mr. Petto's two main Arguments we will now consider his Auxiliaries Mr. Petto 's third Argument pag. 39. Some Infants are visibly Christ's and so
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
they covenant again which is commonly 20 30 or 40 years after they have sprinkled them For which strange Practice they have not the least Tittle in God's Word to warrant it and where then they can find a Rule for this Practice I know not I have been told that Mr. Firmin's Questions are taken by some to be unanswerable Let us therefore view them in his Words verbatim The first is thus Mr. Firmin's Quest I. Since God was so gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents and Children while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come Why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children the Jews now believing in Christ come Answer You must allow that the Covenant of Grace was not restrained to Abraham and his Seed but did belong to many at that time both Parents and Children many holy Patriarchs being then living and some outlived Abraham himself and yet none of these were concerned in the Covenant of Circumcision as made with Abraham Gen. 17. but only in the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam and Noah which had now continued more than 2000 years during all which time no Infant was concerned either in Circumcision or Baptism and yet were as much of the Church as was needful for their Salvation And hence a Man may very well answer your Question by asking you another Thus Since God was so gracious to make a Covenant with Adam and Noah and their Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents to practise his Ordinances and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life without being concerned in the Practice of Ordinances in their Infancy for more than 2000 years before Christ came Why may it not confist with his Grace to continue that Covenant of Grace made with Adam Noah and Abraham himself 24 years before he was circumcised and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents to practise his Ordinances and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life without being concerned in the Practice of his Ordinances in their Infancy since Christ is come especially considering that Christ himself did not appoint those very Infants who were brought to him to have his Ordinances imposed upon them If Mr. Firmin be not satisfied with this Reply then let me tell him it becomes no Man no not Mr. Firmin himself to propound such an unlearned Question which is guilty of no more reason than this Since God was so gracious and it did consist with his Wisdom to give Abraham a Command to offer up his beloved Son as a Sign of Christ to come why may it not consist with his Grace and Wisdom for us of our own Heads without any Command from God to offer up every one his dearest Child in remembrance that Christ is come Sir What may or may not consist with the Wisdom of God in relation to his Church-constitution and our serving him in matters of Religion must not be concluded from the likeness which we fancy to be between his former Institutions and our own or others Inventions but from such Directions as he has given us by the Messiah which was to teach us all things John 4. both concerning our selves and concerning our Infants And we do therefore know that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of God to constitute his Gospel-Church so as to impose Gospel-Ordinances upon Infants although he did impose Legal Ordinances upon them Because Christ who is the Wisdom of God hath revealed no such thing to his Apostles nor they to us And like as ye know it to be inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to bring little Children so into the Church as to partake of the Lord's Table because God hath required Faith and Humiliation in every one that comes to that holy Manducation So we do know it to be inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to bring Infants so into his Church as to partake of holy Baptism because Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken and Faith to believe God's Promises is required by him of those that he requires to be baptized You see then that we do not deny Infants to be of the Church in such sort as to obtain Salvation with them that shall be saved although we deny them to be in the Church in your sence But let us hear your second Question Mr. Firmin's Quest II. If God hath repealed his Covenant with the believing Jews Seed turned their Children out of the Church and deny them Baptism tho the Jews truly believe in Christ come what hath God left in the room of these that carry any shew of his Blessing or good Will towards their Children during their Infant-state Answer The Words Covenant and Church as used by Mr. Firmin are ambiguous I do not find that Abraham nor Isaac neither were out of the Church till they were circumcised It 's evident Abraham's Seed was in Covenant before they were eight days old even as it was a peculiar visible Church-Covenant else all that were uncircumcised for forty years in the Wilderness were out of the Church and Covenant Mr. Firmin himself believes that Infants are in the Covenant and in the Church also before they be sprinkled by him For this is the Minor of one of his Arguments p. 103. But Children of believing Parents are Church members and this before you sprinkle them Now Sir if your Doctrine be true then it is not our waiting for a fit time to baptize our Children which turns them out of the Church nor does God for our so doing turn them out of the Church any whit more than your waiting a fit time and you make it perhaps twenty thirty or forty years for your bringing your Children to the Lord's Table turns them out of the Church Indeed if they live to years and chuse sinful ways they then turn themselves out of that Relation they had to God and his People in their Infancy by virtue of God's gracious Covenant and they thus turning his Mercy into Jndgment shall perish whether yours or ours The Case is equal I need say no more to a wise Man. Yet I add That the believing Jews and their Infants also were now made free from the Jewish Church-state Gal. 5. 1. But neither they nor their Infants were deprived of any place in the Church which was needful for them in their respective capacities yet the Parents had many Duties upon them which the Infants had not and of these the Baptism of Repentance was one they had also Priviledges which the Infants had not of which the Lord's Table was one Yet the little Children had these Priviledges which the Children of Unbelievers had not First to be devoted to God by the Prayers of the Church warranted therein by the