Mercy to take away a Mercy except it be to give a greater Mercy in stead of it c. T. G. Though we might say much of the Justice of God in Repealing the Covenant of Circumcision and therewith the Infant Church-Membership once allowed in the Jewish Church yet how dare you say that this was to the hurt of any Person whether Infant or any other But we will abide by this that God made this Repeal in Mercy And how should you not see that to be set at Liberty from the Yoke of the Law and from Circumcision which made them Debtors to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. was all done in mercy And was it not needful to abrogate the first or old Covenant that he might establish the new or second Covenant In which though we have no particular order to admit Infants to the Duties of this Covenant yet we are sufficiently recompensed in the assurance given us by Christ concerning Infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven and his blessing them without Baptizing them that so they are as happy whilst Infants as we can desire they should be And is not this a greater Mercy than the Old Covenant did give to any Infant by Circumcision As for the Capacity of those who are concerned in the Duties of the Second Covenant is it not expresly thus That the Law of Christ should be put in their Hearts and written in their Minds Heb. 8. And So God to be their God and they to be his People as knowing him from the least of them to the greatest And whether in these respects any Infant can from Truth or Reason be said to be in the New Covenant And how then are they to be admitted Members of this Visible Company or Church seeing they know not God And yet is it not very evident that the Grace of the New Covenant extends to them from our Saviour's Testimony that of such is the Kingdom of God Again Was not Infants partaking of the Passover and other Sacrifices and Rites of the Law as great Mercies as their being circumcised And yet what Mercies of this kind was given them in the taking away of these and yet were they not all taken away in Mercy And whilst you deceitfully lay the stress of the word Mercy upon your Sprinkling of Infants do you not invalidate the substance of those Types which being come for the Salvation of Infants as well as others is their sufficient Passover though they cannot celebrate the memorial of it in Bread and Wine as the Adult ought and do And is not the true Jubilee which came by Christ a sufficient Gain in stead of the Jewish Jubilee both to the Adult and to Infants though neither the one nor the other hath any Jubilee in the nature of an Ordinance in stead thereof Especially not Infants seeing they know not the sound of the Gospel J. B. 7. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate meaning to be without hope but Church-Members c. T. G. Will Ephes 2. 12. prove that no Infants among the Gentiles were saved Does not that Scripture Rom. 2. 14 15 26 27. as clearly prove that the Gentiles which had not the Law and yet did by Nature fulfil the Righteousness of the Law shall be as much excused in the Day of Judgment as the Jews who kept the Law And do you not here espouse that Doctrine Out of the Church is no Salvation Not considering that the Vniversal Body of Christ may comprehend many that had never the opportunity to be incorporated into the Visible Company of such as worship God in the use of Legal or Gospel Institutions And will you thus damn all Infants in the World but those that are Sprinkled or Crossed by the Pedo-baptists And will not the Text Acts 2. 47. alleged by you if compared with Acts 5. 14. make against you Seeing those that were added to the Church were not Infants but Men and Women J. B. 8. If it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven nor hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth c. T. G. If I might follow your Fancy I might ask you what hurt it will be to the Church to see an Infant of a poor Indian in Heaven And why then do not you admit them here on Earth But is it not childish in you to suppose that any shall be Infants when in Heaven Seeing according to Austin they are called Infants A non fando because they cannot speak may we not more rationally believe that what is lost of stature and knowledg by the Sin of Adam shall be restor'd by the Righteousness of Christ And are not Infants as frequently seen in the Assemblies of the Baptists as in yours And do we not devote them to God in our Prayers as well as you And what do your Infants partake of except your Tradition of Sprinkling them which ours do not as fully enjoy And is it not as great a benefit to the Church to delay the Baptism of their little ones as to delay their coming to the Lord's Table If your delay make them more fit for the one does not ours make them more fit for the other If ours die without the one do not yours die without the other What cause then of your murmuring For who casts Infants out of the Church Is not this a Barbarism For if they be in we do all we are allowed of God to keep them there by timely Instruction and by imploring God's Blessing for them and you do no more only you Cross or Sprinkle them This is your all on this you build your hope for your dying Infants This your Tradition is therefore your Idol This is that small parcel of bad Wooll about which you make this hideous Cry as if God had no Mercy for poor Infants unless this be done Why are you so Imprudent DIVISION III. Concerning Rom. 11. 17. J. B. 1. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church Therefore the rest remained in the Gift was not Repealed Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members c. T. G. Here you seem to hold that the Church in her Legal state and in her Evangelical state were both one in such a sense as that he that by Faith was added to the Christian Church was not broken off from the Jewish Church Hence I Query Does not Paul plainly shew Rom. 7. 1. to 8. That the Christian Church was freed from the Law of her former Husband When therefore she ceased to be a Wife upon the account of the Law did she not then cease to be a Church on that account that she might now be married to another even to Christ and so bring forth Fruit unto God Why then should these words some were
And is it not therefore said Gen. 17. 14. That such Men children as were not Circumcised should be cut off from his People because they had broken the Covenant And is it not plain then that these Children were already in Covenant and of the Church else they could not be cut off And yet whether any thing here threatned concern the Eternal State of Infants Shall we think that God would damn them to Hell because their Parents neglected to Circumcise them Or is it like a Covenant of Grace to make such a Ceremony so absolutely necessary to the Salvation of Infants Now seeing Infants were not made Members of the Church much less of Heaven by Circumcision what need we assert the Repeal of their Membership in the Church as it contains the whole People of God but the Repeal of Circumcision is evident and there-withal they are freed from any Obligation to the Duties of Religion unless it can be shewed that God hath appointed the contrary which never yet could be shewed Thus if we give you all the advantage imaginable yet nothing accrues to your Cause from this instance of Circumcision till you can shew Authority from God to Baptize Infants as plain as they had to Circumcise Infants For does not one of your own Way tell us That Circumcision is a fine Historical Argument Mr. Brooks to illustrate a Point well proved before but is not this that wherein you always fail i. e. to prove by plain Scripture what you promised J. B. 11. If the Law of Infant Church-Membership was no part of the Ceremonial or meerly Judicial Law nor yet of the Law of Works how can you say it is Repealed seeing no other Laws are Repealed c. T. G. Whether these words The Law of Infant Church-Membership be a lawful Speech And by what Law will you make it good But not to contend about words if by Law you mean the Covenant of Grace made with lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. Then whether we do not assert it to be in force more fully than you do But if you mean any other Covenant save this for the often repetition of it makes it not another Covenant then we say it is your duty to assign or shew that Law or Covenant and we will consider it mean while take notice That for the Repeal of that temporary Order once used to admit Infants to Ceremonies in Religion is shewed and generally granted to be repealed in the Repeal of Circumcision and no Institution or Ceremony since the Repeal ordained for Infants and this is the Point in question Why then go you about to wheedle us with a noise of words of a Law of Infant Church-Membership unrepealed A Law c. unrepealed And whether you or Mr. Baxter either can in the sight of your own Consciences say that you well understand what you say And here I shall advertise the Reader that as the remainder of the Queries we are to reckon with are less specious than these we have examined so let it be remembred That we have granted and do now once more assert that by virtue of the Covenant of Grace made with fallen Adam and all Mankind in him Infants stand in a state of Grace published by God himself to Man so that they are visibly in a state of Salvation nor will God break this Covenant it is unalterable for he is faithful Infants do not transgress against it therefore they stand in this Covenant This Covenant was and is the Church-Covenant nâ—w confirmed by Christ the faithful Witness of it And by this Covenant Infants are Members of his Vniversal Church his Body that shall be saved In the time of the Law when this Covenant was much Vailed or hid under Shadows Rom. 16. 25 26. God was pleased to admit Infants to sundry of the Carnal Ordinances of the Law but now the Mystery of the Gospel being displayed to all Nations and the Worship of the Gospel being heightned to a very Spiritual Nature God hath not engaged Infants in these Services as he did in the time of the Law Our Adversary thinks otherwise this is our Difference try seriously and judg righteously DIVISION IV. About Infants visible Church-Membership J. B. 1. Is it not clear that there is an Vniversal visible Church and that every one that is a Member of a particular Church is also a Member of the Vniversal And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Vniversal and that this Vniversal is not dissolved Now must not he that will affirm the whole species of Infants are cast out of the Vniversal visible Church prove it well T. G. Whether this Query be not grounded on meer Fancies for though they that are Members of a particular Church are Members of the Universal Church yet dare you say or think that none are Members of the Universal which are not also Members of a particular Church Is not this the Dream with which you are Infatuated to hold the Damnation of all Infants yea of all Persons who are not Members of some particular Church And where do you find that Infants are cast out of the Universal Church if they are not Baptized is the Universal Church no larger than the Number of the Baptized Can you think that the Uncircumcised Infant was cast out of the Universal Church Suppose they were neglected till the 10th 20th or 40th day c. will you imagine them to be the Subjects of the Devil What strange conceits have you of God It 's true the Uncircumcised were cut off from the particular Society of the Jews but did that Society constitute the Universal Church Were none what not an Infant in all the World in a visible state of Salvation except those in that Society Me-thinks Rom. 2. well considered should teach you to think otherwise And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace if Infants be so liable to be cast out of the Universal Church as you suggest But why do you call the Universal Church Visible Is not this a visible Mistake And whether the latter part of this Query be pertinent unless it be against your self For if the removal of Persons whether Infants or others out of a particular Church be no found Argument that they are removed out of the Universal Church then seeing the visible Professors of the Truth in this World are but a part and perhaps no very great part of the Universal Church may not Infants remain in the Universal Church though not incorporated or imbedied with any particular Church practizing the Ordinances of God J. B. 2. Is not that false Doctrine which makes the Children of the Faithful to be in as bad or a worse condition than the Curse Deut. 28. 32 41. doth make the Children of Covenant-breakers to be in c. T. G. Is not this an injurious surmise As if none were blessed in the Fruit of their Body but you whose Infants are Crossed or Sprinkled But who puts Infants out of the whole
Church-Membership And yet I do not at all doubt that Infant-Baptism will remain without any ground at all SECT II. And this I shall demonstrate by shewing That all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Vniversal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed state till by their voluntary departure from God by choosing sinful ways they destroy themselves And here we will make our entrance by a passage out of Mr. Baxter himself who 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 Mr. Baxter's more Reasons pag. 8. 6. 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 First 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 therefore no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant And then fifthly They all stand visible Members of the Catholick 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 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 that is named 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 justifie the Offenders in the â—ight 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 by any means redeem his Brother nor give to God a Ransom for him 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 that was to proceed from Adam and this Covenant yet remaining it follows against all contradiction that whole Mankind considered as they come into the World in all the several Ages of it are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Catholick 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 Covenant accommodated and appropriated to those who had not sinned themselves out of it but still the Innocent must not be ejected with the Nocent for it is he only that sinneth whose Name shall be blotted out of the Book which God hath written Gen. 32. 32 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in settling the Covenant of his Grace nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham was exclusive of any Infant in the World as to the Grace of God in order to Eternal Life no more than the establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel in a far more excellent order for distinguishing the Precious from the Vile is in any wise exclusive of any dying Infant for of such is the Kingdom of God 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 Judge of all the Earth will do right That the Condemned shall be judged according to the deeds done in the Body but alas as for poor Infants what have they done 2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind is thus cleared 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 hath 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 shew him the cause Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted It should seem God never rejected him till this time neither did he now delight to reject him but graciously expostulates with Cain to convince him of his evil and assures him of acceptation if he did well If then Cain had an interest in the Grace of God who can we suppose to be shut out 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 the long suffering of God waited on 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 with them even for them that rebel against him and so perish And then how shall we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants who never rebelled against him 3. The Covenant of Grace 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 held forth in that Covenant but the Covenant cannot be repealed for then there can be no certainty of any Mercy for Sinners Christ himself may as soon be made Null as this Covenant For what if some Apostatize or do not believe shall this make the Grace of God without effect God forbid When we continually see that Covenant of God's Grace displayed making overtures of kindness to Sinners even to the chief of Sinners what shall we say if any Infant be without a part in that Covenant Is he not then the chief of Sinners It is not then the Sin of Parents that can repeal the Covenant of Grace with respect to Infants 4. No Infants did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam
THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Infants Church-Membership and BAPTISM Epitomized In two TREATISES The First Shewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants against the Doctrine of the Paedo-Baptists who deny Salvation to all Infants that die Unbaptized either directly or by the natural Consequence of their Arguments The Second Being a plain Confutation of Mr. J. B. his second Book of more than 60 Queries about Infants Church-Membership and Baptism by a proportionable number of Antiqueries Being an Essay towards a more Christian Accommodation between the Paedo-Baptists and the Baptized Believers Published for that happy end By THOMAS GRANTHAM Author of The Querist Examined wherein Fifty Queries gathered and propounded by the said J. B. are Redargued Mr. Baxter tells us in his Saints Rest p. 179. 3 d Edit That in the Primitive Times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the World the Flesh and the Devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey Him LONDON Printed in the Year 1680. To Mr. J. B. Collector of the Queries c. SIR I Shall here requite your Thanks you gave me in your last by returning Thanks to you for your endeavours for Peace among differing Christians and particularly for the terms propounded for an Accommodation and I find the same delivered lately by Mr. Baxter himself for which I return him thanks also For methinks there wants but a little more than is offered towards the obtaining so much Union between the Baptists and Paedo-Baptists as might make them a great Blessing one to another But Sir now give me leave to blame you and Mr. Baxter also for misrepresenting your Friends the Baptized Churches Whilst you in your Epistle and he in his Books do represent us to the World as a People who exclude Infants from Gospel Grace deny them to be capable of Pardon by a gracious Covenant as if we left all Infants in the Kingdom of the Devil took away all Comfort from Parents concerning their dying Infants When yet it is most certain all these things are utterly untrue and it is also certain that our Doctrine concerning dying Infants is far more comfortable than yours as I am persuaded will appear to such as read the ensuing Treatises And I am also persuaded could there be once a free and friendly Debate between the Baptists and Pedo Baptists about Infants interest in the Covenant of Grace and the certainty of their Salvation by Christ without incumbring that Discourse with Baptism it were easie to compose their Difference in that Point Which done it 's hoped might be no impossible thing to accommodate their difference in the case of Baptism it self But whilst these two things are confounded Disputes are Perplexed in so much as that a right understanding can hardly be attained on either side Nor do many Readers understand what Mr. B. means when he would have Infants admitted Members of the Visible Church by the Law of Infants Church-Membership unrepealed any more than they know what is intended on Mr. T 's part by their being taken to be Members by a Transient Fact both passages being too occult for every Reader Sir let me say this farther Could but the Reformed Christians once get over this stumbling-block of Paedo-Rantism and resolve upon the way of Believers Baptism which is so perspicuous in the Scripture and in the mean time take the most solemn way which might be warrantable to dedicate their Infants to God in the Name of Christ It would certainly prove the best Expedient to bring down the Papal Confidence for as they know and acknowledg that usage to stand upon the authority of Tradition and not upon the Scripture Warrant so they glory over the Protestant for his Inconstancy in denying unwritten Tradition and yet their very Baptism hath no other Foundation But were the Doctrine of Baptism purged from this Leven and restored to its Primitive Purity it would find all the Universities of the Papists as much business to defend their Infant Sprinkling as ever they were at to defend their Transubstantiation What you write concerning my Querist Examined I shall take little Notice of especially for that I find it attended with overmuch Levity and at the most is but a kind of Carping at Words rather than a solid Answer and there seems to me an unwillingness in you to understand what you flirt at about the Messenger's Office and about Imposition of Hands which being no Scriptureless Matters as your Paedo-Rantism is requires your more serious thoughts whether you understand or like my Sentiments there or not I am your Real Friend THO. GRANTHAM The Controversie of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism Epitomized The first Treatise shewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants SECTION I. IT is evident by the Writings of many Paedo-Baptists both Papists Prelatists and Presbyterians that they do all either hold absolutely that no Unbaptized Infant can be saved or at least that their Salvation is very doubtful And among these Mr. Baxter and from him Mr. J. B. hath not a little amused the Minds of Men about this Matter Only they have used a more subtle way coupling the Church-Membership of Infants with Baptism confounding thereby the Readers and themselves too they not being able to say which hath the Precedency for if Infants be Church-Members without or before they be Baptized let them say so and let them prove it well I shall be glad to see it done But then let them never say as Mr. J. B. doth in his Epistle and Mr. Baxter in his Books That Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation that Parents can have no comfort of their dying Children Making Baptism the soveraign Antidote against their Griefs and Fears when they are removed in Infancy As will appear more fully in the Examination of the Queries in the second Treatise Now this new art of pleading for Infant-Baptism by virtue of their Church-Membership and not from the Scriptures directly as others have assayed to do but could never perform the Task and therefore have been forced to take sanctuary with the Papists in unwritten Traditions and that with ill success I say considering this new Subtilty of Mr. Baxter I perceived the Controversie to rise very high and Questions thereupon to be greatly multiplied especially upon the Point of Infants Church-Membership Hereupon I thought it needful to consider this Matter for I perceived very good Men engaged on both sides and as I conceive much more straining in the Point than needed by which means the Reader shall sooner fill his Head with amazement than satisfaction in tracing the several windings of their Disputations Nor do I think my self wiser than they but having the advantage to stand and view whilst they engage I hope I have thereby been led to the consideration of a Medium which if duly considered and improved by better Pens than mine will I am much persuaded reconcile the difference about Infants visible
Gen. 3. 15. therefore no Infant was 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 to their Infants as the Sin of Adam made his Posterity guilty of the breach of the first Covenant we may then justly cry out Who then can be saved And therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Testament for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament Heb. 9. 15. Wherefore seeing Infants stand acquitted from the Trespasses against the First Testament and having not sinned against the Grace of the Second Testament they cannot come into the Condemnation of Hellish Torments The Papists themselves as * Witness the Massacre in Ireland Cruel as they sometimes are to the Bodies of Infants yet are more merciful to their Souls than the Presbyterians For they say That Infants shall only suffer the punishment of Loss but not of Torment Whilst the other tells the World Infants of a Span long are yelling in the flames of Hell 5. That all dying Infants or Infants in general are to be accounted Members of the vast Body or Catholick Church of which Christ is the Saviour finally is evident because they are all 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 therefore but to prove all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation which I shall further clear by answering what is objected against their Salvation by Mr. J. B. my present Adversary who saith Page 9. SECT III. I gave you thanks before for some things before granted concerning Infants and I here promise more thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants Answer 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 concern'd and so have the same Right And I hope you will not say that any Infant did forfeit this gracious Right by abusing the Grace of the Covenant And then Mr. B. tells you the Covenant is not vain nor repealed by God nor they cast out of it My Proves are such as these Infants are either all Saved dying such or some of them are Damned But none of them are Damned therefore they are all Saved See more of this anon 2. Our Saviour saith It is not the Will of his Heavenly Father that one of those little ones should perish which is certainly as true of Infants as of any Persons in the World 3. Christ dying for all Infants and they do not sin themselves out of the benefit of his Death Shortly thus God will not Damn any no not one of these little ones Men and Devils cannot Damn them they cannot Damn themselves Ergo Christ's dying for them will save them all See the conclusion of this Treatise SECT IIII. J. B. Pag. 11. The overthrow of both these Generations in the Deluge is a strange Medium to prove the Salvation of all Infants c. Answer I do not say that God's destroying the Infants of those that were called his Sons Gen. 6. as well as the Infants of others was an Evidence of God's saving any of them But this I do say That it was an Evidence that they were all in one State or Predicament And how would you or any Body else prove so much as one Infant in all the Old World was saved eternally better than I shall prove the Salvation of them all And shall we suffer it to enter into our Hearts that they were all Damned When therefore we reade 2 Pet. 2. 5. That God brought the Flood upon the World of the ungodly And Jude ver 7. 't is said of those who suffered the Vengeance of Eternal Fire That they were given over to Fornication and went after strange Flesh may we not perceive some Light which may guide us to believe that God did not plead in such Wrath against the Infant-seed as he did against the Wicked themselves And though it is true God suffered the Infants to die with the wicked Parents yet that is no Argument of God's condemning them to Hell Torments For did not the same God suffer his Servant Sampson to die by the fall of the Theatre among the wicked Philistines And we see the Righteous often taken away by the same common Calamities which have befallen Nations and Cities Let us remember how tender the Lord was of the Infants in Nineveh and it may convince us he was tender to Infants in the Old World And he that made those little ones an Argument to justifie his sparing Nineveh against the murmuring of Jonah would certainly make that an Argument for us to believe That had his Judgments proceeded against that City according to the Prophesie of Jonah yet he would have distinguished between the Innocent and the Nocent in respect to their future State and Condition for it was not the Wickedness of the Infants which cried to Heaven but of the Adult When we consider how hardly Almighty God was drawn to inflict those Judgments upon Mens Bodies though grievous Sinners in the Old World in Sodom Gen. 18. and frequently where we reade of the Execution of his Judgments it may justly seem very strange that Men should think that God can be so easily provoked to damn Infants to Hell Torments for him I say to damn poor Infants in Eternal Fire who was so hardly drawn to Inflict on the Ninevites Children so much as a Temporal Judgment Nay he is unwilling to destroy the very Cattel for Man's Sin Jonah 4. which are only capable of Temporal Punishment And can it become us to think that God will send Millions or any poor dying Babes to Hell And pray what have they done thus highly to stir up his Wrath against them Shew the Cause if you can J. B. To the Text Rom. 5. The Free-gift abounded towards all Men to Justification of Life You answer This all must be restrained to all in Christ But by your favour There is none so out of Christ as they come into the World but God hath provided Mercy for them in Christ John 1. 29. so that here is no restraint of the Justification here spoken of till Men abuse the Mercy of God by sinning against their own Souls Nor can your restriction which I suppose would limit this Free-gift to the Elect only hold agreement with the scope of the place for seeing Mankind or all Men are Personated as well in the second as in the First Adam
supposed to close with our Way before they have tried it Seeing we put all Men upon it and have no Honours Profits or Pleasures in this World as you have to engage them to our Way 't is the evidence of our Cause that doth it J. B. 6. Is the overthrow of a Man's former weak Grounds the overthrow of the Truth which he held c. T. G. Is not the overthrow of your former weak Grounds for Infant-Baptism the overthrow of the Cause it self till you or some body else bring Grounds of sufficient strength to support it J. B. 7. Is not one sound Argument enough to prove any thing true What if all the Text's that are brought were put by save one is not that enough T. G. Have not we desired you to produce but one sound Argument and one clear Text to prove Infant-Baptism true with promise that shall suffice But in stead of this have you not sent us hundreds of false Grounds and many Texts abused in these and your former Queries J. B. 8. Are not evident Consequences drawn by Reasen from Scripture as true Proof as the very express word of the Text Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant Baptism as Christ brought for the Resurrection Mat. 22. 31 32 c. T. G. Should not the Practice of Christ and his Apostles outvy such Consequences inferr'd by the most Learned when the said Consequences fight against plain Scripture Presidents as Acts 2. 38. to 41. Acts 8. 12. Gal. 3. 26 27. But who could ever prove that all Church-Members as She contains all the saved whether Jews or Heathens must be Baptized Might it not more strongly be pleaded that all Church-Members must be admitted by Faith from Gal. 3. 26. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God must FIRST believe that God is And how shall all Infants believe on him of whom they have not heard Rom. 10 And who taught you to make Baptism more necessary to Church-Membership than Faith But why should your Consequences be made of equal Authority with Christ's For he could not be deceived but you may And why may not our Consequences be as valuable as yours specially seeing ours agrees with Christ's own Practice John 4. 1. as we know yours do not J. B. 9. Should not the former and present Customs of the holiest Saints and Churches be of great weight to humble and moderate Christians in Cases controverted and beyond their reach T. G. Should not the undeniable Custom of the first Churches immediately governed by Christ and his Apostles be of more weight with humble and moderate Christians than the Custom of any since their times And whether your Conscience do not tell you we follow the Custom of the first Churches Also whether there hath not very holy Men in many Ages since Christ opposed Infant-Baptism as well as in these latter Times Nay is not the first clear mention of it gathered from them that opposed it Such were Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to be for the delay of Baptism to Children till they could understand it And though it is alledged that Nazianzen was not against it in danger of Death yet whether this be not rather against than for Infant-Baptism seeing they might as safely die without it as live without it For did it in his judgment more please God that Infants should live unbaptized How then can their dying so be displeasing to him Were not the Children among the Jews as much accepted who lived seven days Uncircumcised and died before the eighth day as if they had lived till the eighth day and then have been Circumcised And may we not hence conclude that seeing God hath not made the Age of any Person a Rule in the case of Baptism as he did in the case of Circumcision but hath made it proper to the time of the New Birth at what time soever it shall happen that Nazianzen his supposed allowance of Infant-Baptism in danger of Death was groundless But why do you arrogate the greatest Holiness to your Parts which agree with you in the case of Infant-Baptism Why holiest Saints Why holiest Churches Though I wish you more holy than you are and honour what Christian Vertues I see in any of your Party yet let me faithfully tell you that your Churches by means of your Pedo baptism are become the unholiest generally of all the Christian Churches in the World And how can it be otherwise When by this means you take in not only those that 〈◊〉 God and work Righteousness in every Nation but the whole Nations themselves the greatest part whereof God knows are very far from Holiness J. B. 10. Is this Controversie in it self considered of so great moment as some would make it Why then was it not in the Creed Doth not the Apostle speak of Baptism as a small part of his Work in comparison of Preaching c 1 Cor. 1. 14. 17 c. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not not he that is not Baptized shall be damned c. T. G. Whether you Pedo-baptists do not make this Controversy of greater moment than any others whilst the greatest number of you to wit the Papists and many Prelatists do teach that none no not Infants can be saved without Baptism or desire of Baptism And whether you say any less Bishop Gunning Query 17. when you tell us Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation without your Church-Membership and Baptism And do you not then make it more Fundamental and absolutely Necessary than the Baptists do who only say not the want but the contempt of Baptism damneth And what though baptism be not mentioned in the Creed which you call the Apostles Creed though you never be able to make that saying good according to the exactness of speech yet seeing Baptism is mentioned in that Summary of Christian Doctrine Heb. 6. 1 2. which may more certainly be called the Apostles Creed than that by you so named doth it not thence follow that Baptism is necessary to the beginning of a Christian Man Or will you say that any Man can be admitted into the Christian Profession to partake of the Lord's Table without Baptism And what need was there to say Mark 16. 16. He that is not Baptized shall be damned When it s to be supposed he that believeth not will not desire to be Baptized Luke 7. Neither indeed ought he to be Baptized because he believeth not Acts 8. And if all Christ's Commands great and small are to be obeyed as you grant then why not this Acts 2. 38 REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOV And though it be true that Paul esteemed and that rightly Preaching to be a greater work than Baptizing Yet when 〈◊〉 he hinder any for being Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance as you do Or where did he shew any zeal at all for Pedobaptism as
Sun Moon and Stars are Christ's Disciples too for they are called God's Servants Psal 119. 90 91. Rub your Eyes from the mist they have attracted by poring upon Mr. Baxters Fables and know that God will shew all the Mercy to Infants which they have need of as is shew'd before though he give them not all the Mercies which he gives to some and particularly this mercy of Discipleship which they have no need of during Infancy sith they cannot discern between the right Hand and the left But you query still Whether the Infants of the Gentiles were so God s Servants as the Infants of the Jews were And do you not here fairly grant that all Infants are God's Servants though not SO as the Jews Infants were But you will not say that all Infants are Christ's Disciples And then have you not confuted your own Fancy seeing it's plain from your own words that the Title of Servants does not necessarily infer the Title of Disciples And why may not God set more by one Servant and so by one Infant than by another and yet love them all sufficiently and may not this satisfie your demand why God should should grant a Year of Jubilee to the Jews and their Infants when he granted not that Mercy to others Else what will become of all Christians and their Infants for pray Sir when had they such a Jubilee as the Jews were allowed once in Fifty Years And yet I hope we have no cause to murmur against God as if he were not Merciful enough both to us and to our Infants J. B. 3. Are not Infants capable of being Subjects of Christ's Kingdom and is not Christ's Church his Kingdom and his School Are not all Subjects of Christ in his Visible Kingdom or Church Christians And are not Disciples and Christians all one Acts 11. 26 c. T. G. What if we grant that Infants are Subjects of Christ's Visible Kingdom in respect of his Purchase common Protection the Designation of them to his Service on the part of true Christians and in respect of the Blessing of Heaven it self Yet how doth it follow hereupon that they are capable of all the Priviledges of his Visible Kingdom Much less of the Duties of his Subjects And do you not your own selves exclude them during Infancy from all Priviledges and Duties of Religion as much as we do except your supposed Baptism And where do you find that any Infants are called Christians Certes the Text Acts 11. 26. says no such thing I see no ground to call any Infant by the name of its Parents Religion for then the Child of a Papist must be called a Papist the Infant of a Presbyterian must be a Presbyterian the Infant of a Quaker a Quaker c. But is not that saying of Tertullian more rational We are not born saith he but made Christians J B. 4. Whether were not some Infants once to be admitted Members of the Visible Church by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God not yet Repealed T. G. Whether Infants once admission to particular Ordinances in the Church be part of the Moral or Ceremonial Law How could it be a part of the Moral Law seeing it had no being in the World till Abraham's time Was not the Moral Law observed by the Faithful in all Ages When yet there was no such admission of Infants to Ordinances in the Church Seeing then this Admission must be a part of the Ceremonial Law was it not for the time being the merciful Gift of God and was not the whole Ceremonial Law the same And yet whether the taking away of the whole Ceremonial Law was not a Mercy and consequently that Admission of Infants by that Law done away in Mercy also And seeing Infants could then but belong to the Kingdom of Heaven with that painful admission by Circumcision is it not a greater Mercy for them to be declared by Christ to be the Children of God and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven without it Matth. 18. 10. And is not this spoken of little ones indefinitely seeing else it will follow Men may despise some of them but does not our Saviour include them all in this speech That which was lost How then can you exclude any of them when he saith He came to seek and to save that which was lost J. B. 5. Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord that he might establish them to be a People to himself Deut. 29. 1â— 11 12. 13. And were not Infants engaged by the Seal of the Covenant Circumcision c. T. G. Whether this Covenant Deut. 29. was not made for many before they were born How then could it be a Covenant for Admission of them to Visible Church-Membership Or dare you say that Infants were by this Covenant obliged to any Act of Obedience in Infancy And how then does it suit your Case Again Do you think it would be lawful by this or any other Law for Christians to enter into a Covenant Oath and a Curse as the Israelites did that our Children should be of our Religion Or are your Infants bound by your Solemn League and Covenant to be for the Presbyterian way of Religion And what ground have we to believe that God will establish our Children for his People as he did promise to the Children of Israel i. e. To be a glorious Nation above all the Nations of the Earth Can you prove that such Promises are made to the Christian Church militant Or doth not Mr. Baxter himself sometimes say all that need be said or can be rightly said on these words Ero Deus tui seminis It sufficeth saith he that God will be to them a God of Mercy Mr. B. Friend Accom p. 361. and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum And we demand whether God did not thus much for all Infants in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace which he confesses is not Vain nor Repealed by God Did he not do all that was necessary to put them into a state of Salvation for the condition of little ones If Infants were engaged by Circumcision as you here observe then they were not Visible Church-Members without it And then doth it not plainly follow that Circumcision being Repealed this their Visible Church-Membership is Repealed also Or will you say they remained in Visible Church-Membership without an Ordinance and so destroy your Master-piece in one Member of it And let that Typical Membership be accounted as it was a merciful Gift yet when the Antitype made that Type null it was a great mercy that it ceased nor shall we fail of proof in this case 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. cum multis aliis J. B. 6. Dare any of you say that God hath Repealed Infants Church-Membership to their hurt in Justice Or can you say it is in Mercy for their good How can it be a
to believe our Infants as happy though not Baptized as any Infant of the Faithful in the Old World And did not Augustine think Infants as miserable if they died without the Lord's Supper as you think them to be if they die without being Crossed or Sprinkled And yet do not you believe he was deceived And are we not as justifiable to believe that you are also deceived Is it not as needful to feed upon Christ in the holy Supper as to put on Christ in holy Baptism Can you have comfort concerning your Infants in the want of the one and must we have none concerning our Infants in the want of the other And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. if Infants can have no benefit by it but on the condition of their Parents works of bringing them into the Church by your Tradition as you suggest in the latter part of this Query J. B. 7. If the Church be not in a worse state now will it not follow that our Children ougbt to be admitted Church-Members c. T. G. Whether this be not a false suggestion which keeps company with most of your Queries viz. That all Infants which are not brought to some Rite or Ceremony are put out of the Church Were the Infants of six days old in Israel put out of the Church Did not thousands of Infants die before they were admitted to Circumcision And if they were in the Church before it were lawful to Circumcise them why may not ours be in the Church as well as the Infants of six days old in Israel before and until it be lawful to Baptize them May we not do well to nurture and fit them for Baptism as they nursed and fitted them for Circumcision And what though our Work may require more Years than they theirs did Days yet we making all the speed that God requires are we not as excusable as they And what though some of our Children die before they can be fitted for Baptism Did not some of theirs die before they could be fitted for Circumcision And why may not we have comfort in our disappointments by Death as well as they when so disappointed And suppose our Children refuse to be Baptized when they come to understanding and will not be fitted for it by all that we can do what comfort would it be to have had them Sprinkled in their Infancy when now we find them reject Faith and Repentance the most substantial parts of true Baptism J. B. 9. If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church are they not in a worse condition than the very Children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ T. G. Do you not abuse the World to talk at this rate as if either God or we put Infants out of the Church when the only Question is about their admission to such or such Duties of Religion Wherein yet you do the same in many cases as I have shewed which we do in the case of Baptism And if any have in the heats of Disputation absolutely denied Infants to be of the Church yet you know their sence is only to deny your way of making them Church-Members Not but that they all assert Infants to be of the Body of Christ of the number of the saved and so of the Church And I here assert they are of the Visible Church because by the Word of God declared to be accepted of God to the Grace of Life through Christ But we put no Infants out of the Church For example I have had many Children for which I give thanks to God as soon as he gives them to me I do by Prayer to God devote and heartily commit them to him and by his Grace I do my best to teach them the Knowledg and Fear of God as they grow up and I bless God with this success that all that yet are capable have been Baptized And now wherein am I to be charged for putting my Children out of the Church And if I be Innocent as I know I am in this then I hope the Churches of the same Faith are as excusable And whether if there were faithful Ministers of Christ in every Parish it might not be a more likely way to bring Souls to true Christianity to instruct the Children twice or thrice a Week especially such Children whose Parents cannot instruct them as soon as they could learn and so to fit them for Baptism than to run to the Minister with them to be Baptized in their Infancy when God knows neither the Infants Priests nor their Parents know what they do J. B. 9. Was not the Covenant Deut. 29. 10 11 12. a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Law which was Repealed How then is it or Infants Church-Membership grounded on it Repealed c. T. G. Seeing this Covenant Deut. 29. obliged the Israelites to the whole Law and left them under the Curse of the Law if they kept it not as appears by reading Deut. 29. and 30th Chapters will it not follow that all the parts of this Covenant was not of the Covenant of Grace Indeed some things repeated or expressed here might pertain to the Covenant of Grace But what then Why Infants Church-Membership say you is grounded upon it And I pray who denies that by the Covenant of Grace Infants are Members of Christ of his Body or the Universal Church But what then must they therefore be brought to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church visibly professing the Worship of God in all Ages as much as in any Age This indeed is your false Inference and with this you delude your self and others And how long will it be ere you make the Covenant Deut. 29. and 30. agree with that which you quote out of Rom. 10. Heb. 10. in all Points And if they differ in any thing why may it not be in this the one admitted Infants to Circumcision and other Rites of the Law the other only brings those that know the Lord by the word of Faith being in their Heart and Mouth to partake of Institutions of the Gospel J. B. 10. If Infants then were entered Members by that Circumcision which was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith How comes that Church-Membership to be Repealed T. G. Not to contend with you whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any that had not the Faith of Abraham though plain Truth and all good Reason seems to be full against you yet to concess a little to see the most you can say how do you prove that none were Church-Members before they were Circumcised And how was Abraham admitted a Member of the Church by Circumcision Was he not a Member of the Church before he was Circumcised Was not Isaac a Member of the Church before he was eight Days old Were they not Circumcised because God had taken them into a Church-Covenant rather than to enter them into a Church-Covenant
the World But in good earnest whether we or you be really and indeed the most charitable to Infants let him that reades these Books impartially judg And how your practice of Pedo-baptism hath propagated Christ's Kingdom may be sadly seen among the Papists where yet Pedo-baptism is more common than with you And how his Kingly Government is opposed by your withstanding his Counsel against your selves is too evident Men have a knack to pretend Christ's Kingdom when it is their own that they strive to set up and 't will be well if you do it ignorantly J. B. 5. Whereas we tell Sinners of the heinous aggravation of their Sins as committed after Baptism Whether you that make Infant-Baptism a Nullity dare undertake to bear the burthen of that Aggravation for them c. T. G. Whether you deceive them not in telling them they are Baptized when they are not Yet how dare you charge us for going about to extenuate any Sin at any time more than your selves And whether does not Mr. B. himself make Infant-Baptism a Nullity When he saith to the Adult notwithstanding their Infant-Baptism They were never strictly nor comfortably in Covenant with Christ till they freely consent and saith he it was never a match till now And then is not this the fit time to Seal the Covenant as you speak for he saith their Infant-Covenant will not now serve Saints Everlasting Rest P. 178 182. J. B. 6. Whether it should not lie heavy on tender Consciences to add to God's Word holding the Repeal of the Ordinance of Infant Church-Membership How doleful is it that any Christians should be so zealous to dispute their Children out of Christ's Church and whether they may not have as many thanks from Christ as the Disciples had for keeping such from him T. G. Whether this be not the great evil of Mr. B. to add to God's Word telling the World he has given plain Scripture-proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism when in truth there is not one word for their being admitted Church-Members by Baptism And whether we do not sufficiently evince that we dispute no Infant out of the Church of Christ though we deny them to be admitted by Baptism And wherein the Christian Man's Infants have a blessing in the timely Dedication of them to God as far as the Christian hath allowance from Christ to bring them to him which others have not who are born of those that know not God have we not likewise shewed in our first Book and now also in this And whether for all this Noise Mr. B. does not make Infant Church-Membership a meer Trifle unless they be sprinkled when that 's all the cause of the Cry that they have no sound grounded hope concerning them and that for this cause they are supposed to be left in the Kingdom of the Devil And whether Christ will give Mr. Baxter more thanks for THUS disputing unbaptized Infants out of Heaven than he gave to Austin for disputing Infants out of Life Eternal because they were not Communicated with at the Lord's Table And whether it be not a good wish that Mr. Baxter may see his Mistake in the former as 't is supposed by some that Austin saw his Mistake in the latter The Conclusion FOrasmuch as Mr. Baxter and from him Mr. J. B. have delivered a very modest Proposal for more Concord among Christians who differ about the Point of Infant-Baptism by which it seems to me that notwithstanding the severity of their Queries and their stiffness in fighting for the Point of Infant-Baptism with such intentness yet this is more to let us see what they conceive may be said then what they believe is necessary to be said in that case I will therefore set down the said Proposal and intreat all my Friends that differ from them in the Point in Controversie to take it into consideration being loth at present to give an Answer to it because it is a matter of moment and common concern Mr. B ' s. Proposal THat if you would be contented your selves to satisfie your own Consciences to be Rebaptized as one that doubted whether he were well Married would secure it by being Married over again or as one that doubted his Ordination would be Ordain'd again and would afterwards live peaceably in Communion with your Brethren and not appropriate Church-Communion to your own Sect And if you would not deny our Infants Church-Membership and only deferred the Baptismal Investiture for the more solemn Inauguration and Obligation Though I should not be of your mind I would live in as loving forbearance and Communion with you as with other Christians FINIS
broken off be understood to suppose that some yet did stand by God's Appointment in the former Church Or is it not evident that Mens eagerness to stand in the Old Church which now was ceased de jure was the cause why they were rejected Again Is it not said of the believing Gentiles That they were grafted in among the Branches to wit the Jews sure this is not meant of the Jews that stood in the House of Moses or the Old Church-state but of the Church or House which was builded by Christ for Old things were passed away all things became New Wherefore now consider seeing the believing Jews themselves did not stand by virtue of their Old Church-Membership that being now Repealed Matth. 3. 9. Rom. 7. 4 5 6. whether it be rational to imagin that the Infant Church-Membership which was of the same Law should yet remain And wherefore do you so boldly say the believing Parents do remain in the same Church But further Is it safe by the good Olive Rom. 11. to understand the Jewish Church Was not Paul willingly broke off from that Church Phil. 3. that he might be in Christ Is it not more safe to understand the place of Abraham not as a Natural Father for so the Gentiles could no more be grafted into him than into the Jewish Church But as a Spiritual Father into whom as such the Faithful were grafted or rather into his Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed even Christ the true Vine and the Faithful both Jew and Gentile are the Branches united to him J. B. 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief T. G. And is there any thing more clears the Point that this breaking off was not from the Jewish Church for their unbelief caused them to stand in that Church And seeing these two things are both evident that the breaking off here meant was by unbelief and the standing here meant is by Faith is it not thence very evident that the poor Infants are not concern'd either in this kind of breaking off or this kind of standing in the Olive Tree Alas poor Souls what have they done Have not Infants a more sure interest in Christ than to be jetted into or out of him by the Faith or Unbelief of Parents What wise Man will think so And what need have we or any Body else to talk of the Invisible Church it being a thing unknown to Man And suppose this Olive Tree be meant of the Visible Church Christian walking in all the Commands and Ordinances of Christ blameless yet seeing no Natural Branches as such do stand in this Olive Tree but must be grafted in by Faith before they can stand there Is it not evident even hence that no Infant meerly as the Seed of a Believer is concern'd in the Duties of this Church seeing the very Natural Branches of Abraham himself have not that priviledg on that account J. B. 3. If it be into their own Olive Tree which they were broke off from and of which they were Natural Branches that the Jews shall be engrafted at their recovery as Rom. 11. 24. then how is God's Ordinance for Infant Church-Membership Repealed c. though they be not restored to the Mosaical Law or Covenant of Peculiarity but taken into the Catholick Church T. G. Though it be never so true that the Jews upon their return shall be grafted into their own Olive viz. Abraham as a Spiritual Father and into Christ the Promised Seed in whom all Nations are blessed yet do you not here fairly grant that they shall not be grafted into the Covenant of Peculiarity or Mosaical Law And then whether their bringing Infants to the Mysteries of Religion which was one main thing which was peculiar to the Jewish state is not consequently granted by you to be now Repealed unless you can prove that the Catholick Church hath Command from Christ to bring their Infants to the Mysteries of Religion And who exyour selves did ever exclude the Jews Infants from the Catholick Church viz. the Assembly that are written in Heaven But how will you prove that the Infants of the Jews or any dying Infants are cast out of that Church Or are not all those of the Catholick Church who are of the Kingdom of God And does not Christ state Infants there without excepting any J. B. 4. Is it not the same Olive or Church which the Jews were broken off from that we Gentiles are grafted into as Rom. 11. 17 19 24 And if theirs admitted Infants must not ours admit of Infant-Members also c. T. G. Whether the Church was not the same Church in all Ages and yet whether she did not differ in her external order by God's Appointment and whether this difference was not in the case of Infants being brought to or left unconcern'd in the Rituals of Religion as much as in any thing And seeing you here say She was taken down as to accidental Ceremonies whether this will not justifie us in not Baptizing Infants as well as you in not Communicating them seeing God hath not commanded the one any more than the other J. B. 5. Would not Christ have gathered Jerusalem And is it likely that he would have unchurched all their Infants when he would have gathered to him whole Jerusalem or the whole Nation Matth. 25. 37 38 39. T. G. Whether it be not evident we unchurch no Infants in respect of their relation to Salvation by Christ but only say they ought not to be brought to the Services of Gospel-Ordinances And do not you your self say the same that we do except your pretended Baptism And suppose Christ had gathered all Jerusalem would not he have gathered them after the same manner Would he not have gathered them by Preaching by Repentance and by Faith and Baptism which were capable of these things But how should their Infants be thus gathered Could he not have gathered their Infants in the sende of this Text without Preaching to them without Faith or Repentance required of them And could and would he not have gathered them without Baptism as well as without these And should not the Infants in Jerusalem and Judea have escaped the destruction which came upon them by the Romans if the Adult had but received the Gospel and can you think that though the Infants suffered in that Desolation of Jerusalem that therefore they were damned with the unbelieving Jews And if not were they not still of the Catholick Church though their Parents were rejected J. B. 6. Can you suppose the believing Jews Children and so the Parents in point of Comfort to be in a worse condition since Christ than they were before c. T. G. Was not Enoch Seth and Noah when Infants as happy though not Circumcised or brought to any Ritual in the Church as Isaac Jacob c. were in their Infancy though Circumcised And have we not as much ground