An Abstract of Baxters Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Baptism, Part 1

An Abstract of Baxters Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Baptism · Part 1

A few Notes upon the Queriſt Examined.

YOur Anti-Queries, very lately ſent me by one of your party, as [A full Anſwer to the Fifty Queries,] I have conſidered impartially, I hope; and cannot think them worthy of a Book in Anſwer: Yet that you might not take my Silence either for conſent, or for a contempt, I have written theſe few pages here.

Now in the firſt place I muſt tell you, Thoſe Fifty Queries will remain unanſwered, until that Book of Mr. Baxters be anſwered, to which every Query refers, which, for ought I know, you never yet lookt into. **In your Title page you ſay, Fifty Queries gathered out of the works of Mr. Rich. Baxter.And whether your Anti-Queries, ſo far as they concern the main point in Queſtion, be not cut off, and anſwered again and again in that Book, and divers other extant, and common, I leave to the judgment of indifferent Readers.

p. 2Further I might tell you of your playing upon the word, [Church,] Antiq. 1. p. 1. which is immediately explained in my firſt Query, by Kingdom of God, which prevents your exception. And I might take notice of your newcovn'd Term, [Practical Ordinance,] which you have ſo often, as if there were ſome other Ordinances, ſpeculative, or not practical. I might take notice of your Illogical diſtinction, of being a Member of the Church Eſſentially, and being a Member Formally, Anti. 18. p. 14. And your not allowing an univerſal Viſible Church, Antiq. 16. p. 12. I might take notice how you miſunderſtand, or miſapply thoſe Texts, Except ye eat the Fleſh of—(Joh. 6. 53.) And, Except a man be born of water—(Joh. 3. 5.) As if the former ſpake of the Lords Supper, and the latter of Baptiſm, (vid. Antiq. p. 5.) Again, I might take notice of your ſhooting ſhort, in many of your Antiqueries. As becauſe there was a time when Infants within the Church were not devoted to God by any ſuch engaging ſign, as Circumciſion, or Baptiſm, no ſuch engaging ſign being then p. 3inſtituted; therefore Infants are not to be ſo ſolemnly devoted to God, when ſuch an engaging ſin is inſtituted, and belongeth to all within the Church. And your ſhooting wide is plain in ſome others. I might tell you, how you have the ſame things over and over again. Though you accuſe me of continual tautologizing, Antiq. 38. p. 30. I am willing, the Impartial Reader ſhould judge, whether of us be moſt guilty here. Turpe eſt Doctori, &c. I take notice of your citing Mr. Baxters Cure of Church-Diviſions, p. 7. no leſs than thrice, (ſoil. in Preface, and p. 10. and p. 32.) yet a man may turn thrice to p. 7. in that book of Mr. Baxter for that which you refer unto, and loſe his labour. So I take notice of your vain flouriſhing, and braving it with Mr. T's confident challenge, both in the end of your Preface, [And know this, &c.] and again, Antiq. 49 p. 38, 39. (when alſo you ſhoot wide, not one word to my Query.) As concerning Mr. Baxter, I may ſay, Know this, that others that are ſober and judicious, tell him, he hath clear'd thoſe points ſufficiently, that any further debate p. 4concerning them is needleſs. Further I might take notice of the many [Et caetera's] you have put to my Queries, ſometimes leaving out what was moſt lively to pinch; yea, you cut off the chief part of fiftieth and laſt Query, without ſo much as an &c. unleſs it was the Printers fault. Again, I might take notice where you are not very conſiſtent with, but rather contradict your ſelf One or two places I may have occaſion to obſerve.

But I muſt take notice of your fair conceſſions, and I thank you for them. I will not diſpute it with you, whether theſe of yours be properly called, Antiqueries? Let the prepoſition foreign be either pro or con, with you, I ſhould not ſpend time in criticiſing on the word. But whether in compoſition, the word of an Apoſtle or Meſſenger of the Churches, (as I have heard, ſome do call you) ſhould be both yea and nay, may be a queſtion.

Now, what do theſe following Queries o… yours imply, [Antiq. 5. p. 4. Whether the Baptiſts do not as clearly aſſert Infants right to the grace of God in the firſt Edition of the Covenant made with p. 5Adam as any whatſoever? Antiq. 10. p. 9. As for the gracious Covenant made with Adam, do we not grant that it extends to Infants? yea, we ſay with Mr. Baxter, it was never abrogated. Antiq 19. p. 14. Whether the Bleſſing of Abraham (if you underſtand it of Eternal Life) was not the Bleſſing of the Fathers that were before him? And whether that Bleſſing did not belong to their Infants? (which is not at all oppoſite to my 19 Query. And in what follows there, you plainly ſhoot ſhort, as I noted before.) And Antiq. 23. p. 17. you fairly grant, that Promiſes made to the Seed of the Righteous, to the children of them that Love God, &c. are unrevoked, you doubt not but theſe Promiſes yet remain. (Though I confeſs, I do not well underſtand what you mean by thoſe words, Antiq. 21. p. 16. Whether all men that follow the rules of Morality, are not within the reach of theſe Bleſſings alſo? Theſe you ſpeak of, are either Righteous, and ſuch as love God, or they are not. If they be ſuch, then certainly they belong to the Univerſal Church, and are real Members of it; if they are not ſuch, then they have not an intereſt in p. 6the promiſe made to ſuch as love God, neither can they lay claim to Bleſſings promiſed.) But to go on with your conceſſions: Antiq. 11. p. 9. And whether the difference between the Baptiſts and Paedobaptiſts, be not chiefly (if not only) about impoſing Ceremonies upon Infants? Antiq. 12. p. 10. Seeing the Baptiſts may and do in a good ſenſe acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church, viz. by Redemption, pious Dedication to God, &c. Antiq. 30. p. 23. And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-Relation, Obligation, or Right? Or who oppoſeth their being devoted to God in their capacity? Antiq. 31. p. 24. Whether you do not greatly wrong your ſelf, and thoſe you call Anabaptiſts, in ſaying, they vehemently plead againſt devoting their Children to God? yea, ſure they do it actually, as far as Gods word requires.—Prove if you can, that you your ſelves do conſent to the Covenant of grace for your Infants, more than we, whom you call Anabaptiſts.] Here we have (as you ſay in your Preface) your Conceſſions in reſpect of Infants. Relation to God, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, and the Devotion of his people, p. 7&c. I ſhall be very glad, if I may know you are all agreed in theſe things. And here (methinks) you offer as fair, as any of your way, I have ever met with to end our difference about Infant-Baptiſm. If the premiſes be granted, the concluſion will follow. If you grant our Infants within the Covenant, then they have right to the inveſting ſign. To whom the promiſe belongs, to them Baptiſme belongs, Acts 2. 38, 39. If you yield our Infants Church - Members, then you ſhould not deny their right to ſolemn admiſſion by Baptiſm. (See Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof, &c. p. 23. &c.) And Mr. T. your Champion, yielded, this would follow.

You grant, Antiq. 6. p. 4. and Antiq. 22. p. 16. That Infants are of the Redeemed Church. And in the cloſe of Antiq. 25. p. 19. That Infants ſtill retain Member-ſhip in the Inviſible Church. And Antiq. 16. p. 13. They are Members of the Univerſal Church (inviſible, you mean, for you like not of an Univerſal Church Viſible.) And otherwiſe (as you ſay) How ſhall they be ſaved, ſeeing Chriſt is only the Saviour of his p. 8Body. Only I query whether it be not a contradiction, when you ſay, Antiq. 28. p. 21. How can Infants be ſaid to be a ſpiritual Seed: Are any but a ſpiritual Seed, Members of the Inviſible Church? Are not they a ſpiritual Seed that are of Chriſts Body, and ſaved by him?

But if Infants be not Members of the Viſible Church, how can you prove they are Members of the Inviſible Church? To be probably Members of the Inviſible Church, is to be Members of the Viſible Church, or Viſible Church-Members. Further, you ſay, The Baptiſts do in a good ſenſe acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church, viz. by Redemption, pious Dedication to God, &c. (Antiq. 12. pag. 10. before-cited) now do but make ſenſe of it, and I have enough. Either theſe Infants viſibly belong, to the Kingdom of Chriſt, or to the Kingdom of Satan: (for theſe two Kingdoms divide and ſhare the whole world, that ſuch as are not of the one, are certainly of the other; and ſuch as are not viſibly of the one, are viſibly of the other) And will you ſay, that ſuch as are of the p. 9Redeemed-Church, related to the Church by Redemption, and further related by Pious Dedication to God, &c. are viſibly the ſeed of the Serpent, and of the Kingdom of Satan.

But this [Pious Dedication] leads me to another of your ſelf-contradictions. Antiq. 30. p. 23. Where are Chriſtian Parents required to devote their children, by conſenting to any Covenant for them? (Though you grant there, the Jews were required to Covenant for their children in matters of Religion.) And yet under the next Anti-query, p. 24. you ſay, Prove if you can, that you your ſelves do conſent to the Covenant of grace for your Infants, more than we. How properly may theſe be called Anti-queries? Or to get off, will you ſay, you conſent to the Covenant of grace for the Infants? but not as a thing required?

I gave you thanks before, for ſome things granted concerning Infants, and I here promiſe more thanks, if you will prove the ſame of all Infants. This you inſinuate, p. 5. Seeing then all Infants (for ought you know) have the ſame right—But I doubt, your proof of this p. 8duplicate page p. 9duplicate page p. 10point will be as lame and weak, as your ſentence there is imperfect, and abrupt. You ſhould not wrong us, To ſay, we reſtrain the love and grace of God to ſuch Infants as (in your new phraſe) partake with Parents in practicals of Religion, (Antiq. 3. p. 2.) as if we held, that no Infant (dying unbaptized) could be ſaved, is a charge, you cannot prove. Antiq. 4. p. 3. Whether the Parents conſent to wickedneſs is the childs conſent?] Peruſe Mr. Baxter of Original Sin. You your ſelf do not deny, (Antiq. 7. p. 6.) but the wickedneſs of Parents may expoſe their Infant-children to external calamities. Yea, Antiq. 21. p. 16. whoever doubted, but that Infants are—greatly diſadvantaged by the wickedneſs of their Parents, even ſo as to bear their Fathers iniquities many times, as is evident in the overthrow of the old World, &c.) Now God is not injuſt in what he inflicts on ſuch children. If they bear the Fathers iniquities, they are ſome way guilty with their Parents.

You enquire further, Antiq. 4. p. 3. And whether this do not give the Parents power to ſave, or damn their Infants? p. 11But you will not ſay, I ſuppoſe, that you are your own Saviour, when you perform the condition of the Covenant, to which Salvation for Chriſts ſake is graciouſly promiſed. Neither will we ſay, that any Infants periſh purely for anothers ſin, or the Parents ſin only imputed; but for their own contracted. (As Mr. Baxter of Original Sin, p. 135.)

The overthrow of both thoſe Generations in the deluge, (ſpoken of Gen. 6.) is a ſtrange Medium to prove the Salvation of all their Infants, which you hint at, Antiq. 7. p. 6 And Rom. 5. 18. which you there cite, will no more prove, that all Infants (that die Infants) are ſaved; then that all men are ſaved. The free gift came upon all men unto juſtification of life. This [all] muſt be limited to all in Chriſt.

Antiq. 22. p. 16. Whether God hath not ſaid, that His ways are all equal? And whether this do not ſecure Infants of Gods mercy—when God ſaith, that the Son ſhall not bear the Iniquity of the Father, and every one ſhall bear his own Iniquity, whether this be not a promiſe of Mercy to Infant-children, and that in reſpect of Eternal Life?] Here you imply, p. 12that Gods ways are not equal, if he ſhew not Mercy on all Infants, if he give not Eternal li…e unto all that die Infants. And if you take theſe words [every one ſhall bear his own Iniquity] to be a promiſe of Eternal life to all Infants, as ſuch; you muſt hold, that no Infant hath any iniquity to bear, and ſo wholly deny the doctrine of Original ſin, (which I perceive you do; though you will never be able to anſwer the Arguments, and Scripture-evidence brought to prove it.) But you miſapply the Scripture. What is ſpoken of the Adult, you apply to Infants, (a very common miſtake of thoſe of your way and perſwaſion.) In the 18. of Ezek. the Lord pleads with men that had too good a conceit of themſelves, and would caſt the blame on others, if they ſuffered, as if they themſelves were guiltleſs, Verſ. 2. The Fathers have eaten ſour Grapes, and the childrens Teeth are ſet on edge.] q. d. Our Fathers have ſinned, and we their children ſmart, and ſuffer for it. Now the Lord, to ſhew that his ways are equal, declares, that he that is righteous, ſhall live, verſ. 5. &c. But if ſuch p. 13a one hath a Son that proves wicked, that Son ſhall die, verſ. 10. &c. Again, if the Son of a wicked man ſees, and abhors his Fathers wicked courſes, if he be righteous, he ſhall live, and ſhall not bear his Fathers iniquity, v. 14. &c. yea, if a man have been never ſo wicked, yet if he repent, and turn, he ſhall ſurely live, verſ. 21. &c. But in all this there is no promiſe of Eternal life to all the Infant-ſeed of the wicked.

Antiq. 37. p. 29. And where are we taught to doubt the Salvation of the Infants of Pagans?] Sometimes we are troubled at ſome of your way, that they ſeem to allow us no more ground of hope, concerning the Seed of the Faithful, then concerning the Seed of the Heathen and Pagans. But if it be ſo clear, that none are to doubt the Salvation of the Infants of Pagans, we ſhould reſt ſatisfied, and think it enough that the children of the faithful are put into ſo good a condition. But I told you (in my Treatiſe of the Covenants, p. 359.) That to aſſert the Salvation of all that die in Infancy, ſeems to imply, that Gods deſtroying the old world, and Sodom, &c. were eminent p. 14Acts of Mercy, rather then of Juſtice; wherein ſuch multitude of Souls were ſent to Heaven together, who if they had lived, had probably (at leaſt the greateſt part of them) gone to Hell. I deſire you would remove this doubt of mine. So likewiſe I cannot yet reconcile your opinion with that Reaſon the Lord gives for his ſparing Nineveh, Jonas 4. 11. (which I alſo there took notice of.) Had there not been more Mercy, ſuppoſe the Lord had taken away above ſixſcore thouſand little ones, that were not come to the uſe of reaſon, if then they had all been undoubtedly ſaved; then in ſparing them with the City, whereupon probably not one of very many of them was ſaved. Help me over this doubt. And if the Salvation of Pagans-Infants is not to be doubted, (as you ſuggeſt) then ſuppoſe the French King ſhould have power to over-run all the Pagan countries in the world, though he ſpoiled, plundered, fired all the Towns where he came; yet provided he did but withal ſlay all their little ones, then will it not follow, that he might be looked upon as a greater Bleſſing than p. 15Scourge to the world? Had the world your light and knowledge, they muſt conclude, that they ought not to be ſo ſorry for the ſpoiling of their Countries, (a temporal calamity) as they ſhould rejoyce, (have cauſe of rejoycing indeed) that all their little ones were undoubtedly ſaved, certainly ſent to Heaven. And then what ſhall we make of Eph. 2. 3. And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others? And v. 12. That all that time ye were without Chriſt, being aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers from the Covenants of Promiſe, having no hope, and without God in the world. Having no hope.] If there be no ground to doubt of the Salvation of their Infants? is not here ſome hope?

But have you not forgotten that you told us, you do not doubt, but the promiſes made to the Seed of the Righteous, and the promiſe of ſhewing mercy to the children of them that love God, &c. remain unrevoked? How are thoſe promiſes made to their Seed, as ſuch, if as great mercy be enſured, and ſecured, procured by the p. 16death of Chriſt, to and for all Infants that die Infants, (as you intimate Antiq. 37. p. 14. and in other places? And when you would have the bleſſing of Abraham (underſtanding it of eternal life) to belong to the Infants of the Gentiles, (as Antiq. 19. p. 14.) if you underſtand, and take in the Infants of the unbelieving, as well as believing Gentiles; then do not you forget that Expreſſion, Gal. 3. 14. That the bleſſing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. As to their Infants, you here ſuppoſe it to have been on them all along, and not to come on them, by their Parents receiving the Promiſe through faith. According to your opinion, all Infants are, and ever were bleſſed with faithful Abraham, notwithſtanding many of the Parents have been, and are Pagans, Infidels, and ſuch as the word Pronounces under a Curſe. Now, how may divers of your own party (ſuch as you call Baptiſts) juſtly object that to you, which without ground they are wont to object againſt us? you would make the promiſe of Salvation run unto a fleſhly line indeed, (as Mr. Baxter notes in his Review, p. 33.) And p. 17who can forbid water, (now that Baptiſm is the initiatory Sign and Seal of the Covenant) to any dying Infant of a Pagan, ſince he may be confident the Bleſſings of the Covenant belong to it?

You query ubi ſupra, (Antiq. 37. p. 29.) Will not the ſecond Adams obedience ſalve the firſt Adams diſobedience? And Antiq. 38. p. 30. Whether the meritoriouſneſs of Chriſt is not as available to ſave Infants, without any mans acceptance thereof for them?] I doubt not, but the ſecond Adams obedience and merits are available, ſo far as was intended, and agreed betwixt the Father and him. But it lies on you to prove, that it was ſo intended and agreed, that all Infants, ſo dying, ſhall abſolutely be ſaved.

Antiq. 37. p. 29. Whether it be his will, that the grace of that Covenant ſhould depend upon others obſervation of the condition for them? And whether this be not to put the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand?] Infants are not ſaved by the Covenant of grace, which is [to Believers and their Seed;] if they neither be Believers, nor the Seed of p. 18ſuch. Only that I be not miſunderſtood, I add, If any that enjoy not the Goſpel, that never heard that joyful ſound, come up to the terms of the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah, I rank not them and their Seed with Infidels.

To what you ſay of Gods, [putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand:] I need ſay but this, you might as well query, whether God put not the Salvation of the Adult out of his own hand, if their Salvation be ſuſpended on performance of the condition required.

One thing more I cannot but obſerve, (wherein I ſuppoſe you are a little ſingular alſo) In Antiq. 26. p. 19. You make your Impoſition of hands as generally pertaining to Members of the Church, as Baptiſm. (Where I might note, that you ſeem to grant, Baptiſm generally pertains to the Members of the Church. (But that by the way.) Now elſewhere **In Serm. on 1 Cor. 12. 1. p. 95.1 Cor 12:1you tell us, that [In this holy Ordinance of Prayer and Impoſition of hands, we are in a ſolemn manner uſhered into the promiſe of the holy Spirit.] You go on, [Impoſition p. 19of hands doth put us in a better capacity to ſeek daily for the gifts and graces of the Spirit; becauſe now ſolemnly intereſted in the promiſe, by that very way the primitive Saints were intereſted therein, Act. 8. 15, 17. Act. 19. 2, 6. 2. Tim. 1. 6. Heb. 6. 1, 2.—What ſhall I ſay? The Scriptures (or, theſe Scriptures) are evidence ſufficient, that this Crdinance is of Divine Inſtitution, is from Heaven; the promiſe which it leads to, is perpetual, and univerſal, it belongs to the whole body. There is one Body, and one Spirit, &c. This is the concluſion of the Sermon, (p. 96, 97.) And what gifts of the Spirit you ſpeak of is very plain, throughout the Sermon. For brevity, I will mention but one place, (p. 77.) Thus you ſee the Church being under perpetual Exhortations, to ſeek for ſpiritual gifts [without any reſtriction,] neceſſarily infers her perpetual right to them, and every of them; which conſideration alone is ſufficient (as I conceive) to ſatisfie any Chriſtian, that the promiſe of the Spirit (even the ſame that was given to the firſt Churches) in reſpect of gifts as well as graces, belongs to the Church of Chriſt throughout all Ages.

p. 20Now if Impoſition of hands generally pertains to all the Members of the Church, and ſolemnly intereſteth them in the promiſe of the Spirit, methinks it ſhould follow, that all ſuch Members, on whom you lay your hands, (ſuppoſing you have right to do it, as you take up the practice, if I be not miſ-informed) ſhould have ſome extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. And I have reaſon to think, you encourage your followers to ſubmit to this Impoſition, by working in them ſuch a perſwaſion and expectation. For (p. 88. of the forecited Sermon) you have theſe words, As the promiſe of gifts (as well as graces) [pertains to us as we are the called of God] we ought to ſtir one another up, to ſeek with all diligence, and [full aſſurance] for the Spirit of promiſe. And p. 95. 'Tis well known (and I think granted on all hands) that they (i. e. the Primitive Churches) uſed the ſolemn Ordinance of Prayer and Impoſition of hands, for obtaining the promiſed Spirit, at leaſt with reſpect to theſe gifts.—Then ſeeing theſe gifts are promiſed to us as well as unto them, and are attainable, and in part (at leaſt) attained p. 21by many, what ſhould hinder the Churches, but that now they ſhould tread in this path, with faith, and [full aſſurance] that a bleſſing is in it? But while you call for full aſſurance here, I am full of doubt, that you have no ſuch Promiſe, nor Commiſſion for your practice [of Impoſition of hands, for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt.] Take heed of pretending a Commiſſion from Heaven; take heed of counterfeiting Heavens Seal. Oh, be afraid of taking Gods Name in vain. Will you herein imitate the Apoſtles? May it not be ſaid of you, you know not what Spirit you are of? May you not as well take upon you, to lay hands on the Sick to heal them? Becauſe of that, Mark 16. 18. They ſhall lay hands on the Sick, and they ſhall recover: or, anoint them with Oyl in the Name of the Lord, becauſe of what you read, Mark 6. 13. Jam. 5. 14. I dare not limit God or his holy Spirit: and I deſire, that you may not tempt him. When you have pleaded all you can for the continuance of thoſe extraordinary gifts, and for the promiſe of them being perpetual univerſal to the whole body, p. 22and pertaining to us as we are the called of God, (whereupon it follows, that they ſhould pertain to all that are called of God) yet experience will confute you, and prove, they are not ſo ordinary. When you make Prayer and Impoſition of hands, The means ordained of God to obtain thoſe gifts, (Ser. p. 94. To which ſee ſomething in my Treatiſe of the Covenants p 430, &c. And more in Mr. Whiſtons Priv. Doct. of Bapt.95.) I might retort ſome of your own words, Antiq. 33. p. 25. Shew us what benefit, &c. And Antiq. 39. pag. 31. Name one—Name one that hath received thoſe gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, by the laying on of your hands. If the gift of healing, &c. was ſeen to follow, theſe might draw in more to you then your Writing or Diſputing. And I wiſh you would be adviſed, ere you encourage all your hearers to ſeek for Spiritual gifts, without any reſtriction; leſt Women ſeek to Propheſy; or men ſeek new Revelations, and ſo turn Enthuſiaſts, and think themſelves above Mans teaching.

There is enough to be ſaid againſt your Impoſition of hands; though I have nothing to ſay againſt Confirmation, being duly and orderly performed; but have long wiſht for the Reſtoring p. 23of it. So I have nothing againſt Impoſition of hands, in ſetting apart perſons that are proved, and fitted to the work of the Miniſtry. But this pertains not to every Member of the Church.

I can paſs by what you ſay of me, that I am worſe for my Baptiſm in Infancy, as reſting upon that, &c. Antiq. 40. p. 32. Doth not your Conſcience tell you, that the Baptiſm of Men and Women upon profeſſion of faith and repentance, is beyond the reach of contradiction?] The Baptiſing of ſuch as were without the Church, or were firſt of the Jewiſh Church, and to be afterwards admitted into the Chriſtian Church, upon the profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, is plain in Scripture, not to be contradicted. But this contradicteth not the Baptiſing of the Infants of ſuch, being alſo to be acknowledged Church-Members. Neither can you ſhew in all the New-Teſtament one inſtance of any Baptiſed upon their profeſſion, who deferred their Childrens Baptiſm (if Infants) till they were grown up, and able to make the like profeſſion.

p. 24But to come a little nearer to you; would you have none but Men and Women Baptiſed? Then do you not forget your ſelf again? and what you ſaid, Antiq. 39. p. 31. Who is againſt as early an engagement of children to God, as can lawfully be made?] Now this one conceſſion of yours, that you are for as early an engaging them to God, as can lawfully be, will prove your way not ſo certain, not altogether clear, (as you would perſwade your Readers in your Preface) not beyond the reach of contradiction, but full of doubts, full of difficulties. If the children of Chriſtians are not to be engaged, and devoted to God in their Infancy, you can none of you tell, (how then are you like to agree) at what age they are to be ſo engaged, and devoted to God? What think you? Is it not ſinful to neglect and put it off, when once it might lawfully be done? Now what word, what Example can you produce out of Scripture, to ſatisfie Conſcience how early you may do it? What was the youngeſt Age that ever any Chriſtians child was Baptiſed at? And if you could tell us the p. 25minimum quod ſic, and quod non, the youngeſt age at which any child was Baptiſed, and under which age none might be Baptiſed, it would be ſome guide to us. Becauſe you put the matter to my Conſcience, I would ſpeak ſeriouſly. And ſo I muſt ſay, was I off from the grounds of Infant-Baptiſm, I cannot ſee, how Conſcience would be well ſatisfied about the time of Baptizing my own Children. To defer it after they are come to make a viſible profeſſion, by your own Principles, ſhould be concluded ſinful, againſt the Rule of the Goſpel; but how ſoon a Childs profeſſion may be taken for a ſufficient viſible profeſſion, I ſhould not know how to reſolve, or how to determine.

I have one requeſt to you, that you would take into your more ſerious thoughts that part of the laſt Query which you left out. Think how much of it you have granted unto. And let us ſtudy the things that make for Peace, and whereby we may edifie one another.

What you ſeem to hide from your Readers, I ſhall give you the ſubſtance p. 26of (more briefly) out of Mr. Baxters Review, p. 27. 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) and would afterwards live peaceably in Communion with your Brethren, and not appropriate Church-Communion to your Sect: And if you would not deny our Infants part in the Covenant of Grace, the promiſe of Pardon, and life by Chriſt, and our Infants Church-Memberſhip, and only deferred the Baptiſmal Inveſtiture, as Tertullian deſired, for the more ſolemn Inauguration and Obligation; Though I ſhould not be of your mind, I ſhould live in as loving forbearance and communion with you, as with other Chriſtians.

The Lord direct all his profeſſing people into the way of Truth, and Peace, ſo prays

Your Friend J. B.