Presumption No Proof, Part

Presumption No Proof · Part

p. 1Preſumption 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,

p. 2There is no expreſs Scripture for Infant-baptiſm, therefore Infant-baptiſm may be omitted. If you fly to Conſequences for it, 'tis 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 …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 … ſup…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 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 p. 3ought 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, foreign, 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. foreign, 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. foreign, 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 p. 4preached, 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 p. 5Conſequence, 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 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 *foreign ſignifies Offspring of Growth or Stature, but foreign ſignifies an Infant. Infants who are not mentioned here, ſhould be of the number of theſe Diſciples. It is true, 'tis 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, p. 6that 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 p. 7a 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 denied. But when I behold the miſerable Shifts you are put to, to prove Infants Diſciples according to Chriſt's Commiſſion, Matth. 28. 19. I do with the greateſt Admiration bewail your Unhappineſs; and cannot tell how to imagine that any wiſe Men among you does really believe your ſelves in what you ſay on that account. And ſure I am the Papiſts have as ſtrong a pretence from Hoc est Corpus meum, for their Tranſubſtantiation, as you have from Matheteuſaté for Infant-Diſcipleſhip.

And to ſpeak freely, they are both incredible things; all Senſe and Experience militates equally againſt both Opinions. If they be Truths, it muſt be becauſe they are both Miracles: but then they want the Character of true Miracles; for they are no ways demonſtrable that there is any Miracle at all in either of them; we are only told that they are ſo, i. e. that the Bread in the Eucharist is Real Fleſh; That the Child in your Rantiſm is born again of Water and Spirit, made a Diſciple of Christ, &c. but no mortal Man knows any of theſe things to be true. And what is it that we may not believe, if we muſt believe ſuch things as theſe? Prayer for the Dead, Purgatory fire, &c. will come upon us armed with our own Arguments, if we admit the former.

And to conclude, as to your firſt Argument, Give me leave to ſay, if your Hearers can receive your Dictates, and ill-prov'd Affirmations, I p. 8know not but they may believe you in whatſoever you will be pleaſed to tell them.

What you ſay of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptiſm, I ſhall here conſider in few words; for ſince you inſiſt only upon Cyprian's Teſtimony, whoſe Grounds for Infant-Baptiſm you confeſs to be unſound; I need ſay little here, that which was built upon bad Principles then by him, and ſtands upon as unſound ones now by you, does gain nothing by either of you. But will you know that it is plainly granted by ſome of the moſt Learned of your way; That there is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptiſm [Here it wants the beſt Antiquity], nor any just Evidence for it for about two hundred Years after Christ.—Yet it came in upon a groſs Mistake of the Scripture: that in what Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond has ſaid for it, there is nothing that looks like an Argument. Dr. Barlow. This is enough at preſent.

PART. II.

Wherein is conſidered Mr. Petto's ſecond Argument, which he delivers in theſe Words;

If ſome Infants be viſibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham, then by the Will of Chriſt they are to be baptized.

But ſome Infants are viſibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham:

Therefore by the Will of Chriſt they are to be baptized.

BEfore I anſwer this Argument, I ſhall conſider a few things: And, 1. That (as Mr. Petto grants) God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham, twenty four years before he gave him the Covenant of Circumciſion, ſee Gen. 12. 1, 2, 3, 4. with 17. 24. ſo that the Covenant of Grace had no external Sign, as it was made with Abraham, Gen. 12. But when God was pleaſed to add to this Covenant the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan, &c. then it was that he gave him the Law of Circumciſion: and theſe additional Parts I take to be moſt properly, p. 9if not only that which is the Covenant of Circumciſion.

2. It is to be underſtood that Abraham was not the only Perſon in the World, which was under the Covenant of Grace at this time, when God made Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. 'Tis obſerved by ſome that Salah lived after the Covenant of Circumciſion was made about 50 years. Arphaxad lived thirteen years after; and that Heber lived till Jacob was about twenty years old, which was long after Abraham died. Now theſe with Melchiſedeck (if he were not one of theſe) with many others (amongſt whom was juſt Lot) were not only true Worſhippers of God, according to the Covenant of Grace, but ſome of them ſuperiour to Abraham himſelf, for Melchiſedeck bleſſed Abraham, being the King of Salem, and Priest of the most high God.

3. And as neither theſe nor their Poſterity were liable to any loſs of the Covenant of Grace, by their not being circumciſed after the manner of Abraham; ſo neither Job, nor other worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Fleſh, had any obligation to Circumciſion: from whence it muſt needs follow that God intended not the ſign of Circumciſion to belong to Perſons as they were in the Covenant of Grace, but that it was appropriate for ſome great Ends, reſpecting a ſpecial preſervation to the Family of Abraham, as of the Kindred from whom Chriſt ſhould proceed, and with whom he would preſence himſelf, in a Land of Promiſe, by a diſtinct way of Worſhip from all Nations, who at that time were falling very faſt into Idolatry.

4. And beſides this, it is certain that this Sign of Circumciſion, was by God's Appointment to be affixed to ſome to whom the Covenant of Grace might ſeem to have the leaſt extent (or at leaſt they did forfeit all Intereſt in it) this was the caſe of Iſhmael and Eſau, who proved very wicked: and it is to be queſtioned whether the Bondmen or Slaves in Iſrael had that Ceremony as a Badge of the Covenant of Grace. Men may talk high of theſe things and prove little, or whether Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith to any Perſon in the World ſave to Abraham: And in what ſence it was ſo to him (who had ſo many things peculiar to him) is not eaſy to be demonſtrated.

5. Our Practice in Religious Inſtitutes is not to be gathered from ſuch uncertain Conjectures, but to ſtand upon the clear Direction of the Inſtituter, or the Practice of ſuch as God hath thought fit to make Precedents to us; and it is certain we are not at all concerned in the Law of Circumciſion, and for us to take our Rules thence for the Subjects of Baptiſm, is very childiſh and reflects Diſhonour upon Chriſt and his Apoſtles, who never ſent us to learn Infant-Baptiſm from Infant-Circumciſion, nor indeed p. 10have they taught it at all. Theſe things premiſed I anſwer to the Argument by theſe enſuing Diſtinctions.

1. If by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumciſion (as he does, for he quotes Gen. 7. 9, 10, 11. to prove his Aſſumption), and by ſome Infants he means the Infants of Chriſtians as ſuch, as that is his meaning; then I deny his Minor.

2. Or, if by Covenant, he mean that Covenant of Grace, Gen. 12. diſtinct from the Covenant of Circumciſion; and by ſome Infants being in this Covenant externally, he means Infants are concerned in the outward Profeſſion or Practice of Worſhip; ſtill I deny the Minor: for God by that Covenant of Grace, Gen. 12. never required the Performance of ſuch Duties of Infants.

3. If by Covenant, he mean the gracious Pardon of 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.

p. 11But 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, foreign, 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. **Manual of Contro. p. 372, to 377.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 S. n. Antid.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 p. 12you 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.

p. 13Mr. Petto's third Argument, pag. 39.

Some Infants are viſibly Chriſt's, and ſo are Abraham's Seed; and hence he would infer their Baptiſm. He has many Words, and very often repeated, the ſubſtance of all has I think already been anſwered; however ſeeing he talks here of a threefold Seed of Abraham, under the Titles of Natural, Spiritual, and Eccleſiaſtical Seed, I will ſeriouſly conſider the Scriptures which he brings to prove Infants to be the Eccleſiaſtical Seed of Abraham. For the Scriptures which he brings to deſcribe the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, ſpeaks not one word of Infants. Gal. 3. 8, 9. ſhews that God would juſtify the Heathen through Faith, and concludes thus; So then they which be of Faith, are bleſſed with faithful Abraham. This is not ſpoken of Infants, yet they ſhall be bleſſed.

The Texts he brings to prove Infants to be the Eccleſiastical Seed of Abraham, are many▪ firſt, Matth. 25. 1, 2. where the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to wiſe and fooliſh Virgins: but I ſuppoſe no wiſe Man takes Infants to be of either ſort, for they are neither wiſe nor fooliſh, but they are innocent.

Two Texts more we have, Rom. 11. 20. John 15. 6. where we learn that the Jews were broken off for Ʋnbelief, and the Gentiles stood by Faith; that ſome Branches in Christ not bearing Fruit are taken away, and thoſe which bear Fruit are purged to bring forth more Fruit: But what all this is to Infants no Man can tell.

He quotes theſe over again, and with them Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10. 13, 14. Luke 18. 15. Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Rev. 1. 12, 13, 20. Now he that from theſe Texts would prove Infants to be Abraham's Eccleſiastical Seed, muſt prove that in the three firſt Texts, the Word Kingdom muſt needs ſignify the Church-militant, and that Chriſt admitted theſe Infants into the Church by Baptiſm, or elſe that they have Authority to do more than Chriſt himſelf did: For if theſe very Infants were not baptiſed, they muſt have very great Confidence that can pretend from hence to find ground to baptiſe others.

The next Chriſt tells Peter, that he would build his Church upon a Rock. But muſt all that are ſaved be Abraham's Eccleſiastical Seed? Sure ſome Infants may be ſaved who were never baptiſed for all this. Rom. 16. 16. bids Chriſtians ſalute one another with an holy Kiſs, and tells them alſo that the Church of Christ ſalutes them. I ſee nothing from hence to prove Infants viſibly Chriſt's, ſo as to be Abraham's Seed; ſure his Propoſition will fail of Proof.

p. 14The Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 12. 27. tells the Corinthians that they were the Body of Christ, and Members in particular. But not one word to prove that there was one Infant of this Communion. Yet all Members of that one Body were partakers of that one Bread, in which their Unity was demonſtrated, Rev. 1. 12, 13, 14. only deſcribes the Viſion that John ſaw of the Son of God, and the ſeven Golden Candleſticks. But no Man can yet find in any of theſe Candleſticks ſo much as one Infant concern'd bearing up the light of Truth in the profeſſion of the Goſpel.

Now for his Argument, I would know the meaning of this Speech, Some Infants are viſibly Christ's. If he means ſome Infants only are Chriſt's by Redemption; how can he poſſibly know the Redeemed from the Damned? (for ſo they are ſuppoſed to be in this Mans deſtiny.) The work of Redemption is viſible, becauſe God's Word tells us who Chriſt died for, and that is for every Man, Heb. 2. 9. and here Infants are equally Chriſt's viſibly.

But ſo long as Mr. Petto thinks that Chriſt died but for ſome Infants only, (and thoſe very few in compariſon of the whole, he cannot name one for whom Chriſt died, it being impoſſible) for them to give any Demonſtration by which he may know ſuch a thing, and therefore he can have but ſmall comfort in baptizing any of them, if indeed it were lawful to baptize ſome Infants, as he ſuppoſes. Nay, were he as ſure that Chriſt died for ſome particular Infants, as I am that he died for them all, yet would it not follow that they are Abraham's Eccleſiaſtical Seed, ſo as to be baptized: for Chriſt knew that the Infants whom he took in his Arms were his, and yet he did no ſuch thing to them; and I ſhall never think Mr. P. wiſer than our Saviour, nor ſo kind to poor Infants as he was.

Mr. Petto argues thus: Some Infants are viſibly of the Faith, and ſo are Abraham's Seed. Here I deny the Antecedent. I ſay no Infants are viſibly of the Faith. And Mr. P. tells me in this very place, That he does not ſay that Faith ſemenal, and habitual, or actual, is in all Infants baptized; for then (ſaith he) all of them must be ſaved, which they are not; or elſe they might loſe that ſpecial Faith: But they are inviſibly invested in the Covenant or Promiſe, which is the Word of Faith, and may bear that Name, &c. I anſwer:

Here are two kinds of Faith which the Scripture knows nothing of, i. e. ſeminal, and habitual. However I perceive he knows not one Infant that has any of theſe kinds of Faith, he therefore has found out a fourth, and that is a reputative Faith, or a thing which he ſays may bear that p. 51name. Sure theſe are meer Dreams and Fancies, and ſo let them go.

Actual Faith Infants have none; and this is all the Faith that Man can make Judgment of by God's Word. He does indeed grant all Infants which are baptized have not this Faith; and if he dare affirm it …f any of them, all the Experience of the World will confute him, and ſo he has loſt his Argument, as a meer Story without Truth, and againſt all Experience. For ſeeing Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God; he cannot without a Miracle ſhew any Infant to be viſibly in the Faith; for the poor Babe knows not its right hand from its left. He might as well ſay ſome Infants are viſibly in Repentance, and I marvel why the Poedobaptists do not inſiſt upon that, as well as Faith, to entitle their Children to Baptiſm.

Mr. Petto tells us, If Infants have not Faith for the preſent, yet viſibly they are under a Promiſe of it, which Promiſe Baptiſm may be a Sign and Seal of; it may ſeal a Doctrine of Faith, even where a Principle of it is yet wanting. Theſe and what follows, are meer Dictates and Preſumptions, without Proof. Yet he brings Deut. 30. 6. where God promiſes to circumciſe the hearts of the Iſraelites, and the heart of their Seed, to love the Lord with all the heart, and with all the ſoul. But God ſpake not this to Infants, nor as a thing to be done to them in their Infancy; for when they ſhould thus be circumcis'd, they ſhould be able to know the Lord very well, for they ſhould love him then with all the Heart and Soul. Now this Promiſe is made to all Men upon future Contingencies, for God commandeth all Men every where to repent, and wills that the Goſpel (which contains this and many other precious Promiſes) ſhould be preached to every Creature; And if Baptiſm may be a Seal of this Doctrine, even there where there wants a Principle of Faith, as you tell us it may; then we may go and baptiſe every Creature, and not higgle as you do about ſome Infants only: but ſhould we do thus, God's Word would trip up our Heels, as it does yours, for tho he has proclaim'd Peace to the World by the Goſpel, yet he makes Faith neceſſary to the Pledg of its Reception; He that believeth, and is baptiſed, ſhall be ſaved; If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst be baptiſed: When they believed, they were baptiſed, not one Perſon admitted without; and then what is Mr. Petto that will adventure to give Baptiſm, even there where there is not Faith, no nor ſo much as a Principle of it? How ſhall Baptiſm be the Anſwer of a good Conſcience without a Principle of Faith? And what good will it do you without Faith?

p. 16He quotes Iſa. 44. 3. I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty, I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed, &c. Well, but not in Infancy; when was this done to any of your Infants? Or, has not God made good this Promiſe in the Goſpel? Men muſt be thirſty before this Water be poured out upon them. You bring Iſa. 59. 21. which might have ſhewed you that theſe Promiſes belong not to Infants; ſeeing they cannot underſtand either the Word or Spirit, which yet is here promiſed to be in the mouth of the Church, and her Seed for ever; or, if you pleaſe, in the mouth of Chriſt, and his Seeds Seed for ever. But Infants are ſo called, ſaith Auguſtin, à non fando, becauſe they cannot ſpeak.

You bring Pſal. 25. 13. and 112. 2. where 'tis ſaid, The Seed of good Men ſhall inherit the Earth, and be mighty upon Earth, and be bleſſed. But I think theſe are unfitly applied to Infants in Infancy; and yet if they concern'd them, here's no Proof that they are viſibly in the Faith during Infancy.

But what ſhall become of the Infants of ill Men by Mr. Petto's Doctrine? they are put by him in a Condition contrary to that of the Infants of good Men, as if the Infants Bleſſing or Curſing muſt be meaſured out, as the Parents are Believers, or otherwiſe. Let us ſee his Scriptures; Pſal. 37. 28.—The Seed of the wicked ſhall be cut off: But why muſt this be applied to Infants? Sure he has Mercy for them, ſo as not to turn them into Hell. For he hath told us, if thoſe Children of wicked Men which live to years do but turn from the wicked Ways of their Fathers, they ſhall not dy; and ſo equal are God's Ways, that if the Son of a righteous Man follow the Ways of wicked Men, he ſhall die: as to temporal Judgments, I grant the Infants do ſometimes ſuffer for the Sin of their Parents, but our Diſcourſe is about their Salvation.

You bring Rom. 11. again, and thence you infer that the Infant-ſeed of the Jews was broken off for the Parents Unbelief. But if this Breaking-off be underſtood of an Excluſion of Infants to Hells Torments, it is a moſt falſe Opinion, as I ſhall fully ſhew anon.

That Abraham by virtue of his Faith which he had being uncircumciſed, is a Father of the faithful, both Jew and Gentile, is very true. But that any of them are his Children, ſo as to be Members of the Church militant, to do and ſuffer for Chriſt, without actual Faith, is not true, nor does Rom. 4. 10, 11, 12. prove the contrary; let us hear your Text: How then was it reckoned? when he was in Circumciſion, or in Ʋncircumciſion? not in Circumciſion, but in Ʋncircumciſion. And he rereceived the Sign of Circumciſion, a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, p. 17which he had being yet uncircumciſed, that he might be the Father of them that believe, though they be not circumciſed, that Righteouſneſs might be imputed to them alſo. And the Father of Circumciſion to them, who are not of the Circumciſion only, but alſo walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumciſed. May the God of Heaven give you a good underſtanding of this Place, and then all your ſtruggling for Infant-Baptiſm would ſoon vaniſh.

For there is nothing more evident than this, that none but ſuch as ſo believe, as to walk in the Steps of that Faith which Abraham himſelf had (which was true actual Faith,) are the Children of Abraham, in a viſible Church-ſtate to worſhip God, either in Baptiſm, or other Ordinances.

From pag. 48. You proceed to anſwer many Objections, and in all you ſay this ſeems to be your great Stick, That Infant-Intereſt in the Covenant, Gen. 17. is not cut off by any thing ſo objected, as you have ſet them down; and unleſs this be ſhewed, all Objections ſignify nothing to you.

1. To which I anſwer, Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumciſion, and have the ſame Right now which they ever had to that bleſſed Covenant: of this more by and by.

2. No Perſon's Right to Circumciſion did ariſe out of the Covenant of Grace, but did only iſſue from the Command of God; otherwiſe all good Men then living muſt needs be circumciſed, for they were in the Covenant of Grace as well as Abraham.

3. As Circumciſion did not give Abraham's Seed an Intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, ſo the Abrogation of Circumciſion did not take that Intereſt from them. Nor did the omiſſion of it, when in being, cut Infants off from the Covenant of Grace: It only cut them off from the Land of Canaan, and the external Priviledges of the Jewiſh Churchſtate. For the delay of the Circumciſion of Moſes's Child did not cut it off from the Covenant of Grace, nor did the omiſſion of it fourty Years in the Wilderneſs, cut them Infants off from the Covenant of Grace who died in that time, howbeit before they poſſeſſed the Land of Canaan they muſt be circumciſed; which evidently ſhews that the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Circumciſion are to be diſtinguiſhed. And therefore though Infants have now no Part in the Covenant of Circumciſion, yet they loſe nothing by it; becauſe though it was very uſeful till Chriſt came, for the Ends for which it was ordained, reſpecting the Church-ſtate of the Jews, and the Birth of our Saviour, of that Seed p. 18according to the Fleſh; yet the Removal of it was a great Mercy, whether we reſpect the Severity of the Service it ſelf, or the Obligation to which it bound all that were circumciſed.

Neither does any Man's Right to the Covenant of Grace ariſe from the Covenant of Circumciſion; neither does his Right to Baptiſm ariſe from the Covenant of Grace, without a Divine Command appointing to whom, and how it ſhould be performed. Now the Goſpel being preached for the Obedience of Faith to all Nations, Rom. 16. 26. And that Typical Covenant of Circumciſion being made void, and the Goſpel appointing no Ceremony for Infants (yet aſſuring them of Heaven) but making Repentance and Faith the two firſt Principles of the Chriſtian Religion, and Baptiſm the third Principle in order to a due Profeſſion of Goſpel-worſhip in a Church-way, it is manifeſt that Infant-baptiſm is an Innovation, and makes a Breach upon the ſacred Doctrine contained in St. Paul's Catechiſm, as ſet down, Heb. 6. 1, 2. And therefore all good Men ſhould labour that Truth herein according to Primitive Crder may be reſtored.

Nevertheleſs that Infants (even all of them dying ſuch) have an undeniable Right in the Covenant of Grace, to Life and Salvation, I hope to make very evident both from the Scripture and right Reaſon, in the laſt Part of this Treatiſe to which I now apply my ſelf; and though herein I ſhall not directly anſwer to Mr. Petto, yet I ſhall ſcarce fail to remove thoſe things, which may ſeem to be of any moment, in his often and unneceſſary Repetitions.

PART. III.

In which Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace, without Baptiſm, is aſſerted and maintained.

IT is evident from the Writings of many Paedobaptiſts, both Papiſts and Proteſtants, that they do hold either abſolutely, that no unbaptized Infant can be ſaved, or at leaſt that their Salvation is very doubtful, and amongſt thoſe, Mr. Baxter, and from him Mr. Barret, and now Mr. Petto has not a little amuſed the Minds of Men about this matter. p. 19Firſt, Mr. Baxter tells us (and Mr. Barret alſo) that Infants are not ſo much as ſeemingly in a State of Salvation without Baptiſm. And ſecondly, Mr. Petto thinks they are cut out of the great Charter of Heaven. Theſe are his Words: It is the Covenant-Intereſt and Baptiſm of the Infant-ſeed, only of viſible Believers, that I plead for; and there are ſuch vaſt Numbers (even millions) of theſe, that if Men unduly exclude and raze out the Names of ſo many out of that great Charter of Heaven, they will have a dreadful Account to give thereof to God.

In anſwer to theſe childiſh Fears and undue Reflections upon us, I ſhall take the pains to tranſcribe what I have formerly written upon this Account, it being yet unanſwered.

This new Art of pleading for Infant-baptiſm by virtue of their Church-memberſhip, Covenant-Intereſt, &c. and not from the Scriptures directly, but altogether by remote, obſcure, and far-fetch'd Conſequences; I ſay, conſidering theſe Subtilties of Mr. Baxter and others, I perceive the Controverſy to riſe very high, and Queſtions thereupon to be multiplied, inſomuch that I have had for my ſhare not leſs than five hundred of them ſent out by Mr. Barret abovenamed, which has been redargued in two Books of Antiqueries.

Hereupon I conceived it needful to conſider this matter, for I perceived very wiſe and good Men engaged on both ſides; and as I believe much more ſtraining in the Point of Church-memberſhip, or Covenant-Intereſt of Infants than needed. By which the Readers of the Controverſy, as handled between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Tombs, ſhall ſooner fill their Heads with Amazement, than their Hearts with Satisfaction, in tracing the ſeveral Meanders of their Scholaſtick Diſputations.

And though I am abundantly ſhort of the Accompliſhments of either of theſe Champions, yet ſtanding to view till they engage, I hope I have thereby been led to the Conſideration of a Medium, which if well conſidered and improved, will reconcile the difference about Infants viſible Church-memberſhip, and Covenant-Intereſt, and yet do not doubt at all that Infant-baptiſm will be found unneceſſary, and unlawful. To which purpoſe I ſhall lay down once more this Poſition.

That all Infants (as ſuch) are in a viſible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace, and ſo are of the univerſal Church of God; and cannot be put out of that bleſſed State, till by their voluntary Departure from God, by chuſing ſinful Ways, they deſtroy themſelves.

p. 20And the better to convince my preſent Adverſaries, I will make my Enterance hereunto by a Paſſage out of Mr. Baxter's Book, of More Proves, &c. pag. 8. where he 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, 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,

1. 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 that therefore no Infant was ever caſt out of this Covenant.

And then, fifthly, they all ſtand viſible Members of the Catholick or univerſal 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. Theſe things I hope to ſhew to Satisfaction.

Demonſtration 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 which is found in Scripture 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 afford means to juſtify the the Offenders in the Sight 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 redeem his Brother, nor give to God a Ranſom for him, Pſal. 49. 7.

p. 21It 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, which was to proceed from Adam, and this Covenant yet remaining, it follows againſt all Contradiction, that whole Mankind, conſidered as they came into the World, in the ſeveral Ages of it, are in that Covenant, and ſo in a viſible State of Salvation, and therefore of the Univerſal 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 Profeſſion of this bleſſed Covenant accommodated and appropriated to that Part of the Adult, who had not ſinned themſelves out of it. But ſtill we do not find that the Innocent was ejected with the Guilty. For this is God's Order, It is he only that ſinneth, whom he will blot out of the Book of Life, Exod. 32. 32, 33.

And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in ſetling the Covenant of his Grace; nor yet that Order which he obſerved with Abraham, Gen. 12. was excluſive of any Infant in the World, as to the Grace or Mercy of eternal Life, no more than the Eſtabliſhment of it by Chriſt in the Goſpel, in a far more excellent way, for diſtinguiſhing the precious from the vile, is in any wiſe, no not in the leaſt iota, excluſive of any dying Infant of ill Men: but contrary-wiſe the Right of Infants, without excepting any of them, is aſſerted by Chriſt in this laſt and moſt ample Edition of the Covenant of Grace.

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 Judg of all the Earth will do Right: That the condemned ſhall all be judged according to the Deeds done in the Body. But as for poor Infants, what Evil have they done?

Demonſtration 2.

That this Covenant was made with all Mankind, 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 has 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, p. 22was not accepted; yet God was pleaſed to tell him how he might be accepted, Gen. 4. 7. If thou doſt well, ſhalt thou not be accepted? It ſhould ſeem God never rejected Cain till now, neither did he now delight to reject him, but graciouſly expoſtulates with Cain to convince him of his Evil, and aſſures him of Acceptance, if he did well.

If then Cain had an Intereſt in the Grace of God, who can we ſuppoſe to be ſhut out of it? Or how ſhould Infants be caſt out of his Favour, 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 that the Long-ſuffering of God waited in the Days of Noah upon 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 for them, even for them that rebel againſt him, and ſo periſh. And then how ſhould we think that he ſhould not be gracious to poor Infants, who never rebelled againſt him?

Demonſtration 3.

The Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. 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. 'Tis true, Men may forfeit the Mercy of God held forth in that Covenant, but the Covenant cannot be repealed, for then there can be no certainty of Mercy for Sinners. Chriſt our Lord may as ſoon be made null, as this Covenant: For what if ſome do apoſtatize, ſhall this make the Grace of God without effect? God forbid. When we continually ſee the Covenant of God's Grace diſplayed, making Overtures of Kindneſs to Sinners, by beſeeching them to be reconciled to God, 2 Cor. 5. What ſhall we ſay? Has the chief of Sinners this Benefit by the Covenant of Grace? And ſhall poor innocent Babes have no Benefit by it? Is he not worſe than the chief of Sinners, that is thus expoſed to Damnation? Sure there are better things with God for poor Babes, and chiefly in this he has not given Parents power to make void the Covenant of his Grace with reſpect to their Infants: For he hath ſaid, the Son ſhall not bear the Iniquity of the Father: The Soul that ſinneth it ſhall die.

p. 23Demonſtration 4.

No Infant did ever abuſe the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam; therefore no Infant was ever 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, as the Sin of Adam made his Poſterity guilty of the Breach of the firſt Covenant, we may then cry out, who then can be ſaved? But therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Teſtament, for the Redemption of the Tranſgreſſions which were under the first Teſtament.

Wherefore ſeeing Infants ſtand acquitted from the Treſpaſſes committed by Adam againſt the firſt Teſtament or Covenant, and having not ſinned againſt the Grace of the ſecond Teſtament, they cannot come in the Condemnation of Helliſh Torments. The Church of Rome, who make Baptiſm as neceſſary for Infants as any Body does, yet they have ſo much Kindneſs, as to condemn Infants only to a State of Loſs, but not of Torment: Whilſt thoſe of Calvin's Spirit do ſend them (by their Doctrine) to yell among the damned in Hell-fire. Sure this is no part of the Goſpel, I will not call it ſo: Yet I will ſay thoſe that reject that great Salvation held forth in the Goſpel, are juſtly condemned; but this is not the caſe of Infants.

Demonſtration 5.

That all dying Infants are Members of that vaſt Body of which Chriſt is the Saviour finally, and ſo of his Church conſidered as univerſal, is evident, becauſe they are 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, but to prove all Infants in a viſible State of Salvation; which ſhall be done more particularly by anſwering ſuch Objections as I have met with, more eſpecially from Mr. Barret.

p. 24Objection I. I gave you thanks for ſome things before granted concerning Inſants, and I here promiſe more Thanks if you will prove the ſame of all Infants.

Anſw. 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 concerned, and ſo have the ſame or equal Right. And I hope you cannot charge them with forfeiting the Grace of that Covenant, and then they cannot be damned.

Our Saviour ſaith, it is not the Will of his Heavenly Father, that ſo much as one of theſe little Ones ſhould periſh, which is as true of Infants, as of any Perſons in the World.

Object. II. The Overthrow of both theſe Generations in the old World, is a ſtrange Medium to prove the Salvation of all Infants by.

Anſw. The meer deſtroying of the Infants of thoſe who were called the Sons of God, as well as the Infants of others, Gen. 6. and 7. I do not ſay is any Evidence of God's ſaving any of them.

But this is that which I ſay, it ſhews them to be in one State or Predicament: And how ſhall any Man prove the Salvation of ſo much as of any one of them, better than I ſhall prove the Salvation of them all: And ſhall we ſuffer it to enter into our Hearts that God ſent them all to be damned in Hell?

By no means. When therefore we read, 2 Pet. 2. 5. That God brought the Floud upon the World of the Ʋngodly; and Jude 7. 'tis 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. For did not the ſame God ſuffer his Servant Sampſon to die with 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 of Nineveh, and that may convince p. 25us that the ſame gracious God could not be cruel to the Infants of the old World; and he that made thoſe little ones an Argument to juſtify his ſparing ſinful 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 Propheſy of Jonah; yet he would have diſtinguiſhed between the Innocent and the Nocent, in reſpect of future Puniſhment and Mercy: For it was not the Sin of the Infants, which cryed to Heaven for Vengeance, but of the grown Perſons.

When we conſider how hardly Almighty God was drawn to inflict thoſe Judgments upon Mens Bodies in the old World, and in Sodom, Gen. 18. and frequently where we read of the Execution of his Judgments; it might juſtly ſeem very ſtrange that Men ſhould think that God can be ſo eaſily provoked to damn Infants to Hell: For him I ſay to damn poor Infants to Eternal Fire, who was ſo unwilling to inflict on the Babes in Nineveh ſo much as a Temporal Judgment; nay he is unwilling to deſtroy the very Cattel for Mans Sin, Jonah 4. which are only capable to ſuffer a ſhort of Death. And can it become any Chriſtian to think that God will ſend Millions of poor dying Infants to Hell? Pray what have they done ſo highly to ſtirr up his Wrath againſt them? let any Man ſhew a Reaſon for it if he can.

Object. III. To the Text Rom. 5. the Free-Gift abounded towards all Men to Juſtification of Life. This [all] must be reſtrained to [all in Christ].

Anſw. But by your Favour there are none ſo out of Chriſt in Infancy, but that God hath Mercy for them in Chriſt: John 1. 29. ſo that here is no Reſtraint to the Juſtification here ſpoken of, till Men abuſe this 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 any Agreement with the Scope of the Place. For ſeeing all Mankind are perſonated as well in the ſecond, as in the firſt Adam, you can no more exclude any from the Juſtification of Life, as having abounded towards them by Chriſt, than you can exclude them from the Condemnation which abounded towards them by Adam. For tell me how many came under Condemnation by the Sin of Adam? Is there any one, or any Infant that can plead Impunity? Why even ſo (ſaith the Apoſtle) p. 26the Free-Gift abounded towards all Men to Juſtification of Life.

And may we not ſafely conclude, that had Mankind never been guilty of any other Sin but that of Adam's, I ſay upon a Suppoſition that Adam's Poſterity from the time of the Promiſe, Gen. 3. 15. had lived holily, and done no Iniquity, would you not conclude with me, that none ſhould have periſhed in Hell-Torments? And if you grant this, then we muſt either find ſome Man SO concerned in the Covenant of Grace, AS that if he ſinned againſt this Covenant, his Poſterity is damned with him eternally, as all Adam's Poſterity was expoſed to Condemnation for his Sin; or elſe we muſt hold that no Infant ſhall die eternally for Adam's, nor for any other Perſons Iniquity.

If you name any Man, thus concerned in the Covenant of Grace, you can name none ſo apt for the purpoſe as Adam, ſeeing we were all in him when the Covenant was made with him, and there is no doubt but that he ſinned after the Covenant was made Gen. 3. 15. yet where do we find any Sin which he afterward committed, imputed to any Part of his Poſterity? And ſeeing we cannot prove an univerſal Reſurrection from 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. unleſs Mankind be equally concerned in the Death of Chriſt, we muſt neceſſarily believe whole Mankind to be intereſſed in him, and as intereſſed in him, they are in a ſaneable State, from that Wrath which lay againſt them by reaſon of the Sin of Adam: So then Infants being juſtified from the Guilt of Adam's Tranſgreſſion, by Chriſt the Lamb of God; who ſhall lay any thing to the Charge of poor Infants, that may juſtly caſt them into Hell-fire? Sure it is but meet that Men ſhould be able plainly to convict them, before they thus condemn them.

Yea, you that hold the eternal Damnation of Infants, ought you not to bring ſubſtantial proof for ſo dreadful a Doctrine? And when you have done your worſt that way, you have only deſtroyed your own Hope concerning your own dying Infants. For I am perſwaded you are not ſo unwiſe to think (whatever you make others believe) that your Infants are ſaved becauſe of your pretended Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm. Nay Mr. Petto plainly tells us, that all Infants that are baptiſed are not ſaved; as I have ſhewed above. And it is impoſſible without a Miracle for him to know this, or that any one of them is ſaved, unleſs he comes on this Foundation that none of them ſhall periſh.

p. 27Object. IV. To aſſert the Salvation of all dying Infants, ſeems to imply, that God's deſtroying the old World and Sodom, &c. were eminent Acts of God's Mercy, rather than of Juſtice, &c. help me over this Difficulty.

Anſw. Although it is not unjuſt for God to take Infants out of the World at any time, yet his Juſtice in deſtroying them in the old World and Sodom, lay not againſt the Infants, as I proved in the precedent Anſwer. But in Juſtice he puniſhed thoſe wicked Parents, in putting a Period to their Poſterity. And did not God in the Days of Noah deſtroy the Beaſts and Fowls of Heaven, yet who ſo weak to think that he was offended with them? Was the Lord angry with the Beaſts of the Field? God was juſt in taking away David's Child, 2 Sam. 12. 14. yet who ſo raſh to ſay that God did this in Juſtice againſt the Child? much leſs that the Child was damned, or that God was angry with the Child. David was far from ſuch an Opinion, for tho that Child was conceived and born in Sin, as much as any, yet David nothing feared the Damnation of the Child, but rather ſhews his Confidence of its Salvation, when he ſaid, I ſhall go to it. For had it gone to Hell Torments, he would not have comforted himſelf with Thoughts of going to it.

Object. V. We do not ſay that Infants do periſh purely for anothers Sin, but for their own contracted.

Anſw. I cannot ſee any Agreement with God's Juſtice in this Objection, nor Truth in it ſelf. I can hear Men talk big Words againſt Infants, as if they were very great Sinners, yet I never ſaw any Proof, that any Infant had any Sin of its own, for which you would here make them periſh.

The Scripture ſaith Sin is the Tranſgreſſion of a Law, and tells us alſo where no Law is, there is no Tranſgreſſion. You muſt therefore either ſhew ſome Law to be given to Infants, or elſe you cannot make them guilty of any Sin of their own. And ſeeing you have granted that none ſhall periſh purely for anothers Sin, it remains for you, or ſome body elſe, to ſhew what Sin has been committed by them, or any of them, for which they incur the Damnation of Hell. You may talk of Infants contracting Sin of their own; but I am to learn how this can be ſaid of thoſe who neither act nor conſent to Sin at all. Such Scriptureleſs Notions are fitter p. 28to be exploded than embraced.

And though you ſeem to have ſome Charity for thoſe and their Seed, who only come up to the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah, though they never heard the Goſpel, whilſt you ſay, you do not rank them with Imſdels; yet this is but a ſlender Kindneſs: you do not ſay they ſhall be ſaved, and you are poſitive in this, that Infants are not ſaved by the Covenant of Grace, if they be neither Believers, nor the Seed of ſuch. How this Doctrine will ſtand with the Juſtice of a gracious God, I cannot conceive when I conſider, that God hath not given to Infants either Capacity to believe, or Liberty to chooſe whether they will be the Seed of Believers or Unbelievers. Will you yet ſay a gracious God will be more harſh in Acts of Juſtice, than the Rules will bear which he hath given to Men? Deut. 22. 25, 26. Here he will not have a Damſel puniſhed, though her Body be defiled, becauſe ſhe could not help it. And yet you would have him ſend Infants to Hell for that which they cannot help!

It is not the part of a wiſe Legiſlator (ſaith one) to recede from his own Laws; much leſs to deſtroy them, by acting contrary to them. It muſt be a fault then in you, thus unjuſtly to repreſent the God of Juſtice. Is the Covenant of Grace ſet upon ſuch a little Point, as that the greateſt Part of Infants cannot poſſibly have any Benefit by it? So you teach, who affirm Infants cannot be ſaved unleſs they be Believers, or the Seed of Believers. Why call you a Covenant made with Infants on ſuch Terms a Covenant of Grace? ſure ſuch abſolutely impoſſible Terms in any Covenant are not very gracious, when the Non-obſervation of them is Damnation without remedy, and that of the Innocent too.

You would condemn this in Men; you would abhor to hear or receive ſuch Terms of Man; yet thus you make many believe that God deals with the greateſt part of poor Infants.

Object. VI. According to your Doctrine the taking away the Infants of the old World and of Sodom, was a great Mercy, becauſe had they lived to Age, many of them might have been damned for Wickedneſs.

Anſw. The taking away by Death of the Infants of the old World and Sodom, is neither an Inſtance of Juſtice nor Mercy to Infants in the main; any more than the taking away thouſands of Infants daily by Death throughout the World: For whenever they die, they are taken away p. 29from ALL EVIL TO COME, and ſo it is always a Mercy' and ſuch was the Mercy of God to Infants in the Old World and in Sodom▪ But whenever they are taken away, we know it is for Sin, even that of Adam. And ſometimes their Death is haſtened for the Sin of their Parents, as in the caſe of David's Child, and the Old World, and Sodom; and thus their being taken away is always a Judgment: And the Judgment lieth much in this, that Mens Poſterity is either quite cut off, or much weakened; thus was the Old World and Sodom puniſhed, their Succeſſion was cut off.

And though it is true, if thoſe Infants in the Old World and Sodom had lived to Age, many of them might have been damned for Wickedneſs, yet (not to inſist upon the Preſcience of Almighty God) to ballance that, it is as true that a far greater Multitude, in few Generations, both of Infants and others, which might have proceeded from them, might have been ſaved. So that though we have no ground to doubt of the Salvation of theſe dying Infants in the Old World and in Sodom, yet we may ſee a juſt Judgment executed in both.

Object. VII. Should the French King deſtroy all the Infants of the Pagans, would not this be a Judgment? Sure had the World your Light and Knowledg, they ought not to be ſorry for the ſpoiling of their Cities, and depopulating their Countries.

Anſw. What if the French King ſhould do thus? it follows not that here is not a Judgment in all this, neither yet that God hath no Mercy for thoſe murthered Infants.

But pray conſider, whilſt we all condemn ſuch Cruelty in Tyrants, we muſt by no means think or ſay, that our gracious God, when the Tyrant has murthered them, will take theſe Infants and caſt them into Helliſh Torments: Were not this to repreſent Almighty God to be the worſt of Tyrants?

And let no Man murmur againſt God for ſaving ſuch Infants (or all Infants), who when Men have done their worſt, he will prevent that which would be far worſe to poor Infants than the worſt that Man can do. And though I may be ſatisfied that my Child or Friend is gone to Heaven, yet I may lawfully be ſorry for both, ſo that I ſorrow not as one without Hope.

p. 30Object. VIII. What ſhall we make of Epheſ. 2. 3, 12. And were by Nature Children of Wrath, even as others? That at that time you were without Chriſt, without Hope. If there be no Ground to doubt the Salvation of their Infants, is there not ſome Hope?

Anſw. I grant that all Adam's Poſterity with himſelf were Children of Wrath; and take that Wrath in as large a ſenſe as you pleaſe, it hurts not my Cauſe at all: Seeing it is evident that Chriſt aboliſhed that Wrath and Death, and brought Life and Immortality to Light by the Goſpel, which he preached to whole Adam, Gen. 3. 15. and then took whole Adam into Grace and Favour; ſo that till they, or any of them, become the Serpents Seed, they ſtand in a State of Favour and Grace, which ſhall deliver them from Wrath and Death. And it is moſt certain, no Infant is the Serpents Seed, it being out of his Power to beget them to be his Offſpring, ſeeing they are out of the reach of his Temptations during Infancy. Howbeit this Place, Epheſ. 2. is beſt interpreted of the Adult or grown Perſons, for theſe, of whom it was ſaid they were without Hope, &c. it is ſaid, they were dead in Treſpaſſes and Sins, and walked according to the Courſe of this World, according to the Prince of the Power of the Air, which now worketh in the Hearts of the Children of Diſobedience; ſuch as had their Converſation in the Luſts of their Fleſh, fulfilling the Deſires of the Fleſh, and of the Mind: And S O were by Nature the Children of Wrath.

But what is all this to the innocent Babes of the Gentiles? they were not thus the Children of Wrath, no nor out of the Covenant of Grace, as made with Adam, having never abuſed the Grace of that Covenant. So that there was Hope (or Ground of Hope) concerning the dying Infants of the Gentiles, whether their Parents underſtood it or not: but no Hope concerning themſelves, conſidered in their wicked Courſes.

Neither could the Hope of theſe Gentiles (when they believed) concerning their Infants, ſtand upon the ſame Grounds on which their own Hope was founded, ſeeing theſe were ſaved through Faith, and built up an Habitation of God through the Spirit. Only this is very true, they now underſtood the Riches of God's Grace to Mankind, and that God had pitty for them, when they were dead in Treſpaſſes and Sins. And therefore they could not rationally doubt of his good Will towards their dying Infants: For ſtill his Unwillingneſs to deſtroy the actual Sinner, is Argument enough that he will never deſtroy the innocent Child eternally.

p. 31What Hope there is of all Infants entring into Heaven (however it may be hid from the Pagans.) is evident enough from our Saviour's Speech; Except ye be converted, and become as little Children, ye ſhall in no wiſe enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Now ſuppoſe I take the Infant of a Jew or Pagan for my Pattern, and labour that my Converſation may anſwer to ſuch a Precedent, in point of Innocency, Humility, and Simplicity; will not this as well accord the Intent of our Saviour's Words, as if I took the Child of a Chriſtian for my Pattern? certes it would.

And indeed our Saviour here ſpeaks as much for our Comfort concerning all little Childrens Capacity, to enter into Heaven, as for any one of them; as alſo when the Apoſtle exhorts us, as touching Malice, to be as Children; Does he not hereby juſtify the whole in that State of Infancy to be devoid of that Evil? And why even of our ſelves do we not judg what is right? Could any Man from the Beginning to this Day, bring the leaſt Charge againſt one Infant more than another? Unleſs God by Miracle ſhew ſome ſpecial Power upon them, no Difference can be ſeen in them in point of Innocency.

Object. IX. 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 Promiſes of ſhewing Mercy to them that love God, remain unrevoked?

Anſw. I have not forgotten that, but ſtill believe that there are many more Bleſſings pertaining to the Seed of the Righteous, according to the Texts by you alledged, than to others. And that they may be better conſidered, I will ſet that down in Words which you write in Figures; Pſal. 102. 28. The Children of thy Servants ſhall continue, and their Seed ſhall be eſtabliſhed before thee.

This had doubtleſs been the Portion of the Sons of God in the Days of Noah, had they not ſinned with the reſt of Mankind: Pſal. 103. 17. The Mercy of the Lord is from everlaſting to everlaſting, to them that fear him, and his Righteouſneſs to Childrens Children, to them that keep his Covenant, and remember his Commandments to do them. Prov. 20. 7. The just walketh in his Integrity, his Children are bleſſed after him.

Now what do theſe Places prove? ſure nothing leſs than that no Infants ſhall be ſaved, but the Infants of Believers, &c. and if not, how do they ſuit your Caſe? They prove indeed that God will bleſs the Poſterity of p. 32his faithful Servants if they keep his Covenant, and remember his Commandments to do them: I think David well expounds this Place in Pſal. 37. 25. And yet I grant, though you prove it not, that there are very many other Bleſſings (even in Infancy) does attend the Seed of the Righteous.

They being a Seed of many Prayers, and devoted to God from the Womb, as far as their pious Parents has Authority to do it; whilſt, God knows, others are deſtitute of theſe Bleſſings, being croſſed and exorciſed among the Paedobaptists, and offered to Molech among the Jews, and the like among the Heathens. And yet for all this, I can ſee no Ground to think that the righteous God will puniſh with Helliſh Torments thoſe dying Infants for the Wrong which their Parents have done them.

It being inconceivable how it can ſtand with his Attributes, either of Mercy or Juſtice, both which muſt have Effect upon them: His Juſtice hath its Effect on Infants in Diſeaſes, Sickneſs and Death. Now either his Mercy muſt have Effect upon dying Infants in the next World, or not at all, if not in that World, how ſhall that Saying be true; His tender Mercies are over all his Works? Will he never ſhew tender Mercy to Infants, who only lived to cry and die in this World, and muſt they now die eternally in Hell? Is this your tender Mercy to Infants? O ye cruel Paedobaptists!

Object. X. If the Bleſſing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles through Faith, Gal. 3. 14. how does it reach to the Infants of the Gentiles which do not believe?

Anſw. I told you that the Bleſſing in reſpect of Eternal Life was not peculiar to Abraham and his Seed, but was made as well to Adam and his Seed, and ſo common to Mankind, and may well be called the common Salvation, being derived from Chriſt promiſed, Gen. 3. 15. (before Abraham was) who is therefore the Saviour of all Men.

Indeed Abraham, and ſo all Believers, have many things in ſpecial or peculiar Bleſſings, as a People engaged in the Duties of Religion: Whilſt Unbelievers are under a wrathful Sentence, becauſe they neglect ſo great Salvation. But all this concerns not dying Infants, who neglect not this Salvation, and ſo forfeit not their Right to that common Salvation obtained by Chriſt for Mankind.

In Gal. 3. 14. the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Promiſe of the Spirit, which as it concerns the Church under the Goſpel-frame, does not concern p. 33Infants. It being underſtood of a greater meaſure of Wiſdom, and Power to walk in the Paths of Righteouſneſs, than was ordinary under the former Teſtament; 2 Tim. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 2, 3, 5, 7. Gal. 5. 25.

Nor can you with any ſhew of Reaſon ſay, that I make the Salvation of Infants run in a fleſhly Line, ſeeing I derive it only from the free Grace of God, manifeſted in the Lamb ſlain from the Foundation of the World, to take away the Sin of the World.

Nor do I conſider Adam in a State of Nature, but as under a Covenant of Grace, from whom the ſecond Adam muſt in time proceed as touching his Fleſh, and therefore his Deſcent is reckoned from him, Luk. 3. 23. to the end. In this ſecond Adam, the Repairer of Mankind, do I place the Salvation of all Men. And of the Infant-Race, I ſay, their Title to this Grace is not tyed to Man's Will, to ſin them out of it at their Pleaſure, nor can the Devil himſelf deprive them of this Grace of Life. And therefore they being thus written in the Book of Life, and not being under the Sentence of the Book of Conſcience, they cannot be hurt of the ſecond Death.

To what you ſay about God's putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own Hand. I ſay, that though he put the Salvation of no Creature out of his own Hand according to my Opinion; yet when he ſtretched forth his Hand to Gain-ſayers, as Rom. 10. and gives them the Word of Life, and they put it from them, Act. 13. 46. Then Men may truly be ſaid to have a Prize in their Hands, and to put it from them, even the Salvation of their Souls.

And then I pray conſider, that if their putting Salvation from themſelves, be equally or really a putting it from their Infants (as that muſt be your Opinion, or elſe we differ not) then I ſay, according to your Opinion, God ſuffers Men to damn poor Infants whom he would ſave. Seeing, according to your Doctrine, had the Parents believed, their Infants had been in the Covenant of Grace. But now for their Fathers Sin (for what you ſay of their own contracted, is but a Fable) they are left by you in the Kingdom of the Devil to ſuffer with the Devil and his Angels for ever. Now this dreadful Doctrine can never be proved by the Scriptures, though ſome have aſſayed to do it.

I find indeed Dr. Fulk ſaying, That Calvin holdeth all Infants under the Sentence of Eternal Damnation; only he admits, that ſuch Infants as are Elect and born again by the Spirit of God, may be ſaved. But I find no Proof, that any Infant, dying ſo, is reprobate to Eternal Damnation: The Scripture ſays no ſuch thing.

p. 34Indeed Diodate would have us believe that God caſt Eſau (even before he was born) out of his Love as a Father: But here is no Proof. For if we ſhould admit his Gloſs upon Rom. 9. 13. yet we are to conſider that God knew what Eſau would be in time, and did here foreſhew what in time ſhould be done concerning him. Eſau lived to be a Man, and a very ſinful Man. God knew all this before. Eſau is not to be ranked with dying Infants, therefore the Inſtance of Eſau is nothing to the purpoſe. And this Inſtance failing, as it evidently doth, I am ſure there is not the leaſt ſhew of Proof in the Scripture for the Damnation of Dying Infants. And therefore no Man ought to believe ſuch ſtrange Doctrine, nor trouble the World nor Church of God with it.

When our Saviour denounces the dreadful Sentence of Hell's Damnation, he directs his Speech to Hypocrites, and grievous Sinners. But he has better things in ſtore for poor Infants; teſtifying that to them belongs the Kingdom of God. In his gracious Arms therefore we ſhall leave all dying Infants, for the obtaining that Bleſſing of Life, without which they are more wretched than the fallen Angels; for they had once a bleſſed ſtate, but proudly fell from it. But here it is poor Infants are above theſe Angels; Infants have a Redeemer, but the fallen Angels have none.

Glory to God in the Higheſt for his free Grace towards all Dying Infants, and let all good Chriſtians ſay, Amen.

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Grantham, Presumption No Proof (1687)