The Queries Examined, Text
THE QUAERIES Examined, OR, FIFTY ANTI-QUERIES Seriouſly Propounded to the PEOPLE called PRESBYTERIANS.
Occaſioned by The Publication of FIFTY QUERIES, Gathered out of the Works of Mr. RICH. BAXTER.
By J. B.
Wherein the Principal Allegations uſually brought to ſupport Infant-Baptiſm are Diſcovered to be Inſufficient.
By T. G.
PROV. XIX. 21.
There be many Devices in a Mans heart, nevertheleſs the Council of the LORD that ſhall ſtand.
Mr. Baxter more Reaſ. p. 69.
The true Method of one that would Arrive at certainty, and not deceive himſelf and others, is to begin at the bottom, and diſcern things in their neareſt and moſt certain Evidences, and afterward to try the By-Objections as he is able: And not t… Por…firſt upon the Objected difficulties, and judge of all the cauſe by thoſe.
LONDON, Printed in the Year of our Lord 1676.
The QUAERIST Examined. OR, Fifty Anti-Queries ſeriouſly Propounded to the People called Presbyterians, &c.
Presbyterian.
Query 1. WHether under the Covenant of Works, if Adam had not ſinned, Innocents ſhould not have been holy to God, and ſo Members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God?
Baptiſt.
Antiquery 1. Whether this be not a groundleſs and unlearned Query? for ſeeing the word Church, as uſed in the Holy Scriptures, ſignifieth A People Called out, namely, from another people, out of what people ſhould they have been called, had the whole world been in the ſtate of innocency? And ſeeing no man can tell whether any man ſhould have had Authority committed to him in matters of Religion, or whether God ſhould immediately have exerciſed his own Government; Neither yet in what capacity children ſhould have come into the world, whether endowed with knowledge or otherwiſe; whether therefore it concern or become any man, to let his fancy rove about in ſuch an unknown and unknowable caſe. And thereupon, 1. Suggeſt how Infants ſhould be concern'd or not concern'd in matters of Religion? And how can any thing be concluded from ſuch an imagination, as imitable for us about Infant Church-memberſhip? And whether we are not like to have a bad ſuperſtructure, when the foundation is a meer fancy?
Presbyterian.
Query 2. Whether God was any more obliged to order it ſo, that the Children of Righteous Parents ſhould have been born with all the Perfections of their Parents, and enjoyed the ſame Priviledges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace, to grant that Infants ſhould be of the ſame Society with their Parents, and have the Immunities of that Society.
Baptiſt.
Antiquery 2. More obliged: Whether it be not in vain to ſuppoſe, that God was obliged at all in either of thoſe caſes, ſeeing he is abſolutely free to do whatſoever he pl…aſeth with his own? And what ground have you to believe, that ſome Infants were more concern'd then others in m…tters of Religion, by vertue of any Covenant made with Adam? And what ſociety was Infants capable of with Adam, by vertue of any Covenant made with him after his fall? C…rtis the Scripture is ſilent as to theſe matters,
Presbyterian.
Query 3. Whether we have any reaſon, when the deſign of Redemption is the magnifying of Love and Grace, to think that Love and Grace are ſo much leſs under the Goſpel to the Members of Chriſt, then under the Law to the Members or Seed of Adam, as that then all the Seed ſhould have partaken of the ſame Bleſſings with their righteous Parents, and now they ſhall all be turned out of the Society, whereof the Parents are Members?
Baptiſt.
Antiquery 3. Whether you your ſelves do not leſſen the magnifying Love of God in Mans Redemption, whileſt in reſpect of Infants you would reſtrain it to the ſeed of ſuch Parents as are in Covenant with God, yea to ſuch Infants as partake with them in Practicals of Religion, which you ſeem to intend by the Bleſſings you ſpeak of. But who denies any Bleſſing to Infants under the Goſpel, which was their portion under the Law made with Adam? And how were Infants Members of the ſociety of the ſeed of Adam, more then of the ſociety of the Baptiſts? ſhew the difference if you can.
Presbyterian.
Query 4. Whether though our Innocency be loſt, Parents be not Parents ſtill, and have not as much intereſt in Children, and whether God have reverſed this natural Order? and if God change not his Order therein, whether Parents be not as capable of conſenting to grace for their children, as they were of being innocent for them?
Baptiſt.
Antiquery 4. Whether there be any that queſtion whether Parents be Parents ſtill, or what need of ſuch Enquiries? Or what do you mean by Gods natural Order? If you mean natural Religion, then ſhew us what Infants are bound ro in matters of Religion by natu…e, or what this natural Order ties Parents to do to their Infants, upon the account of Practicals in Religion, which we omit? And whether Parents could be innocent for their Infants, if their Infants were not innocent as well as they? and if not, how ſhould their conſenting to grace be the Childs conſent? And whether it will not as well hold retro, that the Parents conſenting to wickedneſs is the Childs conſent? And whether this do not give the Parents the power to ſave or damn their Infants? And can ſuch Councils ſtand with the Wiſdom, Juſtice, or Mercy of God?
Presbyterian.
Query 5. Whether Infants be not included in the firſt Edition of the Covenant of Grace made with Adam? (Gen. 3. 15.) Whether unleſs it can be proved that Infants are none of the Womans S…ed, we muſt not take that Fundamental Promiſe to extend to Infants? And was ſhe not thereby obliged to l…ſt her ſelf, and all her Infant-Progeny in the Redeemer's Army, againſt the Proclaimed Enemy, and to teach her Poſterity to do the like; And did they not continue viſible Members of Chriſts Army and Kingdom, till ſuch time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation, and as the Seed of the Serpent, fought againſt Chriſt and his Kingdom, for Satan and his Kingdom?
Baptiſt.
Antiquery 5. Whether the Baptiſts do not as clearly aſſert Infants Right to the Grace of God in the firſt Edition of the Covenant, made with Adam, as any whatſoever? And if by the Seed of the Woman you underſtand all that are ſaved, who then queſtions Infants belonging to that ſeed? But where is the Woman bound to Liſt her Infants in the Redeemers Army, or where ſhall we finde them viſible Members of Chriſts Army in the firſt Edition of the Covenant? Are not theſe meer words without Authority of Scripture? or where did Infants ever fight for, or againſt the Serpent? and if not, why do you make them the Seed of the Serpent, and Fighters againſt the Kingdom of Chriſt? And if you ſay, you ſpeak not theſe things of Infants quatalis; Then whether you have not transferr'd the Queſtion, and ſo it is impertinent?
Presbyterian.
Query 6. VVhether in that firſt Proclamation of Grace to fallen man, or in the firſt Promiſe of Redemption to ſinners, Gen. 3. 15. An Infant of the VVoman be not Promiſed to be General, and Head of the Church? And whether the Promiſe of an Infant Head, doth not declare Gods Mind, that he will have Infants Members, becauſe the Head is the principal Member, &c.
Baptiſt.
Antiquery 6. Whether Chriſt in his Infancy was not as truly God as Man? and whether there be any Parity between the Infants you ſpeak of and Chriſt, ſeeing he was able even then to vanqu…ſh the greateſt Adverſary?
And if by the Redeemed Church, you mean the whole number of the ſaved, who doubted but Infants were of the Redeemed Church? But how doth it follow, that all that are to be ſaved, ought to be mitted to practical Ordinances in the viſible Church? ſeeing then all Infants (for ought you know) have the ſame right, which yet you d…ny; but why ſo? are you ſure they are not within the verge of Chriſts Redemption?
And though Chriſt was once an Infant, yet where do you finde tha… he was then a Member of the Goſpel Church? Was he not born under the L…w? Gal. 4 4. and born King of the Jews, Mat. 2 2. and according to the ſtate of the Jew…ſh Church, an Infant migh be both a Member and a Prince; And was not the Ki…gly Office in Iſrael a Type of Chriſt? But what is this to he order and ſtate of the Church under the Goſpel? And fur…her, tho…gh Chriſt an Infant was bo…n Head of the Church as aforeſaid, yet in … Infant ſt…te, he did not intermeddle with the exerciſe of the leaſt par… of h…s Authority. And then whether it be not more r…tional to ſay, that ſeeing Chriſt the Head of the Church did not act…ally poſſ…ſs, or at leaſt not uſe any part of that Power, as an Infant, or while he was an Infant? Its therefore unreaſonable, th…t Infants (ſuppoſn …h…y were as truly bo…n Memb…rs of his Church, as he wa… born King of the Jews) ſhould be concern'd in the actual poſſeſſion of Ordi…ances in Infancy?
And what if we grant that Infants may be diſciples by deſignation, a Chriſt was King, Prieſt and Prophet by deſignation, (…ho…gh the Caſes not al…ke eaſie to prove) yet ſeeing Chriſt was not a Prophet (as you confeſs) in actu exercito, how came you to be ſo bold to bring Infants to the ex…rciſe of Baptiſm? And why can you not rather content your ſelves with the deſignation or ded…ca…ion of your Infan…s to God by Prayer, and make them diſciples in actu exercito, when they are able? And whether you may not as well repute th…m thus among diſciples, and as ſafely conclude them to be in the Covenant of Grace, and of the Redeemed Church without Baptiſm, as without the Lords Supper? Sith its ſaid, Except ye eat of the fleſh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; as well as it is ſaid, Except a man be born again of water, &c. he cannot enter in…o the Kingdom of God. And whether Dr. Taylor, a Learned Pedobaptiſt do not ingeniouſly confeſs, That the Wit of Man is not able to ſhew a difference in theſe caſes?
Presbyterian.
Query 7. Why are thoſe two Titles put on thoſe two diſtinct Generations. (ſc…l. the Poſterity of Cain, and the P…ſt…rity of Seth) calling one the Sons of God, …nd the others the Daughters of men, Gen. 6. 2. But that the one was a Generation ſ…parated from the Church from their Birth, (their Progenitors being caſt out before them) when the other was the ſeea of Saines not caſt out, &c.
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 7. Whether this Text Gen. 6. 2. be not ambiguous, inſomuch that your own Doctors are not agreed about the Expoſition thereof? But ſuppoſing it to reſpect the Poſterities of Cain and Se…h, yet whether it can be meant of Infants, ſeeing they committed none of theſe ſi…s, in taking Wives, &c. And whether your Expoſition do not damn all Infants proceeding from Cain…s Poſterity, and conſequently all the Infants of all Nations which profeſs not the true Religion?
And ſuppoſing that the Infants of godly Parents are in ſome ſenſe more immediately related to the Church, then the Infants of Pagans by reaſon of the Prayers and Deſignation of their Parents, and the opportunities of Education? yet what makes this for any actual Participation of Ordinances in the Church, and what one Ordinance did the Infants of theſe Sons of God partake of? And Sith the Scripture is wholly ſilent of any ſuch thing, whether this do not more ſtrongly conclude againſt Infant-baptiſm then for it? And whether it be needful to ſay any thing to the latter part of this Query, ſeeing we grant all, and ſomthing more then this Text will prove, though we deny them actual right to Ordinances? And whether the common or equal overthrow of theſe Generations, in reſpect of the Infants of both, do not evidently ſhew, that as to the buſineſs of their ſalvation, they were in the ſame condition? And then whether it be ſafe for us to conclude, that the wickedneſs of any Progenitors have any further effect upon the Infant-ch…ldren then to expoſe them to external calamities, ſeeing Chriſt died to redeem them from the condemnation brought upon them by Adam? Rom. 5. 18.
Presbyterian.
Query 8. Whether it was not the ſame Church be…or…, and after Abrahams time; that was called the Tents of Sem? Gen. 19. 27. Was not the Jewiſh Church denominated the Tents of Sem? A…d does it not hence appear, that the Church-Priviledges of that People did not begin with or from Abraham, but that they were b…for…? And how was it the ſame Church that was of S…m, and of Abraham, if it had not the ſame ſort of Members or Materials? &c.
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 8. Though it be true, that the Church is the ſame in ſome ſence, from the beginn…ng of the world to the end; yet whether it may not truly be ſaid alſo, not to be the ſame in divers reſpects? And whether the Cov…nant as made with No…h, Gen. 9. do not differ from the Cov…nant as ma…e w…th Adam, though both was made with all mank…nd, and is affirmed to be the C…venant of Grace by Mr. Baxter. And whether there was not yet a further difference b…tween theſe and the Covenant as made with Abraham? Gen. 17. the former being made with all manking, and never yet abrogated, (as ſaith Mr. Baxter). The other was made with Abraham and his Seed, diſtinct from the reſt of Mankind, but as they ſhould be Profelited thereto? And though the Church may be denominated the Tents of Shem, b…th before and after Abraham, yet whether this conclude there was to be no alteration of the ſtate of the Church under theſe times reſpectively? And whether in any of the Tents of Shem, before Abrahams time, ſo much as any one Infant can be found admitted to the Practical Part of any Ordinance in the Church, which was peculiar to her as ſuch (for as touching Prayer, it is a moral duty, and to be made for all men.) And whether thus boldly to ſuppoſe a thing without the leaſt ſhew of proof, be not a plain begging the main thing in Queſtion?
And though it be never ſo true, that the univerſal redeemed Church conſiſt of the ſame Materials in all Ages, yet whether it be not evident that that God made a difference, as to the time of diſpenſing Ordinances to them? As firſt no Practical Ord…nance or … diſpenſed to any Infant that we read of till Abrahams time; and though then Circumciſion was ordained for Males, yet not for all the Male Children, for all under eight days of Age were prohibited, and yet you grant th…y were in that Covena…t, nor any Rite at all for the Females, who yet were of the ſame Church? And whether under Moſes they were not admitted to other Rites alſo, as the Paſſ…over, Sacrifices and other holy Feaſt, of the Jews? We therefore ask you why the Infants of converted Gentiles are not in as good a condition, without any Rite or Ceremony, as the Infants of all the faithful from Adam to Abraham? And whether thoſe Infants before Abraham were not a happy as the Infants of Abraham? And then doth it not follow, that the Infants of faithful Gentiles, are as happy without Circumciſion, or any other Rite or …eremony whatſoever, as Abrahants was under a Ceremony, ſeeing God hath not ohliged them to any in the days of the Goſpel, o… ſince the Ab…ogation of the Law and Circumciſion?
Presbyterian.
Query 9. Whether if we could ſhew no written Law or Promiſe at firſt conſtituting the Duty, or granting the Priviledge of Church-Member ſhip, it were the leaſt diſparagement to our Cauſe, as long as we can ſhew thoſe following, Laws which preſuppoſe this? If Moſes at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had bin without any written Law, found all the Infants of Church-Members in Poſſeſſion of this b…n…fit … what n…ed was there of a new Law about it? Or why ſhould God promiſe it as a new thing?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 9. Whether if there be any ſuch Law, you would not have ſhe wed us where it is, longere this day? and whethen you do not now grant in effect there is no ſuch written Law? And what n…ed you thus to query, ſeeing we deny no lawful thing to Infants, to be done for them by their godly Parents, but only oppoſe your doing that for which you have no Law?
Presbyterian.
Query 10. Whether there being certain Proof in Scripture of Infants Church-Memberſhip, but none except that before, alledged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all ſpeaking of it as no new thing; we have not great reaſon to aſſign its beginning, which from Gen. 3. is before ſpoken of?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 10. Why do you ſay that Gen. 3. 15. makes mention of Infants Church-Memberſhip, (otherwiſe then what we allow) Is here the leaſt hint of your mode of making Infants Church-Members, that is, doth this place bid you admit them to any Ordinance? As for the gracious Covenant here made with Adam. do we not grant that it extends to Infants, yea, we ſay with Mr. Baxter, it was never abrogated?
Presbyterian.
Query 11. Is it not unqueſtionable, that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham the Father of the Faithful, comprehended Infants for Church-Members? And was … not the ſame with that Gen. 3. 1. 5. But in ſome things clearlier opened? Were not both theſe the Covenant of Grace and free Juſtification by Faith in the Redeemer? And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed, comprehend Infants? And ſhould not the ſame Promiſe, expreſſed more conciſely be expounded by the ſame expreſſed more ſully?
Baptiſt.
An. 11. Though it be unque ſtionable that the Covenant of Grace did extend to Infants, Gen. 3. 15. as well as in Abrahams time, yet there was a vaſt difference in reſpect of ceremonies. And whether the difference between the Baptiſts and P…dobaptiſts be not chi…fly (if not only) about impoſing Ceremonies upon Infants? And whether it be not evident that what Ceremonies the Word of God did even aſſign to Infants, we allow them, reſpecting the time of their duration, and only oppoſe your impoſing Ceremonies upon Infants, for which you can aſſign no Authority in the Holy Scriptures, as is confeſſed by many Pedobaptiſts. See Mr. Baxters Cure p. 7.
Presbyterian.
Query 12. Whether (though the Hebrews had their Peculiarities) it be at all credible, that the Infants of that one ſmall Countrey only ſhould be ſo differently de…lt with by God, from all the World elſe, even Enoch's, Noah'…, Sem's, and all from Adam to the end of the World, that theſe Infants only ſhould be Church-Members, and n… others.
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 12. Whether this Query (as indeed almoſt all the reſt) do not miſ the true ſtate of the Caſe, ſeeing the Baptiſts may and do in a good ſence acknowledge Infants to be related to the Churc…. viz. by Redemption, Pious Dedication to God. &c. And ſeeing you grant the Hebrew, had their Peculiarities, in what thing could it be but in external Rites and Ceremonies, eſpecially concerning Infants; And ſhew us, if you can, any one Nation under Heaven, from the beginning of the World to this day, to whom God gave any Law to bring their Infants to any Rites either Legal or Evangelical. And ſith Circumciſion was forcibly put upon Infants, we ask whether you be able to prove, that any Perſon whatſoever are to be forced to Baptiſm, which Auguſtine tells us. Infants do ſtrive againſt with great crying, from whence he infers they have no Faith. Lib. de Pe…cat. Mer. & Remiſ. chap. 28.
Presbyterian.
Query 13. What can be more abſurd, then to maintain a Tranſient Fact (as Mr. T. hath done) making Infants Church-Members, without any Law, Promiſe, …r Covenant-Gra…t of God giving them R…ght? Whether a Gift that was never given be not a contradiction? (V. p. 32, 35▪ 39 44, 45, 151.) And if there was any ſuch Promiſe, or Covenant-Grant of Infant's Church-Memberſhip, when, or where was it revoked?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 13. Whether theſe things be ſurely ſuggeſted againſt Mr. T, and whether you ought not to have ſet down his opinion in his own words? and whether he doth not mainly oppoſe himſelf againſt Mr. Baxter's Pretended Law for Infant Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, whiles yet he denies not Infants a ſaving Promiſe, or the Promiſe of ſaving Prepriety in God. Antipedobapt. 3. Part. p. 33. And whether that Book was ever anſwered by Mr. Baxter, or ever will by any other?
Presbyterian.
Query 14. Was it only the Infants of the Hebrews, or of thoſe that were at their abſolute diſpoſe, that were Church-Members? VVere not the Infants of free Proſelites Church-Members too?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 14, What need of this Query? who doubts but that as many others as became Jews by being Proſelited to the Law, were Circumciſed according to the Law? But where do yo… find, that any, either Jews or Gentiles, when they were baptized, had any, obligation to baptize their children and ſervants alſo?
Presbyterian.
Query 15. VVas it not then the Duty of all the Nations round about, that could have Informati…n of the Jewiſh Religion, to engage themſelves, and their Children to God by Circumciſion?
And did not many of the People in Heſter's time become Jews, Heſt. 8. 17. who yet were not under their Government? And is it not well known, that this was to be circumciſed, they and their little ones, (as the Proſelites were) and ſo to keep the Law of Moſes?
And whether the circumciſed Servants of Iſrael, ſold away to another Nation, and ſo ſeparated from the Civil ſtate of Iſrael, did eo nomine ceaſe to be Church-members, though they for ſook not God? And …o of the Infants, if they were ſold in Infancy? And ſo whether Infants might not be Church-members, that were not of the Jews Common-wealth?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 15. Although other Nations had the liberty to become Jewes, yet whether they were under ſuch an obligation, as that they muſt become Jewes, or elſe not be ſaved, is worthy conſideration; and whether the contrary will not be found true, when the caſe of Cornelius, Act. 10. and of the Gentiles, Rom. 2. are duely conſidered, whereas the one is accepted as fearing God and working Righteouſneſs, as much as the Jew upon the account of his Jewiſh Worſhip? And the other Gentiles generally, who did by Nature the things contained in the Law, were counted the Circumciſion, ſo as to judge the Jew, who only had the Circumciſion in the fleſh? and not only ſo, but ſo as to be accepted of God, as far (at leaſt) as the Righteouſneſs of the Law would avail the Jew? And whether the Infants of theſe devout Gentiles was not free from any obligation to Circumciſion, or any other external Ceremony? And whether there be not an evident difference between the Law and the Goſpel in this, the one being fitted to the Jewiſh Nation only, ſo as to be capable of an orderly obſervation there only? And the Goſpel fitted ſor the obſervation of all Nations equally, and conſequently all Nations equally obliged to the full and orderly Profeſſion thereof?
Presbyterian.
Query 16. VVere not the Iſraelites Children Members of the univerſal viſible Church, as well as of the Congregation of Iſrael?
As he that is a Member of the City is a Member of the Kingdom and a part of a part, is a part of the whole; ſo was not ever member of the Jews Church alſo a member of Gods univerſal Church?
Baptiſt.
Ant. 16. Whether it be well ſaid to call the univerſal Church viſible, And whether the univerſal Church did not contain many thouſands ſuch, as Job, Cornelius, &c, who were neither Jews by Nature nor Religion? And whether no Infants might be ſaid to be Members of the univerſal Church, who were not Members of the Jewiſh Church? and if not, how ſhall they be ſaved, ſeeing Chriſt is only the Saviour of his body finally?
Presbyterian.
Query 17. Was there ever any true Church, or Eccleſiaſtical Worſhipping Society appointed by God in all the World ſince the Fall, but the Church of Chriſt? Were not Infants therefore either Members of Chriſts Church, or of no Church of Gods Inſtitution? Was not Moſes Chriſts Ʋſher, and Moſes Church and Chriſt's Church one according to God's Inſtitution?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 17. Whether this Query be not either captious, or elſe impertin…nt? for though it ſhould be granted, that the Church of Chriſt was the ſame in ſome ſence from the beginning, yet who knows not that the time and way for admiſſion of the Members thereof to external Ceremonies, was not always the ſame? And who doubts but the Church was always of Gods Inſtitution? But doth it therefore follow, that the Ordinances Inſtituted therein, belongs to Infants? might they not have the Paſſeover, as well as Circumciſion, in the Moſaical Church, and yet have neither the Lords Supper nor Baptiſm in the Chriſtian Church? you deny them the one, why may not we as well deny the other?
Baptiſt.
Query 18. Whether was Abraham made a Member of the Church by Circumciſion, or circumciſed becauſe a Member of the Church? The like of Infants born in his Houſe?
And how can the ceaſing of Circumciſion prove Infants Church-Memberſhip ceaſed, any more then it can prove their Church-Memberſhip began with Circumciſion; or that Women were not Church-Members, becauſe not circumciſed; or that all Iſrael was unchurched in the VVilderneſs, when they were uncircumciſed for fourty years?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 18. Although Abraham was in the Church of God eſſentially by faith, yet whether formally in that Church-ſt…te, vvhichwhich God was then about to ſettle, till circumciſed, vvill not, I ſuppoſe, be haſtily affirmed? and how can Infants be ſaid to be in the Church, as Abraham then was, ſeeing they have no faith as he had? And whether the Jewiſh Church-ſtate did not ceaſe de jure, when Circumciſion ſo ceaſed? And then whether that ſtate of Infant Church-Memberſhip did not alſo ceaſe? And like as the ceaſing of the Paſſeover de jure, was the ceaſing of Infants right to any ſuch Ordinance, even ſo we ask why the ceaſing of Circumciſion de jure, is not as truly the ceaſation of Infants right to any ſuch Ordinance? certainly, if Gods Word aſſign any Ordinances in lieu of the former, the place where 'tis written would have b…en known to this day?
Presbyterian.
Query 19. VVhether the bleſſing of Abraham conſiſts not chiefly in this, that God Promiſed to be a God in Covenant with him, and his Seed? And how are the believing Gentiles bleſſed with faithful Abraham, and Heirs of the ſame Promiſe, if their Infants are not alſo comprehended in the ſame Covenant?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 19. Whether the bleſſing of Abraham, (if you underſtand it of eternal life) were not the bleſſing of the Fathers that were before him? And whether that bleſſing did not belong to their Infants? And whether their Infants were Partakers with them in any Rites or Ceremonies of inſtituted worſhip? And if not, then, why may not the Infants of the Gentiles partake of the bleſſing of Abraham, though not concern'd in Rites or Ceremonies? or whether you think the bleſſing of Abraham is confined to Ceremonies in reſpect of Infants, if ſo, ſhew us what Ceremonies theſe are?
Presbyterian.
Query 20. Whether in that great Promiſe, Gen. 12. 3 Tribes, Kindreds, Families, do not moſt certainly comprehend Infants? As it was to ſuch Families that the Promiſe was made before Chriſt, as to the Jewiſh Church? VVhat warrant have we to underſtand Families or Tribes otherwiſe, when the ſame Promiſe is made to the Gentiles?
Baptiſt.
Antiq. 20. Whether you ought not to diſtinguiſh in this great Promiſe, the things which are eternal from the things that were but for a time? And then whether you can ima…in…, that all the temporal bleſſings, rites and ceremonies, …oncern…d any Nation, as it concerned the ſeed of Abraham after the fleſh? But if by this Promiſe you underſtand it as the Apoſtle Paul doth, Gal. 3. 16. th…n we doubt not but all the Kindreds of the Earth are con…n'd in it; and then whether we do not ſufficiently comprize the …ntiles therein? But how can Abrahams Rites and C…remonie… be part of this bleſſing to the Gentiles, which are abrogated long ago?
Presbyterian.
Query 21, Whether the ſecond Commandment, Exod. 20, 5, 6. doth not contain a ſtanding Promiſe, and diſcove…y of Gods Reſolution, concerning the children of all that love him, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom this Commandment belongs? whether God meaneth not that his Retribution to Parents that love or hate him, ſhall extend to their children as ſuch; unleſs they interrupt it at Age by their own Acts; and if to their children qua tales, then whether not to Infants?
Baptiſt.
Ant. 21. Whoever doubted but that Infants are advantaged many ways, in the bleſſings which God beſtows on them that fear him? and accordingly greatly diſadvantaged by the wickednefs of their Pa…nts, even ſo as to bear their Fathers iniquities many times, as is evident in the overthrow of the old world, the Cities of Sodom and Samorrah, &c. yet whether the bleſſing or mercy of eternal life to …nfants, depend upon the Parents love to God? And whether the …amnation of Infants depend on the wickedneſs of their Parents? …nd whether the bleſſ…ngs of the ſecond Commandment belong … to the Church as ſuch, or whether all men that follow the …ules of Morality, are not within the reach of theſe bleſſings alſo? …nd then how ſhould Infant Church memberſhip and Baptifm be … bleſſings of the ſecond Commandment ſeeing this Law concerns … men as m…n being part of the Moral Law, and is not proper to …he Church only?
Presbyterian.
Query 22. VVhether any without the Church are ſecured of Gods mercy by P…omiſe? And whether mercy be not Promiſed to the children of the F…ithſul as ſuch? (See P…al. 102. 28. and 103. 17. Prov. 20. 7. Iſa. 61. 8, 9 and 65 23 &c)?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 22. Whether God hath not ſaid that his ways are all equal? And whether this do not ſecure Infants of Gods mercy, though not baptized? (for otherwiſe we ſay Infants are of the Redeemed Church? 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 promiſs of mercy to Infant Children, and that in reſpect of Etern…l Life? And whether the Query be not near a kin to that poſition of the Papiſts when they ſay, Out of the Church there is no Salva…ion, Reſtraining that word Church to Viſible or Actual Profeſſors only? And why muſt theſe five quotations be applied to Infants only, ſith the things ſpoken of theſe Children, Seed, or Off-ſpring, are moſtly ſuch as are excluſive of Infants?
Presbyterian.
Query 23. Whether theſe Promiſes in the making of them were limited to a certain time when they were to ceaſe? Or whether they have been ſince revoked?
Baptiſt.
Suppoſe theſe Promiſes yet remain, as we doubt not but they do, ſith they are not entail'd upon the Jewiſh Nation, (at leaſt the three firſt Quotations,) How will this avail to the point in hand? Are all the bleſſings of God to the Infant Off-ſpring of thoſe that fear him, &c. bound up in your ſuppoſed Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm?
Presbyterian.
Query 24. If it was on the Jews Rejection of Chriſt, that they were broken off from being Gods People, were thoſe thouſands of Jews that believed in Chriſt ſo broken off? If not, then whether were not the Children of all believing Jews Church-members in Infancy? Or otherwiſe, was it not ſomewhat elſe then Ʋnbelief that brake them off?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 24. Whether was thoſe that cried, His blood be upon us and our Children, thereby rejecting the great Meſſ…nger of the Covenant, …uſtly broken off? And whether the renting of the Vail of the Temple, did not ſhew the abrogation of the Covenant and the Legal Miniſtry? whether was Saul broken off when he perſecuted the Church cauſing many to blaſpheme? And how could the Jews lawfully be married to Chriſt, if Moſes was not now removed, without being called an Adultereſs? And then whether thoſe thouſands of Jews which believed were not firſt broken off, ſo as to plead no longer upon this iſſue, We are Abrahams Children, we are free-born, &c. And to look upon Circumciſion and whatſoever was gain to them on a legal acco…nt, to be loſs for Chriſt? or is there any other way to be graffed in to the Church of Chriſt, but by faith? Nowtherefore ſeeing the Jews were in no better caſe then th… Gentiles, Circumciſion being now nothing, even as uncircumciſion was nothing, b…ta new creature? then whether all the Infants of the Jews now ceaſ… to be m…mbers of any viſible Church, ſeeing …heir Parents had de jure loſt their Memb…rſhip?
Presbyterian.
Query 25. Were not the Infants of the Chriſtian Jews the day before their Converſion Members of the Jewiſh Church, and of Gods univerſal Church, (of which the Jews were but a part? and doth it not ſound ſtrengely, that ſuch Infants as were the day before Members of the Jewiſh Church, and of Gods univerſal Church, ſhould be put out of the Jewiſh and the whole viſible Church, by the faith of their Parents, or without unbelief? Either it was a Mercy to be a Member, of the Church, or not: If it was no mercy, then will it not follow, that the unbelieving Jews loſt nothing by being broken off? If it was a mercy, how did the Chriſtians Children forfeit it?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 25. Whether we have not ſufficiently ſhewed, that the Infants of the Jews were now no Members of the Jewiſh Church, that being now abrogated, and the Goſpel Church ſtate confirmed by the death of Chriſt, and the pouring out of the Holy Ghoſt; neither could two diſtinct Church ſtates ſtand together de jure. And then whether it be not a great miſtake for the Q…aeriſt to ſuppoſe the Jews were a part of Gods univerſal Church, when in truth they were no Church at all? and therefore whether the wonder which he makes about the Jews Infants which believed, be not groundleſs? And yet whether the Infants of the believing Jews were not in a far better eſtate, then when their Parents were unbelievers, ſith the Curſe they then had imprecated, was now removed? Alſo whether it was not a mercy, that both Parents and Infants were ſet free from Circumciſion, which whatever it was before, now ceaſed to be a mercy to any man, becauſe it was an obligation to the yoke of bondage, and rendred Chriſt unprofitable to ſuch as ſhould now receive it; and conſequently a Releaſe from that Church-Memberſhip according to the Law, was a great mercy to Infants, who ſtill retain Memberſhip in the inviſible Church, as they did before Circumciſion was in being?
Presbyterian.
Query 26. Whether it be credible, that he who came not to caſt out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the Partition-wall, and making of two one Church, would have a Chureh of ſo different form and conſtitution, that the Church at Jeruſalem ſhould have Infant-Members, and the Church at Rome ſhould have none? That the Jews Infants ſhould be Members, and not Gentiles?
If the Jews were broken off by unbelief, ſhould they not be graffed in again upon their Repentance of Faith? And ſo ſhould not every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-Members? Or otherwiſe how would their graffing in anſwer to their breaking off, ſhould they be but in part graffed in?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 26. Whether it be not a great miſtake to ſay, that Chriſt came to make the Jew and Gentile one Church, otherwiſe then by taking away the Jewiſh Church, and making all things new, 2 Cor. 5. 17. &c. And whether this might not be done without ſetling any of the Practical Ordinances upon Infants as under the Law? If otherwiſe, why have you not ſhewed us where Chriſt hath required Parent… to get their Infants baptized? and where he forbade them to be brought to Impoſition of Hands, the Table of the Lord, &c. If the denial of the firſt make our Infants no Members of the Church, doth not your denial of the other two, which do as generally pertain to Members of the Church, make duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page yours none alſo? And if the Church at Jeruſalem, Rome, &c. had any Infant-Members therein, in the ſence wherein you would have them Members, why do you not name ſome one Infant ſo made a Member, ſith you know it would ſuffice,
Wherher if the Jews grafting in, muſt in all Points anſwer to their breaking off, their Infants muſt not come to other Ordinances as well as Baptiſm? or will you ſay Infants cannot partake with their Parents of ſalvation without Baptiſm? or whether was the Infants of the Jews expoſed to damnation by their Parents unbelief? And if ſo, what is become of all their Infants ever ſince?
Presbyterian.
Query 27. Was not Chriſt Church Spiritual before his Incarnation (when it took in Infants) and gathered in a ſpiritual way? Was not …he viſible frame of the Jewiſh Church ſet up and erected by the Father of Spirits, and were not ſpiritual Duties commanded then▪ upon Promiſes of ſpiritual bleſſings, even liſe eternal?
How will any prove that it was a blemiſh to the old frame, that Infants were Members? What was the Church the worſe for Infants Rights? If it be no blemiſh, why muſt it be done away?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 27. Though it be true, that Chriſts Church was always ſpiritual in ſome meaſure, and his ſervices ſuch alſo; yet whether it be not alſo true, that the Church under the Law of Moſes was carnal, in reſpect of the ſpirituality of the Church under the Goſpel? Does not the Apoſtle ſay, 2 Cor. 3. Theſe two Miniſtrations differ as much as Letter and Spirit differeth; and that the glory of the one had no glory in reſpect of the glory which excelleth? And is it not then rational, that the Churches concern'd under theſe Miniſtrations reſpectively ſhould differ aecordingly? And though it was no blemiſh to the Jewiſh Church, to have Infants Partakers of their Ordinances, which are called carnal, yet whether it be not a more perfect ſtate, when the Church do al… know God, from the leaſt to the greateſt of them? And whether this be not the ſtate of the Church under the Goſpel, according to Gods Appointment? Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12, 13. And whether that which is leſs perfect ought not to vaniſh away when that which is more perfect is come. In that he ſaith a new Covenant, he hath made the firſt old, now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vaniſh away, Heb. 8. 13.
Presbyterian.
Query 28. In what regard were the new frame better, ſuppoſing the caſting out of Infants, which were in the old? How doth Infants Relation detract from its Spirituality? Do not the adult come in by …he ſame kind of conſent for themſelves, as they make for their Infants? And do not the Adult blemiſh the Church with more carnal ſins then Infants do? Would any Kingdom be more excell…nt, if all Infants were disfranchiſed? Does not Nature teach all Kingdoms on Earth, to take them f…r Members, though but Infant-Members?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 28. Whether it be neceſſary to ſay Infants are caſt out of that whereof they were never poſſeſſed, to wit, the uſe of Ordinances in the new frame of the Church? Or how can Infants be ſaid to be a ſpiritual ſeed? How are they living ſtones, built up a ſpiritual houſe; to offer ſpiritual ſacrifices in a Goſpel ſenſe? Or how are your Infants a more ſpiritual ſeed then our Infants? And whether any other are by Chriſts Order to partake in Goſpel-Ordinances, then ſuch as therein worſhip God ſpiritually? And whether hence it be not clear, that the way of making Infants Church-members do not detract from the ſpirituality of the new frame of the Church? Alſo where hath God required the Adult to conſent for their Inſant Church m…mberſhip in this new frame? And whether the compariſon between an earthly Kingdom and the Ghurch of Chriſt be any way fitting, ſeeing Infants have as much need of the priviledge of humane Laws, for the preſervation of their Lives and Rights as grown perſons? But how ſtand they in need of the Laws of the Church, (and particularly Baptiſm) for the preſervation of their ſouls. And whether this ſimilitude may not be emproved againſt you, ſeeing Infants, though Members of Kingdomes, yet are excuſed from all duties perſonal wbatſoever, and then why may they not be reputed of the Kingdom of God, and yet exempt from the duties of his Kingdom? or how come they to be concern'd ſo much in that one duty of Baptiſm, and no other whatſoever?
Presbyterian.
Query 29. Whether any Jew at age was a Member of the old Church without profeſſing faith, (in the Articles then neceſſary to ſalvation) Repentance and Obedience? And wherein the ſuppoſed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old, ſave only that a more full and expreſs Revelation of Chriſt requireth a more full expreſs Faith? Is it not evident, that they were to profeſs conſent to Gods Covenant, which who ſo denied Aſa would put to death? And was not circumciſion a covenanting Act? And did they not thereby proſeſs to take God for their God? Or would God elſe have taken them for his People? And would not renouncing God have cut them off?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 29. What is become now of your Infant Church-memberſhip; if when grown up they ceaſe to be Members upon that account? Were the Jews Infants twice made Members of their Church? Or is every renewing the Covenant, (as in the caſe of Aſa,) making men Members of the Church? But where did the Church ever admit one Member to her communion by Baptiſm without Profeſſion? or where did ſhe ever decree, that thoſe who would not ſubmit to her new frame ſhould be put to death? And whether in this the new frame of the Church do not greatly differ from the old?
Presbyterian.
Query 30. Whether Gods Law obligeth not Perſons to devote themſelves, and their Infants to God, by conſenting to Gods Covenant for themſelves and them? Whether it was not the duty of the Iſraelites to engage and devote their children to God in Covenant? Whether this be not evident from the Penalty (even to be cut off from his People) annexed for the non-Performance? (And whether this be not as much our Duty ſtill?) Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to every one his own due? and are not Infants God's own due? Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God by acknowledging his right, with a free reſignation and dedication of the Inf…n… to God as his own?
Baptiſt.
Antiq. 30. Where are Chriſtian Parents required to devote their children by conſenting to any Covenant for them (or in their ſtead, as the Jews were in matters of Religion: and what penalty hath God impoſed on them that devote not their Inſants by ſprinkling them as you do? And whether we do omit the duty of devoting our children to God in any thing wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us, (abating us all what muſt be abated)? And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-relation, obligation or right, or who oppoſes their being devoted to God in their capacity? and whether this be not a meer noiſe of words, as if all that do not as you do, do lay a ſide their care and duties towards Infants? And where is the inſtitution of your publick way? Have we not a more certain inſtituted way to devote them to God by Prayer, and to educate them in his fear, as they are capable, then you have to croſs or ſprinkle them?
Presbyterian.
Query 31. Whether Anabaptiſts themſelves, all of them that are truly pious, do not vertually (though not actually) devote their children to God, and conſent to their Covenant-relation, while they vehe…ently plead againſt it?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 31. 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? And can you believe, that there is no way to devote children to God but in your way? How then did Adam, Enoch, Scth, Noah, &c. devote their children to God? And it would do well alſo if you could ſhew us how they conſented to any Covenant for their Infants, more then we do? or prove if you can, that you your ſelves do conſent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants, more then we whom you call Anabaptiſts?
Does not Euſebius Pamphilius count Chriſtianity as old as Adam? l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian ſay, Enoch juſtiſſimum non Circumciſum nec Sibbatizantem, &c. Enochan upright man was tranſlated by God, though he were not circumciſed, neither yet did obſerve the Sabba…h.--- Ʋt aeternitas candidatis, &c. To the end, that he who did aſpire to Eternity might ſhew us, that we might pleaſe God without the burthen of Moſes Law. And what Law (ſave the La… of Circumciſion) did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God?
Presbyterian.
Query 32. Is it not a deſperate undertaking, and dare any adventure on it, to juſtifie all the World before Christs Incarnation, except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God? And do not they that ſay there is no Law in this caſe, ſay there is no Tranſgreſſion? A…d dare any in like manner undertake to juſtifie at the Bar of God all the VVorld ſince Chriſts Incarnation from the guilt of ſin, in not dedicating their children'to Christ, and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church? Dare any maintain that all the World is ſinleſs in this reſpect?
Baptiſt.
Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwiſe Query? As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God, unleſs they brought them to ſome Practical Ordinance in the Church, which is the only thing you do ſo complain of? And how, I pray you, did Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob dedicate their female Infants to God, ſith we finde no Practical Ordinance for them in Infancy? or who goes about to juſtifie the World, if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their Infants? And may we not well juſtifie all men, for not doing that which the Law of God never required?
Presbyterian.
Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledge to be a viſible Church-Member of Chriſt as Head of the Church, and of his Church as viſible? Is it not abenefit in it ſelf (beſides the Conſequents) to be viſibly united and related to Chriſt and his Body? Is not ſuch a Relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, and to the Church, an honor? And how great is the miſery of a contrary ſtate?
And if Infant Church-memberſhip were no benefit, then how were they that had it, (when they came to Age, or their Parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulneſs for it? Will any ſay, that neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulneſs upon this account?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God requires not of them? or whether it be any loſs to them till God requires it? And ſeeing you make your Pedo-rantiſm this all in all, ſhew us what benefit or priviledge you had when ſprinkled, more then the Infants of a pious Baptiſt? And what is that benefit that all who are ſprinkled by the Papiſts▪ do receive, which you ratifie for good Baptiſm? Or how are their Infants Church-members more then ours? And whether our children when grown up, have not a fairer way to the Purity of Chriſtianity, in that they are not entangled with ſuch Traditions?
Presbyterian.
Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged? And is it not certain, that they are actually Members of all the Commonwealths in the World? (perfecte, ſed imperfecte membra) And does not Nature ſeem actually to have taught moſt people on Earth, to repute their Infants in the ſame Religiou… Society with themſelves, as well as in the ſame Civil Society?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is very true; And we therefore ask, whether Infants be not as capable of the Lords Supper as Baptiſm, if the Lord will give it them? And as far as Gods Will is, that Infants ſhould be related to his Church, we doubt not of their capacity for it. And why is the order of Commonwealths ſo much inſiſted on in this caſe? Are we to fetch our Rules for diſpenſing Ordinances in the Church, from the Civil Policie of Nations? We deſire you ſtill to ſhow us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our Infants, which we do not? Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be croſſed or ſprinkled as you do? ſure you can never make this good.
Baptiſt.
Query 35. Whether according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace, God will not vouchſafe to be their God, and take them for his people, (that are in a natural, or Law-ſenſe) willing to be his people, and take him for their God? And whether the Infants of believing Parents are not thus willing? When Infants cannot be actually willing themſelves in a natural ſenſe, muſt not the reaſon and will of another be theirs in Law-ſenſe, that is, of the Parents, have the full diſpoſe of them, and are warranted by the Law of Nature to chooſe for them (for their good) till they come to the uſe of reaſon themſelves.
Whether in Gods acceptance the Child doth not thus truly conſent by the believing Parents, and doth not Covenant with God, as a Child covenanteth and conſenteth reputatively among men, who by his Parents is made a Party in Contract, as in a Leaſe for his Life, or the like?
And ſo granting the Relation of Church-memberſhip, to be founded in a mutual contract, covenant or conſent betwixt God and us, yet muſt not this conſent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of Infants, and the adult? Were not the Iſraelites Infants Church-members, who conſented not actually in their own perſons, but virtually, and reputatively?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 35. We ſtill require you to ſhew where this Law is, that obligeth Chriſtians to will the baptizing of their Infants, and that will warrant the baptizing of one Perſon by vertue of anothers will? And why may not a reputative Baptiſm ſerve as well as a reputative Covenant, ſith the Covenant is greater then Baptiſm? And whether this be an adviſed ſpeech, that the Parent hath the whole diſpoſal of his Child in matters of Religion? And who muſt judge what is good for his Infant in religious matters? Muſt not Gods Word do this? And ſhew us what command we have omitted, in not bringing our Infants to the Font as you do? Or do you think that your inſtance of a Leaſe, is ſufficient to rectifie mens conſciences in matters of this nature? And what if ſome of the Jews had failed to conſent for their children, were they therefore not in Covenant? ſure it was the Law, not the Parents conſent, that regulated theſe matters. Neither do we finde, that the Iſraelites were bound to repent and believe in the Perſon of the child, and accordingly to make profeſſion in his Name, when circumciſed, as you do at the Font when you pretend to baptize your Infants, when yet you baptize them not, ſeeing Sprinkling cannot be truly called Baptiſm?
Presbyterian.
Query 26. Whether it be not the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children? the Infant being not ſui Juris, but at his Parents diſpoſe in all things that are for his good, have not the Parents power to oblige their children to any future duty or ſuffering, that is certainly for their own good? And ſo may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly? And is it not unnaturally ſinful for a Parent to refuſe to do ſuch a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own child? And doth it not deſerve to be called the unthankful Error, that oppoſeth Childrens Rights, and Bleſſings?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 36. Whether this Query be not the ſame in effect, which we have had again and again? And we would know what offered benefits the Infant of the Pedobaptiſts meet with, among the Papiſts, or your ſelves either, which we received not, meerly for this cauſe of not doing to our infants, as they and you are pleaſed to do? And whether it were not as reaſonable for Parents to be baptized in the childs ſtead, as to profeſs faith and repentance for him? And whether it be reaſonable for a Parent to oblige his Infant to be of his opinion and practice, and to ſuffer for the ſame? And what Law of God requires this, and whether this may not be called the unreaſonable errour?
Presbyterian.
Query 37. VVhether it may be thought, or any dare maintain, that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World? Are they all excluded? And why? Are they worſe then their Parents? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally, as it doth t… Parents, muſt it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents, or ſuch as are ſo far entruſted?
Or can this be called a Covenant, for God only to ſay [I will ſave all ſuch Infants as I elect] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition, nor give a title to any Perſon that can be known by themſelves or others? Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant? And what Right or Hope doth this give to Chriſtians for their children more then to Pagans?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 37. Whether it may be thought that God ſhould require the conditions of the Covenant of grace on them, which he knows can obſerve none at all; or whether it be his will, that the grace of that Covenant ſhould depend upon others obſervation of the Conditions for them? And whether this be not to put the ſalvation of Infants out of his own hand, and into the hand of ſuch as commonly neglect their own? And is not this to expo…e poor Infants to ruine, whoſe Parents generally are ſo far from keeping, that they are ſtrangers to the Conditions of this Covenant?
And where are we taught to doubt the ſalvation of the Infants of Pagans? or to conclude ours only are in the ſtate of ſalvation?
And is it not much more ſecure to hope the ſalvation of Infants on the Ground of Chriſts dying for them, and riſing again for their Juſtification▪ then upon any Practical in Religion? And where did God ever ſince the beginning of the World, give any Ordinance to be neceſſary to the ſalvation of any Infant in the World? Can you believe that the cutting off of the uncircumciſed Man-child, was a cutting off from ſalvation? how then were all the Infants ſaved which were born to the Iſraelites for fourty years together, ſuch of them, I mean, as died during that time? And why may not Infants as well be made righteous without any thing done on their part, as they were made ſinners without any thing done on their part? Will not the ſecond Adams obedience ſalve the firſt Adams diſobedience? And may not poor Infants better plead in the day of Judgement what Chriſt did for them, then what your Godfathers or Proparents did for them?
Presbyterian.
Query 38. Though all that are ſaved, are ſaved by the meritorious righteouſneſs of Chriſt, by way of free Gift; yet whether the condition be not a ſuteable acceptance? And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his Child, who hath no will to accept it for himſelf? Shall he be certainly ſhut out unto damnation? Or ſhall he have that gift abſolutely which is conditional to all others? Or is he not concerned in the Donation at all? And have not Infants guilt and miſery from their Parents? And though Life and Pardon be by Chriſt only, yet is it not congruous, that the meer condition of acceptance may b… Performed by the Parents, (while they cannot accept for themſelves?)
Baptiſt.
Antiq. 38. Whether the meritoriouſneſs of Chriſt is not as available to ſave Infants without any mans acceptance thereof for them▪ Or whether hath God ty'd the ſalvation of any perſon to the acceptance of another? And whether theſe be not unreaſonable and unſcriptural conceits? And whether it be not for want of better Grounds for Infant-Baptiſm, that you thus continually tautologize, varying little from that which you have ſaid once and again?
Presbyterian.
Query 39. (Whether it be no advantage for children to be under an early engagement to God, and Jeſus Chriſt?) Whether to dedicate them betimes to God, doth not tend to ſecure God's right and childrens good, and to prevent their ſin and miſery; they being thus under a double Obligation, which they may be minded of betimes, and which may hold them more ſtrongly to their duty, and diſadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God, &c▪
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 39. Who is againſt as early an engagement of children to God as can lawfully be made▪ and do not the Baptiſts engage their children to God as ſoon as they can, by Prayer and Supplication whiles Infants; and then by the beſt education they are able when docible? But whether any thing be done to purpoſe in your judgement (when yet all is done that can be done) unleſs it be rantized in your way? And whether it be not b…tter to leave the event of their accepting Baptiſm to the wiſe diſpoſe of God, then to do it per force in Infancy, without Precept from God? Alſo whether the Infant-Baptiſm be ſuch a means to propagate Religion as you ſuppoſe, may be ſeen, when you conſider how in the darkneſs of Popery, Pedobaptiſm was more common then now, but Chriſtianity much leſs? And name one if you can, that was bettered in Chriſtian vertue by Pedobaptiſm? we think we can name one, and that your ſelf, which is worſe for it, for had you not that to reſt on, you would probably deſire to put on Chriſt in baptiſm? whether it be not the fitteſt time to be buried with Chriſt in baptiſm, when we are dead with him from the rudiments of the world, or whether it be reaſonable to bury ſinners therein till they be dead to ſin? and whether it can profit any perſon to be baptized, unleſs he have the anſwer of a good conſcience, by the Reſurrection of Chriſt from the dead, 1 Pet. 3. therein?
Presbyterian.
Query. 40. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was one Age or Church (particular) on Earth ſince Adam, till about 200 years ago, that the Anabaptiſts roſe, wherein Infants de facto were not Members of the Church?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 40. Whether in your ſenſe of making Infants Members of the Church de facto, it can be proved there was any one ſo made a Member from the beginning of the World till Abrahams time? and whether John Baptiſt, Chriſt, or any by his order, did receive Infants into the Church de facto.
And whether the Baptiſt do not better prove the Antiquity of their faith and practice in baptiſm then any Aedo baptiſt in the world? and 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? whileſt M. Baxter himſelf confeſſes Infant-baptiſm to be ſo difficult, that many of its Aſſertors, both Proteſtants and Papiſts, are forced to confeſs it cannot be proved by the Scriptures? See his Cure p. 7. And ſeeing you and we are generally agreed, that our way both for ſubject and manner is out of diſpute, clear in the Scriptures; and you confeſs by the Pen of Mr. Baxter, that yours is very difficult, is it not reaſon the difficult way ſhould give place to the clear and evident way?
Presbyterian.
Query 41. VVhether it can be proved, that ever there was any one I…fant of true Church-members, that was not rightfully a Church-member himſelf from the Creation till Chriſt's days? Or from the Creation till this day; except the Anabaptiſts, who reject the benefit, whoſe caſe we will not preſume to determine?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 41. Whether this Query be not the ſame we had before? and whether what is ſaid to it, may not alſo ſuffiee to this?
Presbyterian.
Query 42. Seeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the Creation to this day (as far as any Records can lead us) Is it likely, that the Lord, and Head, and all-ſufficient Governour of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now, to be actually made up of ſuch ſubjects, as in regard of Age be diſallowed, and ſuffered his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reaſonable, modeſt and lawful undertaking, to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new framed Church. as to the age of the Subjects? And is it not more modeſt and ſafe, to live quietly in a Church of that frame, as all the Saints of Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptiſts did attempt an Alteration?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 42. Whether it be not utterly untrue, that Infants were Members of the Church de facto, i.e. to be brought to partake of Ordinances Practical in the Church, ſave only from Abraham to the end of the Law? And whether all the Pedobaptiſts in the world have not hitherto been unable to ſhew any one inſtance before Abraham, or ſince the Law was abrogated, ſo much as one Infant admitted to any ſuch Ordinance in the Church of …od, according to what the Scriptures afford in thi… …? And …her it be not as modeſt in us to labour to reſtore …ptiſm to its pure uſe in the Church, both in reſpect of the ſubject and manner of Adminiſtration thereof, as it was for the Proteſtants to do the like in reſpect of the Lords Supper? Alſo whether your pretending the Authority of the univerſal Church, be not the ſame figment, with which the Papiſts deceived themſelves and others? And how can you pretend the univerſal Church, when the Primitive Church is on our ſide?
Presbyterian.
Query 43. Whether conſidering Chriſts own Infant-Mem…rſhip, and his kind reception of Infants, and his chiding thoſe that would have kept them off, and his offers of taking in all the Jewiſh Nation, (Matth. 23. 37.) and that they were broken off by unbelief, and conſequently the Seed of Believers broken off from the Church Ʋniverſal, and that whole Houſholds are oft ſaid to be baptized, and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy, and that Chriſt (Mat. 28.) commanded his Miniſters, as much as in them lieth, to diſciple all Nations baptizing them, &c?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 43. Whether Chriſts Infants Church-memberſhip did not pertain to the Jewiſh Church only, Gal. 4. 4. born under the Law only, &c. And whether he was not about 30 years when he entred in our Profeſſion, Heb. 3. 3. The Apoſtle and High Prieſt of our Profeſſion Christ Jeſus. See Luke 3. And then whether his example be not flat againſt you?
Alſo whether Chriſts only praying for Infants, and not baptizing them though brought to him, neither ordering any other to do it that we reade of, do not ſhew us that Infants may be under the bleſſings of Chriſt without baptiſm? And whether you may not tremble to preſume to do more then he did, or appointed to be done? Are you wiſer then he?
Alſo whether it lies within the power of any Miniſter to diſciple an Infant; or ſhew us one Infant with you, or any Pedobaptiſt ever made a diſciple? or be pleaſed to come and make my Infants diſciples if you can, and I promiſe you I will aſſiſt you what I can in the baptizing them? and not only ſo, but do my beſt to employ you elſewhere, I ſpeak it ſeriouſly. And whether this would not do more to decide the Controverſie, then all the Books that are written by any of you? and if you cannot do this, how will Matth. 28. 19. warrant you to baptize Infants, ſith its plain that diſcipling goes before baptizing? and how diſciples are to be made we think it beſt to learn of Jeſus, John 4. 3. How think you? Do you indeed believe, that any perſon being of the Nation, entitles them to… b…ptiſm? why then who is not a fit ſubject, ſeeing all Infants …nd men too are of one Nation or another? and if there be other Qualifications neceſſary, whether to be taught be not one of the chief of them? and why do you ſay we take Infants away from Chriſts Church, becauſe we baptize them not; are they in it before baptized? if ſo, how do we take them away?
Presbyterian.
Query 44. In ſumm, whether 1. God would not have Parents devote their children to him, and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant? 2. Whether alſo he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him, and be not peculiarly their God, that ſuch children are holy? 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members, according to an Infant-capacity, of the viſible Church, as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven? 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their ſalvation, then of thoſe without? 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their ſalvation certain, if they ſo die? 6. Whether the Inveſt…ure and Solemnization of their Covenant with Chriſt ſhould not be made in Infancy, &c?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 44. In ſumm, 1. Whether we do not as much to our Infants (in our capacity) as Chriſt did to the Infants which were brought to him? and will not that ſati…fie, unleſs we go from him to follow you? And as to the buſineſs of the Covenant, let us hear what Mr. Baxter ſaith, More R…ſ. p. 86. All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace, which is not vain or repealed by God, but as their abuſe of the grace of the Covenant may caſt them out; for as a Covenant of entire 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 ma… kind in Noah, &c. And now we ask whether our Infants according to this account of the Covenant of Grace be not in it without bapti…m, fith they have not abuſed the grace of the Covenant? and whether baptiſm be not far more proper, when after they have corrupted themſelves by ſin, they come to humiliation, and ſo to enter into this Covenant upon the termes of the Goſpel?
Whether your Expoſition of the univerſal Church, upon Mat. 28. 19. do take in the Practice of the Apoſtles in purſuance of that Commiſſion to the Acts of the Apoſtles, and the Expoſition of the Baptiſts? and if not, then you either deny us to be of the univerſal Church, or elſe you have not the Expoſition of the Church univerſal?
Presbyterian.
Query 45. How inconſiderable a Part of the univerſal Church do the Anabaptiſts hold Communion with? And do they not unchurch almoſt all the Churches on Earth? (may we not think, that they rob Christ of more them nine Parts of ten of his Kingdom, or Church univerſal? V. p. 305.)
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 45. Whether upon Luthers revolt from the Pope, you were not upbraided with holding communion with an inconſiderable part of the univerſal Church? why do you take up the Papiſts weapons? Did not that pious man that ſuccoured Athanaſius in the time of the Arrian perſecution anſwer the Objection well, when he ſaid, The cauſe of truth is not therefore empaired, becauſe I am alone; ---Glory not therefore in multitudes, for it is not the multitude but the cauſe that juſtifieth or condemneth? Alſo whether we may not alſo conclude, that many are of the univerſal Church, which do not communicate with us or your ſelves? and yet whether the ſeparation from many Pedobaptiſts will not juſtifie our ſeparation from you more clearly?
Presbyterian.
Query 46. Whether they can poſſibly hop…, that ever the Church on Earth will unite upon their terms, of rejecting all their Infants from the viſible Church, and renouncing all our Infant-Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptiſmal Covenant of Grace?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 46. Whether this be in effect to ſay, What will theſe feeble Jews do? And why may we not hope that this great miſtake of yours may vaniſh, as well as that great miſtake of Auſtin, and the generality of men proſeſſing Chriſtianity, who brought Infants alſo to the Lords Table, and that for many hundreds of years together, and defended it by as plaufible reaſons as any you have for baptizing them? Could God reform ſo great and general an errour, forced on by Learning and Authority of eminent men; And ſhall we think this thing only too hard for God▪ our ſmall number ſhall not make us doubt, for we know God doth great things by ſmall means. And what Baptiſmal grace do we deſire you to renounce, when we only defire you to mend an errour; Did the twelve diſciples, Acts 19. renounce any baptiſmal grace, when (according to the Interpretation of the Ancients) they were baptized again? Surely Reformation is no errour.
Presbyterian.
Query 47. And whether if they continue to the Worlds end to ſeparate from almoſt all the Churches and unchurch them, their Employment will not be ſtill to ſerve the great Enemy of Love and Concord, againſt the Lord of Love and Peace, and againſt the Profperity of Faith and Godlineſs, and againſt the welfare of the Church and Souls, and to the ſcandal and hardning of the ungodly?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 47. Whether the ſeparation is not juſtly chargeable upon thoſe which cauſe diviſions and offences, by aſſerting and maintaining ſuch errours, as being admitted, the way of God muſt be corrupted, or laid aſide? and whether theſe are not the men, that (at leaſt unawares) ſerve the deſign of the great enemy, and whether you are not guilty of the fault wherewith you would charge us?
P…esbyterian.
48. Whether too many well-meaning, but weak Chriſtians, are not diſaffected to lawful and warrantable things in the Worſhip of God, meerly becauſe they ſee ſuch as are ungodly uſe and own them? And whether if God ſhould but let us have a King and other Rulers, that were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and ſinging of Pſalmes, &c. and would make Laws for their own way, and impoſe it on others, ſo that the ungodly multitude ſhould fall in with them, it would not preſently cure many that are now for ſuch Opinions?
Baptiſt.
Antiqu. 48. Whether many, but weak Chriſtians, would hold to the errou… of Infant-ſprinkling, but meerly becauſe J. B. and Mr. Baxter, &c. do ſo. And whether this be not as much weakneſs of the one hand, as the caſe put by you on the other? and whether both ought not to be amend…d? And whether the latter part of this Query do not ſhew, that to follow the greateſt number is not always the beſt way? And why then would you diſcourage us by our Paucity? And whether ſuch Confiderations might not have diſcouraged the Apoſtles, ſeeing they were to alter the ſtate of Religion in the Jewiſh Church, yea, throughout the whole world?
Presbyterian.
Query 49. Whether Mr. Baxter in the ſecond and third part of that his ſecond defence of our Infants Rights, have not ſufficiently detected the great and notorious untruths in Fact and Hiſtory, wherewith Mr. H. D. Treatiſe of Baptiſm, and Reply to Mr. Willes is fully ſtuffed.
Baptiſt.
Antiqu, 49. Whether Mr. D. and Mr. Tombes have not ſufficiently detected Mr. Baxters miſtakes in many of his Works … Infant-baptiſm. and particularly in Mr. Tombes his Felo de ſe. Alſo whether Mr. Wills exceptions againſt Mr. D. are not well foiled by Mr. D. in his twofold Defence of his Treatiſe of Baptiſm; And whether Mr. Baxter did ever yet, or ever will accept of Mr. Tombes his ſerious Challenge lately made in theſe words.
I Challenge him to ſet down diſtinctly his Theſes, concerning the Grace he meanes, the Covenant of Grace, what and whoſe it is, how it is bap, iſwal, what are the rights and benefits conferred to Infants by it, uſing words in their proper ſence and genuine notions, and then without Queſtions, Exclamations, Flirts, Suppoſitions improved, ſet down his Scriptures, and form his Arguments ſubſtantially---and then I doubt not but learned and accurate Diſputants will ſee his folly, &c. Poſtſcript to Mr. D. ſecond Reply p. 267.
Presbyterian.
Query 50. Whether the Anabaptiſts ſchiſm, or ſeparation from Communion with our Churches be not worſe yet then their ſimple Opinion? And whether it be not deſirable, and poſſible, that ſome may be found out, and terms laid down, in which good and ſober men on both ſides would agree and hold Communion?
Baptist.
Antiqu. 50. Whether the Papiſts may not on fairer Grounds Query thus with the Proteſtantt, then you can do with us, eſpecially when the Cauſe you manage againſt us is ſo doubtful in the judgement of its beſt friends▪ as we ſhewed in our Preface; and here we ſhall further add what Mr. Y. notes in his firſt Reply, p. 126. Mr. Chillingworth (ſaith he) in his Anſwer to Knot's Charity maintain'd, part. 1. c. 3. §. 44. p. 152. ſaith, The doctrine of Infant-baptiſm is of that ſort, of which the Scripture is ſilent. And the Oxford-Divines, in their Reaſons oſ the preſent Judgement of the Univerſity, &c. June 1. 1674. Do. ſect. 4. p. 9. ſay, That without the Conſent, Judgment and Practice of the univerſal Church, (which they diſtinguiſh from the Scriptures) they ſhould be at a loſs when they are called upon for proof of the baptizing Infants. Now this conſidered with what Dr. Taylor ſaith, Diſſuaſive from Popery, p. 118. That it is certain, there is no univerſal or prime Tradition for baptizing infants, then whether you may not more ſecurely forbear baptizing your Infants, till endowed with knowledge and faith, then to do it without. And in the mean time retain your opinion about their being in the Covenant of Grace, and let Chriſts Miniſters or your ſelves pray for them after the example of Chriſt. And whether this might not be a more likely way for a laſting Peace between the Baptiſts and the Pedobaptiſts, and more conſonant to the Scriptures then the way propounded by you?
And ſeeing it ſhall come into your hearts to make ſome Overtures for peace, we deſire you would proſecute that needful Work. And whether it may not better be done by perſonal Conference in a friendly and Chriſtian manner, then by writing Books one to another. And whether the Baptiſts have not offered this, and bin rejected by you in ſuch their tenders of friendſhip?
May theſe Queries and Antiqueries have an effectual tendency to the increaſe of Love and Chirſtian Friendſhip, and if not, whether it had not been better they had been unwritten?
FINIS.