The Controversy About Infants Church Membership and Baptism, Treatise – Title page

The Controversy About Infants Church Membership and Baptism · Treatise – Title page

p. 5The Controverſie of Infants Church-Memberſhip, and Baptiſm Epitomized. The firſt Treatiſe ſhewing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants.

SECTION I.

IT is evident by the Writings of many Paedo-Baptiſts, both Papiſts, Prelatiſts, and Presbyterians, that they do all either hold abſolutely that no Unbaptized Infant can be ſaved, or at leaſt that their Salvation is very doubtful. And among theſe Mr. Baxter, and from him Mr. J. B. hath not a little amuſed the Minds of Men about this Matter. Only they have uſed a more ſubtle way, coupling the Church-Memberſhip of Infants with Baptiſm, confounding thereby the Readers and themſelves too, they not being able to ſay which hath the Precedency: for if Infants be Church-Members without, or before they be Baptized; let them ſay ſo, and let them prove it well, I ſhall be glad to ſee it done. But then let them never ſay, as Mr. J. B. doth, in his Epiſtle, and Mr. Baxter in his Books, That Infants are not ſo much as ſeemingly in a ſtate of Salvation; that Parents can have no comfort of their dying Children, Making Baptiſm the ſoveraign Antidote againſt their Griefs and Fears, when they are removed in Infancy. As will appear more fully in the Examination of the Queries in the ſecond Treatiſe.

Now this new art of pleading for Infant-Baptiſm by virtue of their Church-Memberſhip (and not from the Scriptures directly, as others have aſſayed to do, but could never perform the Task, and therefore have been forced to take ſanctuary with the Papiſts in unwritten Traditions, and that with ill ſucceſs) I ſay, conſidering this new Subtilty of Mr. Baxter, I perceived the Controverſie to riſe very high, and Queſtions thereupon to be greatly multiplied, eſpecially p. 6upon the Point of Infants Church-Memberſhip. Hereupon I thought it needful to conſider this Matter, for I perceived very good Men engaged on both ſides, and, as I conceive, much more ſtraining in the Point than needed, by which means the Reader ſhall ſooner fill his Head with amazement than ſatisfaction, in tracing the ſeveral windings of their Diſputations.

Nor do I think my ſelf wiſer than they, but having the advantage to ſtand and view whilſt they engage, I hope I have thereby been led to the conſideration of a Medium, which if duly conſidered, and improved by better Pens than mine, will (I am much perſuaded) reconcile the difference about Infants viſible Church-Memberſhip. And yet I do not at all doubt, that Infant-Baptiſm will remain without any ground at all.

SECT. II.

And this I ſhall demonſtrate, by ſhewing, That all Infants are in a viſible ſtate of Salvation, and ſo of the Ʋniverſal Church of God, and cannot be put out of that bleſſed ſtate, till by their voluntary departure from God, by chooſing ſinful ways, they deſtroy themſelves. And here we will make our entrance by a paſſage out of Mr. Baxter himſelf, who ſaith▪ All Mankind is brought by Chriſt under a Covenant of Grace, which is not vain nor repealed by God; But as their abuſe of the Grace of the Covenant may caſt them out. For as a Covenant of intire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam, Mr. Baxter's more Reaſons, pag. 8. 6.ſo a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapſed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. in the promiſed Seed, and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah.

Now this Doctrine being no more than plain truth, we ſhall apply it to the caſe in hand, by ſhewing, Firſt, That this Covenant of Grace, was a viſible Church-Covenant. 2. That it was made with all Mankind, and takes place in their Infancy. 3. That it was never repealed by God. 4. That no Infant did ever abuſe the Grace of this Covenant. And therefore, no Infant was ever caſt out of this Covenant. And then fifthly, They all ſtand viſible Members of the Catholick Church by virtue of this Covenant, however their Parents do abuſe, or neglect it; and hence it will follow, no dying Infant is Damned, but are all in a viſible ſtate of Salvation.

p. 71. That this Covenant of Grace, firſt expreſſed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant, or elſe there was no Church-Covenant in the World, that we read of, from Adam to Noah, this being indeed all the Covenant that is named, during theſe Times, beſides that Covenant of Intire Nature made before the Fall. And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam, and in him by all his Poſterity, it being not a Covenant of Grace, could not juſtifie the Offenders in the …ight of God. There muſt therefore be ſome ſupervening Act of Grace, or Mercy from God, elſe Adam (even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins) muſt have ſtood under Condemnation for ever, ſeeing no Man could by any means redeem his Brother, nor give to God a Ranſom for him.

It is the received Doctrine of Chriſtians that the Viſible Church began in Adam, and that his Family was the Church, wherefore the whole World being then the Church, and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World, that was to proceed from Adam, and this Covenant yet remaining; it follows againſt all contradiction, that whole Mankind, conſidered as they come into the World in all the ſeveral Ages of it, are in a viſible ſtate of Salvation, and ſo of the Catholick Church of God.

But whereas many did Apoſtatize from the Grace of God's Covenant, by corrupting his way, Gen. 6. 12. It was neceſſary that they ſhould be ejected, and therefore was the Covenant accommodated, and appropriated to thoſe who had not ſinned themſelves out of it; but ſtill the Innocent muſt not be ejected with the Nocent: for it is he only that ſinneth, whoſe Name ſhall be blotted out of the Book which God hath written, Gen. 32. 32, 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah, in ſettling the Covenant of his Grace, nor yet that Order which he obſerved with Abraham, was excluſive of any Infant in the World, as to the Grace of God in order to Eternal Life, no more than the eſtabliſhment of it by Chriſt in the Goſpel, in a far more excellent order for diſtinguiſhing the Precious from the Vile, is in any wiſe excluſive of any dying Infant; for of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. Nor can any Man ſhew either by Scripture or Reaſon, that God will ſhut out all the dying Infants of wicked Men, from Life and Salvation by Chriſt, no nor ſo much as any one of them; for we are ſure that the Judgment of God is according to truth, that the Judge of all the Earth will do right. That the p. 8Condemned ſhall be judged according to the deeds done in the Body; but alas, as for poor Infants, what have they done?

2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind, is thus cleared, becauſe it was made with Adam, without the leaſt intimation of the excluſion of any part of his Poſterity (as they proceed from him) to the end of the World; neither hath God himſelf explained the Covenant of Grace to be Excluſive of any, but for the cauſe of their own iniquity; and this was evident firſt in the caſe of Cain, who not being faithful in his offering was not accepted. Yet God was pleaſed to ſhew him the cauſe, Gen. 4. 7. If thou doſt well, ſhalt thou not be accepted? It ſhould ſeem God never rejected him till this time, neither did he now delight to reject him, but graciouſly expoſtulates with Cain, to convince him of his evil, and aſſures him of acceptation if he did well. If then Cain had an intereſt in the Grace of God, who can we ſuppoſe to be ſhut out, till they with Cain ſhut themſelves out of it?

Evident it is that the Covenant of Grace extended to thoſe Rebels in the Old World, becauſe we read the long ſuffering of God waited on them, and he gave them time of Repentance, and ſent a Preacher of Righteouſneſs (even the Righteouſneſs of Faith) among them, Heb. 11. 7. 2 Pet. 2. 5. therefore it is ſaid, Chriſt went by his Spirit and preached to them, 1 Pet. 3. though none of them believed his Word. Now ſuch Acts on God's part are great Evidences of his Graciouſneſs towards Men, and ſhews that he remembers his Covenant, made in Chriſt with them, even for them that rebel againſt him, and ſo periſh. And then how ſhall we think that he ſhould not be gracious to poor Infants, who never rebelled againſt him?

3. The Covenant of Grace was never repealed by God; for if it be, there is now no Covenant at all; nor can it be repealed to one Man, but it muſt be repealed to all Men. 'Tis true, Men may forfeit the Mercy held forth in that Covenant, but the Covenant cannot be repealed, for then there can be no certainty of any Mercy for Sinners; Chriſt himſelf may as ſoon be made Null, as this Covenant. For what if ſome Apoſtatize, or do not believe, ſhall this make the Grace of God without effect? God forbid. When we continually ſee that Covenant of God's Grace diſplayed, making overtures of kindneſs to Sinners (even to the chief of Sinners) what ſhall we ſay, if any Infant be without a part in that Covenant? Is he not p. 9then the chief of Sinners? It is not then the Sin of Parents that can repeal the Covenant of Grace with reſpect to Infants.

4. No Infants did ever abuſe the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam, Gen. 3. 15. therefore no Infant was caſt out of it.

Although it is moſt true, that Original Sin is come upon Infants, and Death by Sin; yet this is as true, that Original Sin was not committed againſt the Covenant of Grace, and therefore Infants are not guilty of any Sin committed againſt the Covenant of Grace, and conſequently are not deprived of the benefit of it. Otherwiſe if the Sin of Subſequent Parents ſhould make void the Grace of the ſecond Covenant to their Infants, as the Sin of Adam made his Poſterity guilty of the breach of the firſt Covenant; we may then juſtly cry out, Who then can be ſaved? And therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Teſtament, for the Redemption of the Tranſgreſſions that were under the firſt Teſtament, Heb. 9. 15. Wherefore ſeeing Infants ſtand acquitted from the Treſpaſſes againſt the Firſt Teſtament, and having not ſinned againſt the Grace of the Second Teſtament, they cannot come into the Condemnation of Helliſh Torments. The Papiſts themſelves, as **Witneſs the Maſſacre in Ireland.Cruel as they ſometimes are to the Bodies of Infants, yet are more merciful to their Souls than the Presbyterians: For they ſay, That Infants ſhall only ſuffer the puniſhment of Loſs, but not of Torment. Whilſt the other tells the World, Infants of a Span long are yelling in the flames of Hell.

5. That all dying Infants (or Infants in general) are to be accounted Members of the vaſt Body (or Catholick Church) of which Chriſt is the Saviour finally, is evident, becauſe they are all in a viſible ſtate of Salvation: And I think no Man will deny the Catholick Church to contain the whole number of the ſaved; I have nothing more to do therefore but to prove all Infants are in a viſible ſtate of Salvation, which I ſhall further clear, by anſwering what is objected againſt their Salvation, by Mr. J. B. my preſent Adverſary, who ſaith, Page 9.

p. 10SECT. III.

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

Anſwer. When I ſpeak of the Right which Infants have to Life by Chriſt, I intend it only of that Right derived to them by the firſt Edition of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. wherein they are equally concern'd, and ſo have the ſame Right. And I hope you will not ſay that any Infant did forfeit this gracious Right by abuſing the Grace of the Covenant. And then Mr. B. tells you the Covenant is not vain, nor repealed by God, nor they caſt out of it.

My Proves are ſuch as theſe: Infants are either all Saved, (dying ſuch) or ſome of them are Damned. But none of them are Damned, therefore they are all Saved. See more of this anon.

2. Our Saviour ſaith, It is not the Will of his Heavenly Father, that one of thoſe little ones ſhould periſh; which is certainly as true of Infants, as of any Perſons in the World.

3. Chriſt dying for all Infants, and they do not ſin themſelves out of the benefit of his Death. Shortly thus, God will not Damn any (no not one) of theſe little ones; Men and Devils cannot Damn them; they cannot Damn themſelves. Ergo, Chriſt's dying for them will ſave them all. See the concluſion of this Treatiſe.

SECT. IIII.

J. B. Pag. 11. The overthrow of both theſe Generations in the Deluge, is a ſtrange Medium to prove the Salvation of all Infants, &c.

Anſwer, I do not ſay, that God's deſtroying the Infants of thoſe that were called his Sons, Gen. 6. as well as the Infants of others, was an Evidence of God's ſaving any of them: But this I do ſay, That it was an Evidence that they were all in one State, or Predicament. p. 11And how would you (or any Body elſe) prove ſo much as one Infant in all the Old World was ſaved eternally, better than I ſhall prove the Salvation of them all? And ſhall we ſuffer it to enter into our Hearts, that they were all Damned? When therefore we reade, 2 Pet. 2. 5. That God brought the Flood upon the World of the ungodly. And Jude, ver. 7. '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 Torments: For did not the ſame God ſuffer his Servant Sampſon. to die by the fall of the Theatre, among the wicked Philiſtines? And we ſee the Righteous often taken away by the ſame common Calamities which have befallen Nations and Cities. Let us remember how tender the Lord was of the Infants in Nineveh; and it may convince us he was tender to Infants in the Old World: And he that made thoſe little ones an Argument to juſtifie his ſparing Nineveh, (againſt the murmuring of Jonah) would certainly make that an Argument for us to believe, That had his Judgments proceeded againſt that City according to the Propheſie of Jonah, yet he would have diſtinguiſhed between the Innocent and the Nocent, in reſpect to their future State and Condition; for it was not the Wickedneſs of the Infants which cried to Heaven, but of the Adult.

When we conſider how hardly Almighty God was drawn to inflict thoſe Judgments upon Mens Bodies (though grievous Sinners) in the Old World, in Sodom, Gen. 18. and frequently where we reade of the Execution of his Judgments, it may juſtly ſeem very ſtrange, that Men ſhould think that God can be ſo eaſily provoked to damn Infants to Hell Torments for him (I ſay) to damn poor Infants in Eternal Fire, who was ſo hardly drawn to Inflict on the Ninevites Children ſo much as a Temporal Judgment! Nay, he is unwilling to deſtroy the very Cattel for Man's Sin, Jonah 4. which are only capable of Temporal Puniſhment. And can it become us to think that God will ſend Millions, or any poor dying Babes to Hell? And pray what have they done thus highly to ſtir up his Wrath againſt them? Shew the Cauſe if you can.

p. 12J. B. To the Text, Rom. 5. The Free-gift abounded towards all Men to Juſtification of Life. You anſwer, This all muſt be reſtrained to all in Chriſt.

But by your favour, There is none ſo out of Chriſt as they come into the World, but God hath provided Mercy for them in Chriſt, John 1. 29. ſo that here is no reſtraint of the Juſtification here ſpoken of, till Men abuſe the Mercy of God by ſinning againſt their own Souls. Nor can your reſtriction [which I ſuppoſe would limit this Free-gift to the Elect only] hold agreement with the ſcope of the place; for ſeeing Mankind, or all Men, are Perſonated as well in the ſecond, as in the Firſt Adam, **The Law entered, that Sin might abound; but where Sin abounded, Grace did much more abound. That, as Sin hath reigned unto Death, even ſo might Grace reign through Righteouſneſs unto Eternal Life by Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.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 all Men] by the Firſt Adam; For tell me, How many came under Condemnation by the Sin of Adam? Is there any (or any Infant) that can plead Impunity? Why even ſo, ſaith the Apoſtle, the Free-gift came upon all Men to Juſtification of Life.

And may we not now ſafely conclude, that had Mankind never been guilty of any other Sin, but that (I ſay, upon a ſuppoſition, that Adam and his Poſterity, had from the time of the Promiſe, Gen. 3. 15. lived holily, and done no Iniquity) would you not conclude with me, that none ſhould have periſhed in Helliſh Torments? And if you grant this, then we muſt either find ſome Man, SO concern'd in the Covenant of Grace, AS, that if he ſinned againſt it, his Poſterity is condemned with him Eternally; as all Adam's Poſterity were 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 concern'd in the Covenant of Grace, you can name none ſo apt for the purpoſe as Adam, ſeeing we were all in him when that 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 concern'd in the Death of Chriſt. We muſt p. 13neceſſarily believe whole Mankind to be intereſſed in him, and as they are intereſſed in Chriſt they are ſaved of the Lord; and in him they are as clearly intereſſed in God's Mercy, as they were Objects of his Wrath by the firſt Man: So being juſtified from the guilt of Adam's Tranſgreſſion, who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of poor Infants, that may juſtly caſt them into Hell Fire? ſure 'tis but meet 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 certainty of Comfort concerning your dying Infants; for I am perſuaded you are not ſo unwiſe to think (whatever you make others believe) that your Infants are therefore ſaved becauſe of your pretended Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm; ſeeing 'tis too evident that many attain to that Eſtate, and yet are unlikely to be ſaved.

SECT. V.

J. B. pag. 13.— To aſſert the Salvation of all that die in Infancy, 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, yet his Juſtice in deſtroying the Old World and Sodom, lay not againſt the Infants (as I proved in the Section next before) but in Juſtice he puniſhed thoſe wicked Parents in putting a period to their Poſterity. Did not God in the days of Noah, deſtroy all Beaſts and Fowls (almoſt)? yet who ſo weak to think 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 point of Juſtice againſt the Child? Or that God was angry with the Child? much leſs that the Child was damned. David was far from any ſuch opinion; for though that Child was conceived and born in Sin and Iniquity, as much as well could be, and doubtleſs had the imputation of Original Sin, as much as any, yet David nothing feared that Child's p. 14damnation, but rather intimates 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.

I cannot make your ſpeech to agree with the Juſtice of God, where you ſay, That Infants periſh not purely for another's Sin, but for their own contracted. For though I can hear Men talk big words againſt Infants, as if they were little better than Devils, yet I never ſaw any proof that any Infant had any Sin of its own, for which you would here make them periſh, or at leaſt ſome of them; The Scripture ſaith, Sin is the tranſgreſſion of a Law, and tells us alſo, that 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 though I have not ſeen Mr. Baxter's Book to which you refer me, yet I do not deny Original Sin, for I know it is come upon all Adam's Poſterity, and Death paſſeth upon them, for that all have ſinned in him. Howbeit, I do believe that all Infants are as clearly juſtified from the condemning power of Sin, in reſpect of Damnation, as any Saint whatſoever, which I think I have alſo proved from John 1. 29. and other places. And ſeeing you now grant that none ſhall periſh purely for another's Sin, it remains for you to ſhew what Sin (excepting Adam's) is come upon any Infant, to render him ſubject to Damnation. You talk of their Contracting Sin of their own, but I am to learn how this can be truly ſaid of them, that neither Act, nor conſent to Sin at all; and ſurely ſuch Scriptureleſs Notions are fitter to be exploded than embraced.

And though you ſeem to have ſome Charity for thoſe, and their Seed, that 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 Infidels. 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 neither be Believers, nor the Seed of ſuch, Page 17.

How this Doctrine will ſtand with the juſtice of a Gracious God, I cannot conceive; when I conſider that God hath neither given to Infants a capacity to believe, nor any liberty to chuſe whether they will be the Seed of Believers, or Unbelievers. Will you yet ſay, the moſt High will be more harſh in the Acts of Juſtice, than the Rules p. 15will bear which he hath given to Men, Deut. 22. 25, 26?

It is not the part of a wiſe Legiſlator (ſaith a learned Man of the Church of England) 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 to repreſent the God of Juſtice; Is the Covenant of Grace ſet upon ſuch a tickle point, as that the greateſt part of Infants cannot poſſibly have any benefit by it? So you teach who affirm they cannot be ſaved by the Covenant of Grace, unleſs they be Believers, or the Seed of ſuch. Why call you a Covenant made on ſuch terms, a Covenant of Grace to Infants? Sure impoſſible Terms in a Covenant are not very gracious. You would condemn this in Men, you would not accept ſuch terms of Man, eſpecially when the non-obſervance of ſuch Terms took away the benefit of the Covenant; yet thus you make many believe, that God deals with the greateſt part of Infants. But I ſhall return to your former Inſtances of God's Juſtice againſt Infants (as you would have it) to wit, the deſtruction of the Old World and Sodom.

SECT. VI.

The taking away by Death the Infants in the Old World and Sodom, is neither an inſtance of Juſtice nor Mercy in the main to Infants, any more than the taking away thouſands of Infants daily by death throughout the World. For when ever they die, they are taken away from the evil to come, and ſo it is always a Mercy; and ſo it was a Mercy to the Infants of the Old World, and the Innocents in Sodom. But when ever they are taken away, we know it is for Sin, even that of Adam, and ſometimes their death is haſtened for the Sin of the Parents (as in the caſe of David's Child before mentioned, as well as the Old World, &c.) and thus their being taken away is always a Judgment. And the Judgment lieth much in this, that Mens Poſterity is hereby either quite cut off, or greatly weakened; and thus the Old World and Sodom were puniſhed, in that they were deprived of all Succeſſion.

And though it be true (as you urge) That if theſe Infants in the Old World and Sodom had lived to Age, many of them might have been Damned for wickedneſs. Yet to ballance that, it is as true, that a far greater Multitude in a few Generations, both of Infants and others, p. 16which might have proceeded from them, might have been ſaved; ſo that though we have no ground to doubt of the Salvation of the dying Infants in the Old World, and Sodom, yet we may ſee a moſt juſt Judgment of the Lord executed in both.

Of the ſame conſideration is your Inſtance of Countries and Cities Deſtroyed and Depopulated by Tyrannical Princes, Pag. 14. For what it the French King (as you write) ſhould deſtroy all the Infants of the Pagans, with the Adult, it neither follows that here is not a Judgment from God in all this, neither yet that God hath no Mercy for thoſe Infants. But pray conſider, whilſt we all condemn ſuch a Tyrant, as ſhould ſo barbarouſly Murther ſo many Innocents, we may by no means ſay, or think, that a Gracious God, will now, when the Tyrant hath murthered them, take and caſt them into Hell-fire; for he is a God that delights in Mercy. But here you cry out, Had the World your Light and Knowledg, they ought not to be ſorry for the ſpoiling of their Countries, but rejoyce that all their little Ones are ſaved.

But this is a non-ſequiter: For no Man may do Evil that Good may come: and let us not murmur againſt God, who when Men have done their worſt, he knows how to prevent that which might be far worſe than the worſt they can do to Infants: And though I may be ſatisfied that my dead Child, or Friend, is gone to Heaven, yet I may lawfully be ſorry for his Death.

SECT. VII.

J. B. Pag. 15. And what ſhall we make of Epheſ. 2. 3. & ver. 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 ſence 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 his Grace and Favour; ſo that till they, p. 17or 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 Serpent's ſeed, it being out of his power to beget them to be his Off-ſpring, 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 thoſe of whom it is 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 (SO) 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 here 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 Hopes 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 pity 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.

What hope there is of all Infants entering into Heaven (however it may be hid from the Pagans) is evident enough from our Saviours 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 Converſion may anſwer to ſuch a preſident in point of Innocency, Humility and Simplicity, will not this as well accord with 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 p. 18to 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 juſtifie the whole in that ſtate of Childhood to be devoid of that evil? And why even of our ſelves do we not judge what is right? Could any Man from the beginning to this Day, bring the leaſt charge againſt an Infant, much leſs againſt one Infant more than another? unleſs God by Miracle ſhews ſome ſpecial Power upon them, no difference can be ſeen in them in point of Innocency.

SECT. VIII.

J. B. 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 the Children of them that love God, &c. remain unrevoked?

Anſw. I have not forgotten that, but do 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 the better conſidered, I will ſet that down in Words, which you writ 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. But 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? Surely nothing leſs, than that no Infants but the Infants of Believers ſhall be ſaved, and if not, how do theſe places ſuit your caſe? They prove indeed that God will bleſs the Poſterity of his faithful Servants, if they keep his Covenant, and remember to do his Commandments; and I think David well expounds this place in Pſal. 37. 25. I have been Young, and now am Old; yet did I never ſee the Righteous forſaken, nor their Seed begging their Bread.

p. 19And yet I grant (though you prove it not) that there are many other advantages (even in Infancy) attends 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 (which I have more fully ſet down in my Book of Primitive Chriſtianity, L. 2. P. 5, 6.) whiles God knows others are deſtitute of theſe Bleſſings, being Croſſed and Exorcis'd, &c. among the Papiſts, 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 Hell Torments thoſe dying Infants, for the wrong which their Parents have done them. It being to me inconceivable, how it can ſtand with his glorious Attributes, either of Mercy or Juſtice, both which muſt have effect upon theſe Infants. His Juſtice hath effect upon them; that is evident, in their Death, Sickneſs, and Diſeaſes (and the like befalls our Infants); now either his Mercy muſt have effect upon them in the next World, or not at all, and if not in that World, how then ſhall that ſaying hold true, His tender Mercies are over all his Works?

SECT. IX.

J. B. You would not have the bleſſing of Abraham (as it concerns Eternal Life) to reach to the Infants of the Gentiles which believe not, becauſe Gal. 3. 14. it's ſaid to come upon the Gentiles by Faith.

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 ſome things in ſpecial, and which are peculiar to them, as a People engaged in the duties of Religion, **See and conſider Rom. 3. 1, 2.Rom 3:1Rom 3:2whilſt the Unbeliever is under the ſentence of Wrath, becauſe he neglects ſo great Salvation, Heb. 2. 2, 3, 4. But all this injures not dying Infants who neglect not this Salvation, and ſo forfeit not their right to that common Salvation obtained by Chriſt for Mankind.

p. 20In Gal. 3. 14. the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Promiſe of the Spirit, which as it concerns the Church under the eſtabliſhment of the ſecond Covenant, concerns not Infants, 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, when 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 as in a ſtate of Nature, but as under a Covenant of Grace, from whom the ſecond Adam muſt in time proceed as touching the Fleſh, and therefore his Deſcent is reckoned from him, Luke 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, ſeeing they never ſinned againſt the ſecond Covenant, nor can any other ſin them out of the Mercy of God; their title to that Grace being not tide to Man's Will, it follows that they ſhall not be hurt of the ſecond Death: Shew the contrary if you can.

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 ſtretcheth forth his Hand to Gain-ſayers, as Rom. 10. and gives them the Word of Life, and they put it from them, Acts 13. 46. then Men may truly be ſaid to have a Prize in their Hand, and to put it from them, even the Salvation of their Souls. And then I pray you conſider, that if their putting Salvation from them 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 their Parents believed, their Infants had been in the Covenant of Grace, but now for their Fathers Sin (for what you ſay of their own Sin contracted is but a Fable) they are left by you in the Kingdom of the Devil, and that among the Devil and his Angels for ever. And here it is that I oppoſe you, as greatly erring from the Truth, and this Error was that which firſt brought in your Pedo-baptiſm; as may be ſeen in the Decree made by the African Council, ††The words of the Council are theſe, All that affirm young Children receive Eternal Life, albeit they be not by Baptiſm renewed, they are accurſed, &c.where Auguſtine was preſent p. 21and Preſident. Wherefore, remove but this Error, and the other will preſently vaniſh.

SECT. X.

The Sum of this Controverſy.

I will finiſh this Diſcourſe by ſetting down certain Propoſitions, which contain the whole Controverſy; and which I hope will carry ſo much Light and Evidence in them, as may tend much to the ſatisfaction of the Reader. The thing to be cleared is this, viz.

That no dying Infants are Damned, or all dying Infants are Saved. Which will thus be made good.

1. Becauſe they cannot damn themſelves.

And it is moſt certain, God will not Damn any to Hell Torments, who do not firſt Damn themſelves in ſinful Courſes. This is evident by his unwillingneſs to deſtroy thoſe that had ſo deſtroyed themſelves, Hoſ. 13. 9. O Iſrael, thou haſt deſtroyed thy ſelf, but in me is thy help. If then our God be thus unwilling to deſtroy thoſe that have deſtroyed themſelves, as that he will help and ſave them; how ſhould it enter into the Heart of a Chriſtian to imagine, that the ſame God will Damn poor Infants, who never deſtroyed themſelves, neither can they do it?

2. No Man can damn Infants.

This is evident; becauſe if any Man have power to damn Infants, every Man hath the ſame, for it cannot be proved the peculiar power (whether good or bad) of any Man. And if any will ſay, that every Man hath power to damn his Children, he ſpeaks preſumptuouſly; there is nothing in the Word of God to countenance ſuch a Doctrine: for the contrary is plain, Jer. 31. 30. Every one ſhall die for his own iniquity. This is meant (or is moſt true) of Eternal Death, becauſe we all die the firſt Death for the Sin of another, p. 22to wit, Adam; and though this ſaying be true of the Adult, yet it is the more to our purpoſe, becauſe if God be ſo gracious to actual Sinners as not to damn them for the Sin of another, there is all the ground imaginable to believe that he will be as gracious to Infants.

3. The Devil cannot damn Infants.

This is evident, becauſe Infants are out of the reach of Santan's Temptations, ſeeing they know not to chuſe the Good, or to refuſe it; they know neither Good nor Evil, they know not their right Hand from their left, Jer. 7. 16. Jonah 4. 11. Whom Satan cannot Tempt, them he cannot Damn.

4. God will not damn Infants.

God will not ſuffer Men to puniſh any Perſon for that which they cannot help. Deut. 22. 25, 26. If a Man find a betrothed Damſel in the Field, and force her, and lie with her, then the Man only that lay with her ſhall die; but unto the Damſel ſhalt thou do nothing, there is in the Damſel no Sin worthy of Death. For as when a Man riſeth up againſt his Neighbour and ſlayeth him, even ſo is this matter. The Mercy which God ſheweth in this caſe, may ſuffice to convince us, that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation, ſeeing what Sin ſoever is upon them▪ i… was impoſſible for them to avoid it: Wherefore he will not d… poor dying Infants.

5. Chriſt will not damn poor Infants.

When Chriſt denounceth the Damnation of Hell, he dir… ſpeech to Hypocrites, and incorrigible Sinners. Mat. 23. 3…: Generation of Vipers, how can ye eſcape the Damnation of Hell? But he hath better things in ſtore for Infants, for he ſaith, of ſuch are the Kingdom of God; which being ſpoken of Infants, or little Children indefinitly, ſhews his Gracious Judgment of them all. And he that came not to Condemn the World, but to Save the World, how ſhall this be true, if he came to Condemn any Infants? Seeing there are no Perſons in the World, who do leſs deſerve Damnation than Infants; No, not his own Diſciples, who are therefore ſent to little p. 23Children, to know how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Mark 10. 15 Verily … you, whoſoever ſhall not receive the Kingdom of God as a litt… ſhall not enter therein. What Believer can think himſelf … Heaven than an Infant? Hath he not ſome Actual Sin. … no Infant? Hath Chriſt freed the Believer from Original Sin …e he hath done for all Infants. Rom. 5. As in Adam all d… in Chriſt ſhall all be made alive. John 1. 29 Behold the … God, which taketh away the Sin of the World. There i… Sin can ſo properly be called the Sin of the World, as Origin…, becauſe perhaps a third part of the World dies, having no other Sin at all. This is the caſe of Infants, this Sin being taken a…hriſt, how ſhall Chriſt their merciful Judg pronounce them… Hell?

6. Chriſt died … Infants, therefore they ſhall not be damned.

Chriſt died … Infants, Becauſe he gave himſelf a Ranſom for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. He taſted Death for every Man, Heb. 2. 9. He bought them that deny him, 2 Pet. 2. Therefore certainly he was as gracious to Infants, as to thoſe who deny him. Seeing then it cannot be denied but he bought them, he either bought them to ſave them, or to caſt them to Hell. Not the latter, no by no means: The primary end of Chriſt's dying is Life and Salvation. Infants never forfeit this Grace, but are juſt Perſons that need no Repentance, if there be any ſuch in the World.

7. All dying Infants are written in the Book of Life from the Foundation of the World, therefore no dying Infants are Damned.

The Omniſcient God knew as well the Date of all Mens Lives, as that they ſhould be born or live at all, and therefore did he know who would die in Infancy, as well as who would live to years of Knowledg. Admitting then their opinion to be true, That hold a certain number ordain'd to Life from the Foundation of the World, yet we doubt not but to make good this Propoſition, and that by the Text, Rev. 20. 12. as expounded by themſelves. For by the Books, out of which the Damned are judged, is underſtood the Actions of Men, even the moſt ſecret, which ſhall then be laid open. Now theſe Books cannot concern Infants, they having done neither good p. 24nor evil. Here is therefore another Book opened, which (ſay they) repreſents the everlaſting Election to Life and Glory in Chriſt. In this Book muſt all dying Infants either be found written, or elſe be Judged without Book. The Book of Conſcience will not accuſe them, therefore the Lamb's Book of Life muſt needs acquit them.

8. All dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace; therefore no dying Infant ſhall be Damned.

When we ſay Infants are in the Covenant of Grace, we mean it, as God hath vouchſafed to intereſs them in his Mercy by Chriſt. That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin, ſo Juſtification of Life might abound towards them by the Obedience of Chriſt. Now either Infants are thus in Covenant with God, or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all. For the Covenant of pure Nature (as Mr. Baxter terms it) made with Adam, concerns not Infants, but as the breach of it is imputed to the Lump of Mankind. And the Law of Works concerns not Infants. For to them it cannot be ſaid, The Man that doth theſe things, ſhall live in them. And to ſay Infants are in no Covenant with God, is to rank them with Devils, and the vileſt of Men. But ſeeing Mr. Baxter grants the Covenant made with Noah, Gen. 9. to be the Covenant of Grace, and the Scripture tells us, That it is an everlaſting Covenant, and made with Noah and his Sons, and with their Seed after them, and conſequently with all Infants; for it is not Vain, or Repealed, till Men abuſe the Mercy of it; to this Mr. Baxter conſents. And indeed, ſhould it be otherwiſe, God ſhould deal worſe with poor Infants, than with the Beaſts of the Field; for he was pleaſed to make a Covenant with them (even every living Creature of them) which alſo was very gracious according to their ſtate and condition: and ſhall we think that he whoſe tender Mercies are over all his Works, will exclude the Infants of the greateſt part of Mankind from his Gracious Covenant? No: He hath ſaid, He will remember his Covenant which he hath made with all Fleſh, Gen. 9.

9. No Man can prove that any Infant ever was, or ever ſhall be damned in Hell Torments; therefore no dying Infant ſhall be damned.

There is nothing to be held as an Opinion, or Point of Faith, but upon clear Proof, or Rational Demonſtration. Now though it has p. 25been often delivered from the Pulpits, that many Infants are yelling in Hell (yea, Infants of a Span long) for ſuch and ſuch offences of their Parents, yet this is only ſaid, but no proof to make it good. I find Dr. Fulk ſaying, That Calvin holdeth Dr. Fulk.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 Infants are Reprobated to eternal Damnation; neither does the holy Scripture ſay any ſuch thing. And whilſt Diodate expounds Rom. 9. 12. modeſtly and ſoundly, he goes back to his harſh opinion of God's caſting Eſau (when or before he was born) out of his Love as a Father, (in what he ſays upon the 13th ver.) as if God's Love were taken away from poor Infants. But this is no proof that God hath Reprobated any dying Infant: for if we admit their Gloſs, yet God that knew what Eſau would be in time, did here foreſhew what in time ſhould be effected. Eſau lived to be a Man, and a very …l Man, God knew all this before; Eſau is not to be ranked wit…ying Infants, therefore the Inſtance of Eſau is nothing to the pu…oſe; and this Inſtance failing (as it evidently doth) I am ſure …here is not the leaſt ſhew of proof in the Scripture, for the Damnation of dying Infants; and therefore no Man ought to believe ſuch a ſtrange and windy Doctrine, nor trouble the World (nor the Church) about it.

10. To hold Infants to be Damned, is contrary to all good Reaſon.

When Paul prayed, To be delivered from unreaſonable Men, for that all Men had not Faith. He ſeems to make Reaſon a Friend, and no Enemy to Faith. Now when we hear that wicked Men ſhall be damned, becauſe they received not the Love of the Truth that they might be ſaved; here Reaſon preſently conſents to the Judgment of God. And when we hear that Men will not be perſuaded by Moſes, the Prophets, or one that ſhould riſe from the Dead; how juſtly are they puniſhed by that God whoſe Grace they have ſo groſsly contemned? Yea, theſe and many like Inſtances, are according to the common Rules of Juſtice. But now to place poor innocent Babes among theſe damned ones, that they ſhould be tormented with the Devil and his Angels, who only was born to cry and die, and ſometimes to die before they ſhould cry, is ſo cruel a Conceit, ſo inconſiſtent with Juſtice (as far as the Reaſon of Man can conceive what is equal) that p. 26nothing can be more Cruel. It looks as if God took pleaſure to ſend poor Creatures to Hell. For theſe poor Infants (many of them according to this Scriptureleſs Doctrine) were but created on purpoſe to be Damned, and nothing elſe; ſome never ſeeing ſo much as the Light of this World, and yet muſt be puniſhed with the Devil to Eternity. O ſhameful Doctrine! unfit for the Tongue of a Chriſtian, to tell the World, Infants (yea, of a Span long) are yelling in Hell! Will you charge the God of Love, yea, that God who is Love, with theſe Cruelties? Are theſe his doings? Why have you painted him in your Sermons with ſuch bloody Colours? Is it to force on your Pedo-rantiſm? O wretched Cauſe, that cannot ſtand unleſs the Mercy of God to the greateſt part of Infants be impeached! We ſay not that Reaſon is the chief judge in this Queſtion, yet when we meet with Scriptureleſs Doctrines, 'tis not unlawful to refute them by Reaſon. And here I again declare, that this Error of holding Infants damned without Baptiſm, was the ground of that innovation of Pedo-baptiſm. For thus ſaith the 5 Con. de Carth. We will that whoever denies that little Children by Baptiſm are freed from Perdition, and eternally ſaved, that they be accurſed. Wherefore take away this falſe ground, by ſhewing the Salvation of all dying Infants, and then INFANT-BAPTISM vaniſheth.

THE QUERIST EXAMINED.

The Second Part.

WHEREIN More than Sixty Queries, taken out of the Works of Mr. R. Baxter, by J. B. (the Author of Fifty former Queries) are Refuted, BY A proportionable Number of Antiqueries.

SHEWING The Inſufficiency of the Plea for Infant-Baptiſm urged by Mr. B. and Mr. J. B. from their viſible Church-Memberſhip.

WHICH Being granted (ſo far, and in ſuch a ſenſe) as Truth or Reaſon will Warrant, is againſt, and no way for the Baptizing of Infants.

By THOMAS GRANTHAM.

Printed in the Year, 1679.