The Controversy About Infants Church Membership and Baptism, Division 1

The Controversy About Infants Church Membership and Baptism · Division 1

p. 29DIVISION I.

About the ſilence of the Scripture concerning Infant-Baptiſm.

IT is certain, That to multiply Queſtions is the ready way to darken Counſel, and to intangle the underſtanding of the weak or unwary Reader. Yet thus hath Mr. J. B. been pleaſed to incumber the Doctrine of Baptiſm with more than an hundred Queries; which being ſet down in their exact Number, would be more than five hundred Queries. By which frivolous way of Writing, it were eaſie to involve the Chriſtian Profeſſion in endleſs Controverſies.

Howbeit, as I have formerly redargued the firſt Book of his Queries, ſo (leſt he ſhould ſuppoſe theſe to be unanſwerable) I think it may do ſome ſervice to the Truth, to ſhew briefly the vanity of his ſecond Book alſo.

It would make my work too bulkie to ſet down his Queries at large, yet I ſhall endeavour partly by what I ſhall preſent of his Queries, and partly by the purport of my Anti-queries, to give a true underſtanding of the import of all his Demands. And firſt we ſhall take notice of his Preparatory Queſtions, which he grounds upon the ſilence of the Scriptures in the caſe of Infant-Baptiſm. The firſt is this.

J. B. 1. Is not the Scripture more ſparing in ſuch caſes as theſe, 1. In ſpeaking of thoſe, to whom it ſpeaks not, as concerning the Heathen, and concerning Infants? &c.

T. G. 1. When Mr. Baxter (and you from him) have born the World in hand, that you would offer plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm; Is it not a ſtrange way to make this good, by telling us the Scripture is more ſilent in theſe Caſes than in others? Or is not one plain proof in any Caſe enough p. 30to forbid any to ſay, the Scripture is more ſilent in that than other Caſes, ſeeing more ſilent, muſt import not ſpeaking at all, or elſe very darkly. And indeed, Mr. Baxter does elſewhere grant, That many Papiſts and Prelatiſts (who are all for Infant Baptiſm) have maintained that it is not determined in Scripture. And how then ſhall he (being inferiour to ſo many) bring any plain Scripture for it? 2. Is not the Scripture plain enough, Gen. 3. 15. that the Covenant of God's Grace and Mercy to Sinners, concerns all Mankind (as they are fallen in Adam?) And how then can it be ſilent concerning Infants, in any thing needful to their Salvation, ſeeing Chriſt now by the Grace of God hath taſted Death for every Man? Heb. 2. 9.

J. B. 2. In leſſer points of Faith? 3. In points not then queſtioned? 4. Does not the New Teſtament ſpeak more ſparingly of that which is more fully diſcovered in the Old? And is not this the very caſe here? &c.

T. G.1. Who that is truly wiſe would query this? Is any Perſons Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm to be reckoned among the leſſer points of Faith? Or, is it not of very great moment (rather) for us rightly to underſtand who ought to be incorporated into the Church of Chriſt, which is his Body? If there was no queſtion in the Scripture-Times about your Infant Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, was it not becauſe there was none then that held with your Opinion in that Caſe? And whether it be not Anti-evangelical to make the Age of any Perſon the rule of his admiſſion to the Chriſtian-Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, whiles in the Law the Eighth Day was a time prefixed? But is not the time of the New Birth (at what Age ſoever) the time of Incorporating Perſons into the Chriſtian Church? Seeing it is expreſly ſaid, If any Man be in Chriſt, he is a new Creature, 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. And whether Pedo-Baptiſts muſt not grant this, ſeeing they are forced to ſay of the Infants which they ſprinkle, This Child is Regenerate, and Born again though they can never prove this?

J. B. 2. Will the difficulty of a Point, that is not ſo clear as we would have it, prove that it is not a truth? The Apoſtle Peter tells us, many things in Paul ▪s Epiſtles are hard to be underſtood, are they not Truths for all this? &c.

T. G.Whether it be not idle in you to compare Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, with the hard things in Paul's Epiſtles, ſeeing what is needful to meer Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm are eaſie p. 31things, even that which every Babe in Chriſt ſhould know, and which three thouſand learned in one Day, by one Sermon. Acts 2. 40, 41. Then they which gladly received his Word, were Baptized, and the SAME DAY was added unto them about three thouſand Souls. And whether the whole carriage of this place do not ſhew your Vanity, in putting your Church-Memberſhip before Baptiſm, ſith here (as well as elſe-where) this Church-Memberſhip evidently follows Baptiſm?

And whether you do not here alſo plainly enough tell us, that your caſe is very difficult, and hard to be underſtood? and indeed you may rightly place it among things unintelligible. For as one of your Way going to a Diſpute, ('tis ſaid) to hear Infant baptiſm proved by Scripture, told his Companion, He was going to hear a Miracle.

J. B. 3. If never ſo clear Evidence be produced, will not Truth ſtill be dark to them that are uncapable of diſcerning it? And is not this the caſe of many Godly, that are but Children in knowledg?

T. G.Whether this be not an excellent way to query Men out of their Wits? And if that which hath never ſo clear Evidence, may ſtill be dark to the Godly, &c. How can you blame Men for not ſeeing that for which you can bring no clear Evidence? But for all this, whether every weak (if a Godly) Man, may not as eaſily underſtand the Mind of God about Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, as to know that Jeſus is his Saviour (unleſs your 100, or rather 500 Queries have blinded his Eyes)? And what one Point, hath been peſtered with ſuch a cloud of Queſtions, as you have invented about this? And whether you and Mr. Baxter cannot invent as many more, and ſo make good the Proverb, Plura poteſt interrogare aſinus, quam reſpondere Ariſtoteles.

J. B. 4. When the caſe is ſo difficult that we cannot attain to clearneſs and certainty, muſt not we follow the moſt probable way? &c.

T. G.Whether you are not upon a dangerous Point, to ſuggeſt that the caſe of Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, is to be judged of by Probabilities and not Certainties? And if you will needs have our way of Baptiſm to be more difficult than yours, who can know it? Seeing there is thus much ſaid by a learned Man of the Church of England againſt your Way, viz. That there is Dr. Ba…low.neither Precept nor Preſident for Infant-Baptiſm in Scripture.—That there is nothing in Dr. Hammond, or Mr. Baxter's Diſcourſes p. 32about Infant-Baptiſm, that looks like an Argument. And whether it will not be hard for any Body to ſay more for Pedo-baptiſm, and againſt our way of Baptizing Believers, than they have done? And yet whether it be not ſafe for us to ſee you offer more than your Probabilities, before we part with our Baptizing Believers, for your ſprinkling of Infants?

J. B. 5. And is it not a ſpirit of Raſhneſs, and Headineſs, that runs Men preſently upon NEW untried Ways, upon every doubting about the Old? &c.

T. G.Whether the way of Baptizing Perſons upon perſonal profeſſion of Faith by Immerſion, be not the old way of Baptizing, and granted to be ſo by the Learned of your own Church? for example, Ludovicus Vives, Grotius, and Diodate. And then, whether you are not the raſh and heady, who run ſo eagerly after the new mode of Infant-ſprinkling? And are not thouſands involved in your new Way, before they do or can try it? And on the contrary, whether any can rationally be ſuppoſed to cloſe with our Way, before they have tried it? Seeing we put all Men upon it, and have no Honours, Profits, or Pleaſures in this World (as you have) to engage them to our Way, 'tis the evidence of our Cauſe that doth it.

J. B. 6. Is the overthrow of a Man's former weak Grounds, the overthrow of the Truth which he held? &c.

T. G.Is not the overthrow of your former weak Grounds for Infant-Baptiſm, the overthrow of the Cauſe it ſelf, till you or ſome body elſe bring Grounds of ſufficient ſtrength to ſupport it?

J. B. 7. Is not one ſound Argument enough to prove any thing true? What if all the Text's that are brought, were put by, ſave one, is not that enough?

T. G.Have not we deſired you to produce but one ſound Argument, and one clear Text to prove Infant-Baptiſm true, with promiſe that ſhall ſuffice? But in ſtead of this, have you not ſent us hundreds of falſe Grounds, and many Texts abuſed in theſe and your former Queries?

J. B. 8. Are not evident Conſequences, drawn by Reaſen from Scripture, as true Proof, as the very expreſs word of the Text?—Will you allow of ſuch an Argument for Infant Baptiſm as Chriſt brought for the Reſurrection? Mat. 22. 31, 32, &c.

p. 33T. G. Should not the Practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, outvy ſuch Conſequences (inferr'd by the moſt Learned) when the ſaid Conſequences fight againſt plain Scripture Preſidents? as Acts 2. 38. to 41. Acts 8. 12. Gal. 3. 26, 27. But who could ever prove that all Church-Members (as She contains all the ſaved, whether Jews or Heathens) muſt be Baptized? Might it not more ſtrongly be pleaded, that all Church-Members muſt be admitted by Faith, from Gal. 3. 26. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus? Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God, muſt FIRST believe that God is? And how ſhall all Infants believe on him of whom they have not heard, Rom. 10? And who taught you to make Baptiſm more neceſſary to Church-Memberſhip than Faith? But why ſhould your Conſequences be made of equal Authority with Chriſt's? For he could not be deceived, but you may? And why may not our Conſequences be as valuable as yours? ſpecially ſeeing ours agrees with Chriſt's own Practice, John 4. 1. as we know yours do not?

J. B. 9. Should not the former and preſent Cuſtoms of the holieſt Saints and Churches be of great weight to humble and moderate Chriſtians, in Caſes controverted and beyond their reach?

T. G.Should not the undeniable Cuſtom of the firſt Churches, immediately governed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, be of more weight with humble and moderate Chriſtians, than the Cuſtom of any ſince their times? And whether your Conſcience do not tell you we follow the Cuſtom of the firſt Churches? Alſo whether there hath not very holy Men in many Ages ſince Chriſt oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm, as well as in theſe latter Times? Nay, is not the firſt clear mention of it gathered from them that oppoſed it? Such were Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen, acknowledged by Mr. Baxter, to be for the delay of Baptiſm to Children, till they could underſtand it. And though it is alledged that Nazianzen was not againſt it in danger of Death, yet whether this be not rather againſt than for Infant-Baptiſm, ſeeing they might as ſafely die without it, as live without it? For did it in his judgment more pleaſe God, that Infants ſhould live unbaptized? How then can their dying ſo be diſpleaſing to him? Were not the Children among the Jews as much accepted who lived ſeven days Uncircumciſed, and died before the eighth day, as if they had lived till the eighth day and then have been Circumciſed? And may we not hence conclude, that ſeeing God hath not made the Age of any Perſon a Rule in the caſe of Baptiſm, as he p. 34did in the caſe of Circumciſion, but hath made it proper to the time of the New Birth, at what time ſoever it ſhall happen; that Nazianzen his ſuppoſed allowance of Infant-Baptiſm in danger of Death was groundleſs? But why do you arrogate the greateſt Holineſs to your Parts, which agree with you in the caſe of Infant-Baptiſm? Why holieſt Saints? Why holieſt Churches? Though I wiſh you more holy than you are, and honour what Chriſtian Vertues I ſee in any of your Party, yet let me faithfully tell you, that your Churches by means of your Pedo baptiſm, are become the unholieſt (generally) of all the Chriſtian Churches in the World. And how can it be otherwiſe? When by this means you take in (not only thoſe that … God and work Righteouſneſs in every Nation, but) the whole Nations themſelves, the greateſt part whereof, God knows, are very far from Holineſs.

J. B. 10. Is this Controverſie in it ſelf conſidered, of ſo great moment, as ſome would make it?—Why then was it not in the Creed? Doth not the Apoſtle ſpeak of Baptiſm as a ſmall part of his Work in compariſon of Preaching, &c? 1 Cor. 1. 14. 17, &c. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not (not he that is not Baptized) ſhall be damned, &c.

T. G.Whether you Pedo-baptiſts do not make this Controverſy of greater moment than any others, whilſt the greateſt number of you (to wit, the Papiſts and many Prelatiſts) do teach that none (no not Infants) can be ſaved without Baptiſm; or deſire of Baptiſm? And whether you ſay any leſs, Biſhop Gunning.Query 17. when you tell us, Infants are not ſo much as ſeemingly in a ſtate of Salvation, without your Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm? And do you not then make it more Fundamental and abſolutely Neceſſary than the Baptiſts do? who only ſay, not the want, but the contempt of Baptiſm damneth? And what though baptiſm be not mentioned in the Creed, which you call the Apoſtles Creed, (though you never be able to make that ſaying good, according to the exactneſs of ſpeech) yet ſeeing Baptiſm is mentioned in that Summary of Chriſtian Doctrine, Heb. 6. 1, 2. which may more certainly be called the Apoſtles Creed than that by you ſo named, doth it not thence follow that Baptiſm is neceſſary to the beginning of a Chriſtian Man? Or will you ſay that any Man can be admitted into the Chriſtian Profeſſion, to partake of the Lord's Table without Baptiſm? And what need was there to ſay, Mark 16. 16. He that is not Baptized ſhall be damned? When its to be p. 35ſuppoſed he that believeth not, will not deſire to be Baptized? Luke 7. Neither indeed ought he to be Baptized becauſe he believeth not, Acts 8. And if all Chriſt's Commands great and ſmall are to be obeyed (as you grant) then why not this, Acts 2. 38 REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOƲ. And though it be true that Paul eſteemed (and that rightly▪ Preaching to be a greater work than Baptizing: Yet when … he hinder any for being Baptized with the Baptiſm of Repentance as you do? Or where did he ſhew any zeal at all for Pedobaptiſm as you do? And are you not then deluded to ſpend ſo much time, in defending your own Tradition? And with what credit can you blame others (whom you conſtrain) for ſpending time to break the Snares which you have laid in the way of Sinners, to cauſe them to continue in Error.

J. B. 11. Though the point of Infant-Baptiſm be comparatively of leſs mement; yet whether the grounds on which it ſtands, and which are uſually denied with it, be not of great moment?

T. G.Whether this be not like a Contradiction? For ſeeing every Ordinance receives, from the grounds on which it ſtands, its very being, and value; How can the Ordinance be of ſmall moment, when the grounds on which it ſtands are of great moment? And how can Infant-Baptiſm ſtand upon grounds of great moment, when it is not grounded upon Scripture, nor determined by Scripture, as is confeſſed by many Pedo-baptiſts, both Papiſts and Prelatiſts?

DIVISION. II.

Concerning the Commiſſion, Matth. 28. 19.

Having done with your Preparatory Queries, I come now to try your Main Queſtion, and the Queries which attend upon it. Your Query is thus ſtated by you:

J. B. Whether ſome Infants ought not to be Baptized?

T. G.Do we not alwayes tell you of Infants in general, that they ought not to be Baptized? So that you had better ask thus, Whether ſome Infants ought to be Baptized? For ſhould you be put to ſhew, That ſome Infants ought to be Baptized, and that other ſome ought not, (as Mr. Crage was pleaſed to Fable it out at Abergavenny) it would p. 36prove too hard a Task, and never be done by plain Scripture proof. But I ſuppoſe I underſtand your Queſtion, I ſhall therefore follow you.

J. B. 1. Ought not all Chriſt's Diſciples ordinarily to be Baptized? (Matth. 28 19. foreign) May not the word Diſciple be taken in a larger ſence Relatively—for one that belongs to Chriſt, as well as in a narrower ſence for thoſe who are actually Learners.

T. G.Here you ſeem to grant, That ſome of Chriſt's Diſciples ought not to be Baptized (i. e. their caſe being more than ordinary) and then I would know why Infants may not be excuſed, ſith it muſt be an extraordinary thing, if any Infant be Chriſt's Diſciple? For if Infants be Diſciples, they are either made ſo by God or Man; that God does make ſome, or all, or any Infants at all, Chriſt's Diſciples, no Man can demonſtrate. And I demand whether ever Mr. Baxter, or your ſelf, did make an Infant Chriſt's Diſciple according to the import of the Verb foreign? And if your Conſciences ſhall tell you that you never did, or could make an Infant Chriſt's Diſciple, how can you ſuffer your ſelves to be deluded with this fancy of a Relative Diſcipleſhip? i. e. for one that belongs to Chriſt; For why may not all Infants belong to Chriſt, as well as thoſe which you ſprinkle? And then why do you not call all Infants Diſciples? Is not Chriſt the Maſter and King of all Infants, whether Men will vouchſafe to devote them to him or no? How dreadfully do you leſſen his Authority, or Soveraignty?

J. B. Doth not the Holy Ghoſt call them Diſciples? Acts 15. 10. Is it not evident that thoſe on whoſe Necks the falſe Teachers would have put the Yoke were Diſciples? If you ſay not all but ſome of them,—then will it not follow that it is but ſome only whoſe Circumciſion the Synod doth conclude againſt?

T. G.Does not the Holy Ghoſt ſufficiently expound Acts 15. 10. not to intend Infants? Whilſt in Verſe 19. he notes them to be ſuch as from among the Gentiles were turned to God, and are not all that are called Diſciples, Ver. 10. called Brethren, Ver. 23. and as ſuch are written unto by the Aſſembly? And was not their Epiſtle read to all the multitude of the Diſciples? Ver. 30. and did not all the Diſciples rejoyce for the Conſolation? Ver. 31. And is it not ridiculous to ſay the Holy Ghoſt intends Infants? Ver. 10. and yet excludes them in the Appellation [Diſciples] in all the other places? And is it not groſly fallacious, to ſay, That becauſe the falſe Apoſtles would have p. 37put the yoke of Circumciſion upon the Necks of the Diſciples, that therefore all were Diſciples, whom they would have Circumcis'd? Is there any more truth in it than in this? Auſtin would have Infants brought to the Lord's Table, therefore all were Infants whom Auſtin would have brought to the Lord's Table? Or is it not clear from Ver. 1. that the Diſcourſe, Acts 15. does only concern the Brethren? Except ye be Circumciſed—ye cannot be ſaved; this they are ſaid to teach the Brethren, and thereby to ſubvert their Souls. And can you think the falſe Apoſtles could ſubvert the Souls of Infants? And is it not a ſad thing that you ſhould thus grope for the Wall at Noon? and deceive your ſelves and others with meer Fallacies and Ridiculoſities. And why was not the Decree, Acts 15. a ſufficient repeal of Circumciſion, in reſpect of Infants, ſeeing the Diſciples themſelves were diſcharged, or freed from that Yoke? and then whether your Abſurdity concern any Body ſo much as your ſelf?

J. B. 2. If no Infants are Diſciples, what is the cauſe? Is it becauſe they are not capable? Or is it becauſe God will not ſhew ſuch a Mercy? Can you find a third cauſe?—If Infants are capable of being Servants of God, how can they be thought incapable of being Diſciples, Lev. 25. 41, 42, &c.

T. G.Is not Inſtruction the cauſe of Diſcipleſhip, as truly as Teaching is the cauſe of Learning? And what inſtruction or teaching hath God appointed for Infants? and if none (as I am ſure you can aſſign none) then what cauſe have they to learn? And if no cauſe to learn, then what cauſe can they have to be Diſciples? And therefore what cauſe have you (a Learned Man) to query ſo unlearnedly? And ſhould I follow you in your Fancies, I might alſo demand, what is the cauſe that Infants are not Repentant (ſeeing they are Sinners) is it becauſe God will not ſhew them ſuch a Mercy? To-grant them repentance unto Life, what is the cauſe they have not Faith? Is it becauſe God will not ſhew them ſuch a Mercy, as to purifie their Hearts by Faith? What is the cauſe they are not brought to the Lord's Table? Is it becauſe God will not ſhew them ſuch a Mercy, as to partake of the Body and Blood of their Redeemer? Eſpecially ſeeing it is ſaid, Except ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of God, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. What? Will God deny Life through Chriſt to Infants? Now if Infants want no Mercy from God though they be denied all theſe p. 38Mercies, what reaſon is there for you to cry ſo loud againſt God becauſe they are not Diſciples? And what though Infants ſhould be called God's Servants, does it follow they muſt needs be Chriſt's Diſciples, according to Matth. 28. 19? Why then the Sun, Moon, and Stars, are Chriſt's Diſciples too, for they are called God's Servants, Pſal. 119. 90, 91. Rub your Eyes from the miſt they have attracted by poring upon Mr. Baxters Fables, and know, that God will ſhew all the Mercy to Infants which they have need of (as is ſhew'd before) though he give them not all the Mercies which he gives to ſome, and particularly this mercy of Diſcipleſhip, which they have no need of during Infancy, ſith they cannot diſcern between the right Hand and the left.

But you query ſtill, Whether the Infants of the Gentiles were ſo God▪s Servants, as the Infants of the Jews were? And do you not here fairly grant that all Infants are God's Servants, though not SO as the Jews Infants were? But you will not ſay that all Infants are Chriſt's Diſciples: And then have you not confuted your own Fancy, ſeeing it's plain from your own words that the Title of Servants does not neceſſarily infer the Title of Diſciples? And why may not God ſet more by one Servant (and ſo by one Infant) than by another, and yet love them all ſufficiently? and may not this ſatisfie your demand why God ſhould ſhould grant a Year of Jubilee to the Jews and their Infants, when he granted not that Mercy to others? Elſe what will become of all Chriſtians and their Infants? for pray, Sir, when had they ſuch a Jubilee, as the Jews were allowed once in Fifty Years? And yet I hope we have no cauſe to murmur againſt God, as if he were not Merciful enough both to us and to our Infants.

J. B. 3. Are not Infants capable of being Subjects of Chriſt's Kingdom? and is not Chriſt's Church his Kingdom, and his School?—Are not all Subjects of Chriſt in his Viſible Kingdom (or Church) Chriſtians? And are not Diſciples and Chriſtians all one?—Acts 11. 26, &c.

T. G.What if we grant that Infants are Subjects of Chriſt's Viſible Kingdom, in reſpect of his Purchaſe, common Protection, the Deſignation of them to his Service (on the part of true Chriſtians) and in reſpect of the Bleſſing of Heaven it ſelf? Yet how doth it follow hereupon that they are capable of all the Priviledges of his Viſible Kingdom? Much leſs of the Duties of his Subjects? And do you not your own ſelves exclude them during Infancy, from p. 39all Priviledges and Duties of Religion▪ (as much as we do) except your ſuppoſed Baptiſm? And where do you find that any Infants are called Chriſtians? Certes, the Text, Acts 11. 26. ſays no ſuch thing: I ſee no ground to call any Infant by the name of its Parents Religion, for then the Child of a Papiſt muſt be called a Papiſt, the Infant of a Presbyterian, muſt be a Presbyterian; the Infant of a Quaker, a Quaker, &c. But is not that ſaying of Tertullian more rational, We are not born (ſaith he) but made Chriſtians?

J B. 4. Whether were not ſome Infants once to be admitted Members of the Viſible Church, by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God not yet Repealed.

T. G.Whether Infants once admiſſion to particular Ordinances in the Church, be part of the Moral or Ceremonial Law? How could it be a part of the Moral Law, ſeeing it had no being in the World till Abraham's time? Was not the Moral Law obſerved by the Faithful in all Ages? When yet there was no ſuch admiſſion of Infants to Ordinances in the Church? Seeing then this Admiſſion muſt be a part of the Ceremonial Law, was it not for the time being the merciful Gift of God, and was not the whole Ceremonial Law the ſame? And yet whether the taking away of the whole Ceremonial Law was not a Mercy, and conſequently that Admiſſion of Infants by that Law, done away in Mercy alſo? And ſeeing Infants could then but belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, with that painful admiſſion by Circumciſion, is it not a greater Mercy for them to be declared by Chriſt to be the Children of God, and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven without it? Matth. 18. 10. And is not this ſpoken of little ones indefinitely, ſeeing elſe it will follow Men may deſpiſe ſome of them? but does not our Saviour include them all in this ſpeech, That which was loſt? How then can you exclude any of them, when he ſaith, He came to ſeek and to ſave that which was loſt?

J. B. 5. Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord, that he might eſtabliſh them to be a People to himſelf?—Deut. 29. 1…, 11, 12. 13. And were not Infants engaged by the Seal of the Covenant, Circumciſion? &c.

T. G.Whether this Covenant, Deut. 29. was not made for many before they were born? How then could it be a Covenant for Admiſſion of them to Viſible Church-Memberſhip? Or dare you ſay that Infants were by this Covenant obliged to any Act of Obedience in Infancy? And how then does it ſuit your Caſe? Again, p. 40Do you think it would be lawful, by this, or any other Law, for Chriſtians to enter into a Covenant, Oath, and a Curſe (as the Iſraelites did) that our Children ſhould be of our Religion? Or are your Infants bound by your Solemn League and Covenant, to be for the Presbyterian way of Religion? And what ground have we to believe that God will eſtabliſh our Children for his People, as he did promiſe to the Children of Iſrael? i. e. To be a glorious Nation above all the Nations of the Earth. Can you prove that ſuch Promiſes are made to the Chriſtian Church militant? Or doth not Mr. Baxter himſelf ſometimes ſay all that need be ſaid, or can be rightly ſaid on theſe words, Ero Deus tui & ſeminis? It ſufficeth (ſaith he) that God will be to them a God of Mercy, Mr. B. Friend Accom. p. 361.and do for them all that is neceſſary, to put them in ſtatum ſalutis, pro conditione parvulorum. And we demand whether God did not thus much for all Infants in the firſt Edition of the Covenant of Grace, which he confeſſes, is not Vain, nor Repealed by God. Did he not do all that was neceſſary (to put them into a ſtate of Salvation) for the condition of little ones?

If Infants were engaged by Circumciſion (as you here obſerve) then they were not Viſible Church-Members without it. And then doth it not plainly follow, that Circumciſion being Repealed, this their Viſible Church-Memberſhip is Repealed alſo? Or will you ſay they remained in Viſible Church-Memberſhip without an Ordinance? and ſo deſtroy your Maſter-piece, in one Member of it? And let that Typical Memberſhip be accounted (as it was) a merciful Gift, yet when the Antitype made that Type null, it was a great mercy that it ceaſed; nor ſhall we fail of proof in this caſe, 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. cum multis aliis.

J. B. 6. Dare any of you ſay that God hath Repealed Infants Church-Memberſhip to their hurt in Juſtice?—Or can you ſay it is in Mercy for their good? How can it be a Mercy to take away a Mercy, except it be to give a greater Mercy in ſtead of it? &c.

T. G.Though we might ſay much of the Juſtice of God in Repealing the Covenant of Circumciſion, and therewith the Infant Church-Memberſhip once allowed in the Jewiſh Church, yet how dare you ſay that this was to the hurt of any Perſon, whether Infant or any other? But we will abide by this, that God made this Repeal in Mercy. And how ſhould you not ſee, that to be ſet at p. 41Liberty from the Yoke of the Law, and from Circumciſion, which made them Debtors to the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. was all done in mercy? And was it not needful to abrogate the firſt, or old Covenant, that he might eſtabliſh the new or ſecond Covenant? In which though we have no particular order to admit Infants to the Duties of this Covenant, yet we are ſufficiently recompenſed, in the aſſurance given us by Chriſt concerning Infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven, and his bleſſing them, without Baptizing them; that ſo, they are as happy whilſt Infants, as we can deſire they ſhould be: And is not this a greater Mercy than the Old Covenant did give to any Infant by Circumciſion? As for the Capacity of thoſe who are concerned in the Duties of the Second Covenant, is it not expreſly thus: That the Law of Chriſt ſhould be put in their Hearts, and written in their Minds, Heb. 8. And, So God to be their God, and they to be his People, as knowing him, from the leaſt of them to the greateſt? And whether in theſe reſpects any Infant can from Truth or Reaſon, be ſaid to be in the New Covenant? And how then are they to be admitted Members of this Viſible Company or Church, ſeeing they know not God? And yet is it not very evident, that the Grace of the New Covenant extends to them, from our Saviour's Teſtimony, that of ſuch is the Kingdom of God?

Again, Was not Infants partaking of the Paſſover, and other Sacrifices and Rites of the Law, as great Mercies as their being circumciſed? And yet what Mercies of this kind was given them in the taking away of theſe? and yet were they not all taken away in Mercy? And whilſt you deceitfully lay the ſtreſs of the word Mercy, upon your Sprinkling of Infants, do you not invalidate the ſubſtance of thoſe Types, which being come, for the Salvation of Infants (as well as others) is their ſufficient Paſſover, though they cannot celebrate the memorial of it in Bread and Wine, as the Adult ought; and do? And is not the true Jubilee which came by Chriſt, a ſufficient Gain in ſtead of the Jewiſh Jubilee, both to the Adult and to Infants, though neither the one nor the other hath any Jubilee in the nature of an Ordinance in ſtead thereof? Eſpecially not Infants, ſeeing they know not the ſound of the Goſpel.

J. B. 7. And is there any Scripture that ſpeaketh of delivering any from this ſad eſtate (meaning to be without hope) but Church-Members? &c.

p. 42T. G. Will Epheſ. 2. 12. prove that no Infants among the Gentiles were ſaved? Does not that Scripture, Rom. 2. 14, 15, 26, 27. as clearly prove that the Gentiles which had not the Law, and yet did by Nature fulfil the Righteouſneſs of the Law, ſhall be as much excuſed in the Day of Judgment as the Jews who kept the Law? And do you not here eſpouſe that Doctrine, Out of the Church is no Salvation? Not conſidering that the Ʋniverſal Body of Chriſt may comprehend many that had never the opportunity to be incorporated into the Viſible Company of ſuch as worſhip God in the uſe of Legal, or Goſpel Inſtitutions. And will you thus damn all Infants in the World but thoſe that are Sprinkled, or Croſſed by the Pedo-baptiſts? And will not the Text, Acts 2. 47. alleged by you, if compared with Acts 5. 14. make againſt you? Seeing thoſe that were added to the Church, were not Infants, but Men and Women?

J. B. 8. If it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven, nor hurt to the Church to ſee them there, why ſhould it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth? &c.

T. G.If I might follow your Fancy, I might ask you what hurt it will be to the Church, to ſee an Infant of a poor Indian in Heaven? And why then do not you admit them here on Earth? But is it not childiſh in you to ſuppoſe that any ſhall be Infants when in Heaven? Seeing, according to Auſtin, they are called Infants A non fando, becauſe they cannot ſpeak; may we not more rationally believe that what is loſt of ſtature, and knowledg by the Sin of Adam, ſhall be reſtor'd by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt? And are not Infants as frequently ſeen in the Aſſemblies of the Baptiſts, as in yours? And do we not devote them to God in our Prayers as well as you? And what do your Infants partake of (except your Tradition of Sprinkling them) which ours do not as fully enjoy? And is it not as great a benefit to the Church to delay the Baptiſm of their little ones, as to delay their coming to the Lord's Table? If your delay make them more fit for the one, does not ours make them more fit for the other? If ours die without the one, do not yours die without the other? What cauſe then of your murmuring? For who caſts Infants out of the Church? Is not this a Barbariſm? For if they be in, we do all we are allowed of God to keep them there, by timely Inſtruction, and by imploring God's Bleſſing for them, and you do no more, only you Croſs, or Sprinkle them? This is your all, on this you build your hope for your dying Infants. This your Tradition is therefore p. 43your Idol. This is that ſmall parcel of bad Wooll, about which you make this hideous Cry, as if God had no Mercy for poor Infants unleſs this be done; Why are you ſo Imprudent?

DIVISION III.

Concerning Rom. 11. 17.

J. B. 1. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only ſome of the Branches were broken off from the Church? Therefore the reſt remained in, the Gift was not Repealed. Doth not the Apoſtle ſay it of that Church whereof Infants were Members? &c.

T. G.Here you ſeem to hold that the Church in her Legal ſtate, and in her Evangelical ſtate were both one, in ſuch a ſenſe, as that he that by Faith was added to the Chriſtian Church, was not broken off from the Jewiſh Church. Hence I Query,

Does not Paul plainly ſhew, Rom. 7. 1. to 8. That the Chriſtian Church was freed from the Law of her former Husband? When therefore ſhe ceaſed to be a Wife, upon the account of the Law, did ſhe not then ceaſe to be a Church on that account, that ſhe might now be married to another, even to Chriſt, and ſo bring forth Fruit unto God? Why then ſhould theſe words [ſome were broken off] be underſtood, to ſuppoſe that ſome yet did ſtand by God's Appointment in the former Church? Or, is it not evident, that Mens eagerneſs to ſtand in the Old Church (which now was ceaſed de jure) was the cauſe why they were rejected? Again, Is it not ſaid of the believing Gentiles, That they were grafted in among the Branches (to wit, the Jews)? ſure this is not meant of the Jews, that ſtood in the Houſe of Moſes, or the Old Church-ſtate; but of the Church or Houſe which was builded by Chriſt: for Old things were paſſed away, all things became New.

Wherefore now conſider, ſeeing the believing Jews themſelves did not ſtand by virtue of their Old Church-Memberſhip, that being now Repealed, Matth. 3. 9. Rom. 7. 4, 5, 6. whether it be rational to imagin that the Infant Church-Memberſhip (which was of the ſame Law) ſhould yet remain? And wherefore do you ſo boldly ſay, the believing Parents do remain in the ſame Church?

But further, Is it ſafe by the good Olive, Rom. 11. to underſtand p. 44the Jewiſh Church? Was not Paul willingly broke off from that Church, Phil. 3. that he might be in Chriſt? Is it not more ſafe to underſtand the place, of Abraham not as a Natural Father, for ſo the Gentiles could no more be grafted into him than into the Jewiſh Church; But as a Spiritual Father, into whom as ſuch the Faithful were grafted, or rather into his Seed, in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſſed, even Chriſt, the true Vine? and the Faithful, both Jew and Gentile, are the Branches united to him.

J. B. 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off, but for unbelief?

T. G.And is there any thing more clears the Point, that this breaking off was not from the Jewiſh Church? for their unbelief cauſed them to ſtand in that Church? And ſeeing theſe two things are both evident, that the breaking off here meant, was by unbelief, and the ſtanding here meant, is by Faith; is it not thence very evident that the poor Infants are not concern'd, either in this kind of breaking off, or this kind of ſtanding in the Olive Tree? Alas, poor Souls, what have they done? Have not Infants a more ſure intereſt in Chriſt, than to be jetted into, or out of him, by the Faith or Unbelief of Parents? What wiſe Man will think ſo? And what need have we, or any Body elſe, to talk of the Inviſible Church, it being a thing unknown to Man? And ſuppoſe this Olive Tree be meant of the Viſible Church Chriſtian, walking in all the Commands and Ordinances of Chriſt blameleſs; yet ſeeing no Natural Branches (as ſuch) do ſtand in this Olive Tree, but muſt be grafted in by Faith, before they can ſtand there; Is it not evident, even hence, that no Infant, meerly as the Seed of a Believer, is concern'd in the Duties of this Church, ſeeing the very Natural Branches of Abraham himſelf, have not that priviledg on that account?

J. B. 3. If it be into their own Olive Tree (which they were broke off from, and of which they were Natural Branches) that the Jews ſhall be engrafted at their recovery (as Rom. 11. 24.) then how is God's Ordinance for Infant Church-Memberſhip Repealed, &c.—though they be not reſtored to the Moſaical Law, or Covenant of Peculiarity, but taken into the Catholick Church?

T. G.Though it be never ſo true that the Jews upon their return ſhall be grafted into their own Olive, viz. Abraham, as a Spiritual Father, and into Chriſt the Promiſed Seed, in whom all Nations are bleſſed; yet do you not here fairly grant that they ſhall not be grafted p. 45into the Covenant of Peculiarity, or Moſaical Law? And then whether their bringing Infants to the Myſteries of Religion (which was one main thing which was peculiar to the Jewiſh ſtate) is not conſequently granted by you to be now Repealed, unleſs you can prove that the Catholick Church hath Command from Chriſt to bring their Infants to the Myſteries of Religion? And who (exyour ſelves) did ever exclude the Jews Infants from the Catholick Church, viz. the Aſſembly that are written in Heaven? But how will you prove that the Infants of the Jews, or any dying Infants, are caſt out of that Church? Or, are not all thoſe of the Catholick Church, who are of the Kingdom of God? And does not Chriſt ſtate Infants there without excepting any?

J. B. 4. Is it not the ſame Olive or Church, which the Jews were broken off from, that we Gentiles are grafted into, as Rom. 11. 17, 19, 24? And if theirs admitted Infants—muſt not ours admit of Infant-Members alſo? &c.

T. G.Whether the Church was not the ſame Church in all Ages? and yet whether ſhe did not differ in her external order by God's Appointment? and whether this difference was not in the caſe of Infants being brought to, or left unconcern'd in the Rituals of Religion, as much as in any thing? And ſeeing you here ſay, She was taken down as to accidental Ceremonies▪ whether this will not juſtifie us in not Baptizing Infants, as well as you in not Communicating them, ſeeing God hath not commanded the one any more than the other?

J. B. 5. Would not Chriſt have gathered Jeruſalem?—And is it likely that he would have unchurched all their Infants, when he would have gathered to him whole Jeruſalem, or the whole Nation? Matth. 25. 37, 38, 39.

T. G.Whether it be not evident we unchurch no Infants, in reſpect of their relation to Salvation by Chriſt, but only ſay they ought not to be brought to the Services of Goſpel-Ordinances? And do not you your ſelf ſay the ſame that we do, except your pretended Baptiſm? And ſuppoſe Chriſt had gathered all Jeruſalem, would not he have gathered them after the ſame manner? Would he not have gathered them by Preaching, by Repentance, and by Faith and Baptiſm, which were capable of theſe things? But how ſhould their Infants be thus gathered? Could he not have gathered their Infants (in the ſende of this Text) without Preaching to them, p. 46without Faith or Repentance, required of them? And could, and would he not have gathered them without Baptiſm, as well as without theſe? And ſhould not the Infants in Jeruſalem and Judea have eſcaped the deſtruction which came upon them by the Romans, if the Adult had but received the Goſpel? and can you think that though the Infants ſuffered in that Deſolation of Jeruſalem, that therefore they were damned with the unbelieving Jews? And if not, were they not ſtill of the Catholick Church, though their Parents were rejected?

J. B. 6. Can you ſuppoſe the believing Jews Children (and ſo the Parents in point of Comfort) to be in a worſe condition ſince Chriſt than they were before? &c.

T. G.Was not Enoch, Seth, and Noah (when Infants) as happy though not Circumciſed, or brought to any Ritual in the Church, as Iſaac, Jacob, &c. were in their Infancy, though Circumciſed? And have we not as much ground to believe our Infants as happy (though not Baptized) as any Infant of the Faithful in the Old World? And did not Auguſtine think Infants as miſerable if they died without the Lord's Supper, as you think them to be if they die without being Croſſed or Sprinkled? And yet do not you believe he was deceived? And are we not as juſtifiable to believe that you are alſo deceived? Is it not as needful to feed upon Chriſt in the holy Supper, as to put on Chriſt in holy Baptiſm? Can you have comfort concerning your Infants in the want of the one, and muſt we have none concerning our Infants in the want of the other? And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. if Infants can have no benefit by it, but on the condition of their Parents works of bringing them into the Church by your Tradition, as you ſuggeſt in the latter part of this Query?

J. B. 7. If the Church be not in a worſe ſtate now—will it not follow that our Children ougbt to be admitted Church-Members? &c.

T. G.Whether this be not a falſe ſuggeſtion which keeps company with moſt of your Queries; viz. That all Infants which are not brought to ſome Rite or Ceremony, are put out of the Church? Were the Infants of ſix days old in Iſrael put out of the Church? Did not thouſands of Infants die before they were admitted to Circumciſion? And if they were in the Church before▪ it were lawful to Circumciſe them, why may not ours be in the Church, as well as the Infants of ſix days old in Iſrael, before and until it be lawful p. 47to Baptize them? May we not do well to nurture and fit them for Baptiſm, as they nurſed and fitted them for Circumciſion? And what though our Work may require more Years than they theirs did Days; yet we making all the ſpeed that God requires, are we not as excuſable as they? And what though ſome of our Children die before they can be fitted for Baptiſm? Did not ſome of theirs die before they could be fitted for Circumciſion? And why may not we have comfort in our diſappointments by Death, as well as they when ſo diſappointed? And ſuppoſe our Children refuſe to be Baptized when they come to underſtanding, and will not be fitted for it by all that we can do? what comfort would it be to have had them Sprinkled in their Infancy, when now we find them reject Faith and Repentance, the moſt ſubſtantial parts of true Baptiſm?

J. B. 9. If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church, are they not in a worſe condition than the very Children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Chriſt?

T. G.Do you not abuſe the World to talk at this rate, as if either God, or we put Infants out of the Church, when the only Queſtion is about their admiſſion to ſuch or ſuch Duties of Religion? Wherein yet you do the ſame, in many caſes (as I have ſhewed) which we do in the caſe of Baptiſm. And if any have in the heats of Diſputation, abſolutely denied Infants to be of the Church, yet you know their ſence is only to deny your way of making them Church-Members: Not but that they all aſſert Infants to be of the Body of Chriſt, of the number of the ſaved, and ſo of the Church. And I here aſſert they are of the Viſible Church, becauſe by the Word of God, declared to be accepted of God, to the Grace of Life through Chriſt. But we put no Infants out of the Church. For example, I have had many Children (for which I give thanks to God): as ſoon as he gives them to me, I do by Prayer to God devote, and heartily commit them to him; and by his Grace I do my beſt to teach them the Knowledg and Fear of God, as they grow up; and (I bleſs God with this ſucceſs) that all that yet are capable, have been Baptized. And now wherein am I to be charged for putting my Children out of the Church? And if I be Innocent (as I know I am in this) then I hope the Churches of the ſame Faith are as excuſable. And whether, if there were faithful Miniſters of Chriſt in every Pariſh, it might not be a more likely way to bring Souls to true Chriſtianity, to inſtruct the Children twice or thrice a Week (eſpecially ſuch Children whoſe Parents cannot inſtruct them) as p. 48ſoon as they could learn, and ſo to fit them for Baptiſm; than to run to the Miniſter with them to be Baptized in their Infancy, when God knows, neither the Infants, Prieſts, nor their Parents, know what they do?

J. B. 9. Was not the Covenant, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12.—a Covenant of Grace as diſtinct from the Law which was Repealed? How then is it, or Infants Church-Memberſhip, grounded on it, Repealed? &c.

T. G.Seeing this Covenant, Deut. 29. obliged the Iſraelites to the whole Law, and left them under the Curſe of the Law if they kept it not as appears by reading Deut. 29. and 30th Chapters; will it not follow that all the parts of this Covenant was not of the Covenant of Grace? Indeed ſome things repeated, or expreſſed here, might pertain to the Covenant of Grace. But what then? Why Infants Church-Memberſhip, ſay you, is grounded upon it. And I pray, who denies that by the Covenant of Grace Infants are Members of Chriſt, of his Body, or the Univerſal Church? But what then? muſt they therefore be brought to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, viſibly profeſſing the Worſhip of God, in all Ages, as much as in any Age? This indeed is your falſe Inference, and with this you delude your ſelf and others. And how long will it be, ere you make the Covenant, Deut. 29. and 30. agree with that which you quote out of Rom. 10. Heb. 10. in all Points? And if they differ in any thing, why may it not be in this, the one admitted Infants to Circumciſion, and other Rites of the Law; the other only brings thoſe that know the Lord by the word of Faith, being in their Heart and Mouth, to partake of Inſtitutions of the Goſpel?

J. B. 10. If Infants then were entered—Members by that Circumciſion, which was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith;—How comes that Church-Memberſhip to be Repealed?

T. G.Not to contend with you whether Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith to any that had not the Faith of Abraham (though plain Truth, and all good Reaſon ſeems to be full againſt you) yet to conceſs a little to ſee the moſt you can ſay, how do you prove that none were Church-Members before they were Circumciſed? And how was Abraham admitted a Member of the Church by Circumciſion? Was he not a Member of the Church before he was Circumciſed? Was not Iſaac a Member of the Church before he was eight Days old? Were they not Circumciſed becauſe p. 49God had taken them into a Church-Covenant, rather than to enter them into a Church-Covenant? And is it not therefore ſaid, Gen. 17. 14. That ſuch Men children as were not Circumciſed, ſhould be cut off from his People, becauſe they had broken the Covenant? And is it not plain then that theſe Children were already in Covenant, and of the Church? elſe they could not be cut off. And yet whether any thing here threatned, concern the Eternal State of Infants? Shall we think that God would damn them to Hell, becauſe their Parents neglected to Circumciſe them? Or is it like a Covenant of Grace to make ſuch a Ceremony ſo abſolutely neceſſary to the Salvation of Infants? Now ſeeing Infants were not made Members of the Church (much leſs of Heaven) by Circumciſion, what need we aſſert the Repeal of their Memberſhip in the Church (as it contains the whole People of God) but the Repeal of Circumciſion is evident, and there-withal they are freed from any Obligation to the Duties of Religion, unleſs it can be ſhewed that God hath appointed the contrary, which never yet could be ſhewed. Thus if we give you all the advantage imaginable, yet nothing accrues to your Cauſe from this inſtance of Circumciſion, till you can ſhew Authority from God to Baptize Infants, as plain as they had to Circumciſe Infants: For does not one of your own Way tell us, That Circumciſion is a fine Hiſtorical Argument Mr. Brooks.to illuſtrate a Point well proved before; but is not this that wherein you always fail? i. e. to prove by plain Scripture what you promiſed?

J. B. 11. If the Law of Infant Church-Memberſhip, was no part of the Ceremonial, or meerly Judicial Law, nor yet of the Law of Works, how can you ſay it is Repealed, ſeeing no other Laws are Repealed? &c.

T. G.Whether theſe words [The Law of Infant Church-Memberſhip] be a lawful Speech? And by what Law will you make it good? But (not to contend about words) if by Law, you mean the Covenant of Grace made with lapſed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. Then whether we do not aſſert it to be in force, more fully than you do? But if you mean any other Covenant ſave this, (for the often repetition of it makes it not another Covenant): then we ſay, it is your duty to aſſign or ſhew that Law, or Covenant; and we will conſider it, mean while take notice, That for the Repeal of that temporary Order once uſed to admit Infants to Ceremonies in Religion, is ſhewed (and generally granted) to be repealed in the Repeal of Circumciſion, and no Inſtitution p. 50or Ceremony (ſince the Repeal) ordained for Infants; and this is the Point in queſtion. Why then go you about to wheedle us with a noiſe of words, of a Law of Infant Church-Memberſhip unrepealed? A Law, &c. unrepealed? And whether you or Mr. Baxter either, can in the ſight of your own Conſciences ſay, that you well underſtand what you ſay?

And here I ſhall advertiſe the Reader, that as the remainder of the Queries we are to reckon with, are leſs ſpecious than theſe we have examined, ſo let it be remembred, That we have granted, and do now once more aſſert, that by virtue of the Covenant of Grace made with fallen Adam, and all Mankind in him, Infants ſtand in a ſtate of Grace, publiſhed (by God himſelf) to Man, ſo that they are viſibly in a ſtate of Salvation; nor will God break this Covenant, it is unalterable, for he is faithful. Infants do not tranſgreſs againſt it, therefore they ſtand in this Covenant. This Covenant was and is the Church-Covenant n…w confirmed by Chriſt, the faithful Witneſs of it: And by this Covenant Infants are Members of his Ʋniverſal Church, his Body, that ſhall be ſaved. In the time of the Law when this Covenant was much Vailed, or hid under Shadows, Rom. 16. 25, 26. God was pleaſed to admit Infants to ſundry of the Carnal Ordinances of the Law; but now the Myſtery of the Goſpel being diſplayed to all Nations, and the Worſhip of the Goſpel being heightned to a very Spiritual Nature. God hath not engaged Infants in theſe Services, as he did in the time of the Law. Our Adverſary thinks otherwiſe; this is our Difference: try ſeriouſly, and judg righteouſly.

DIVISION. IV.

About Infants viſible Church-Memberſhip.

J. B. 1. Is it not clear that there is an Ʋniverſal viſible Church, and that every one that is a Member of a particular Church, is alſo a Member of the Ʋniverſal? And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Ʋniverſal, and that this Ʋniverſal is not diſſolved? Now muſt not he that will affirm, the whole ſpecies of Infants are caſt out of the Ʋniverſal viſible Church, prove it well?

T. G.Whether this Query be not grounded on meer Fancies? for though they that are Members of a particular Church, are Members of the Univerſal Church; yet dare you ſay, or think, that none are p. 51Members of the Univerſal, which are not alſo Members of a particular Church? Is not this the Dream with which you are Infatuated, to hold the Damnation of all Infants, yea, of all Perſons who are not Members of ſome particular Church? And where do you find that Infants are caſt out of the Univerſal Church, if they are not Baptized? is the Univerſal Church no larger than the Number of the Baptized? Can you think that the Uncircumciſed Infant was caſt out of the Univerſal Church? Suppoſe they were neglected till the 10th, 20th, or 40th day, &c. will you imagine them to be the Subjects of the Devil? What ſtrange conceits have you of God? It's true, the Uncircumciſed were cut off from the particular Society of the Jews, but did that Society conſtitute the Univerſal Church? Were none (what not an Infant in all the World) in a viſible ſtate of Salvation, except thoſe in that Society? Me-thinks Rom. 2. well conſidered, ſhould teach you to think otherwiſe. And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace, if Infants be ſo liable to be caſt out of the Univerſal Church as you ſuggeſt? But why do you call the Univerſal Church Viſible? Is not this a viſible Miſtake? And whether the latter part of this Query be pertinent, unleſs it be againſt your ſelf? For if the removal of Perſons, whether Infants or others, out of a particular Church, be no found Argument that they are removed out of the Univerſal Church: then ſeeing the viſible Profeſſors of the Truth in this World, are but a part (and perhaps no very great part) of the Univerſal Church, may not Infants remain in the Univerſal Church, though not incorporated, or imbedied with any particular Church practizing the Ordinances of God?

J. B. 2. Is not that falſe Doctrine which makes the Children of the Faithful to be in as bad, or a worſe condition than the Curſe, Deut. 28. 32, 41. doth make the Children of Covenant-breakers to be in? &c.

T. G.Is not this an injurious ſurmiſe? As if none were bleſſed in the Fruit of their Body but you, whoſe Infants are Croſſed or Sprinkled? But who puts Infants out of the whole Viſible Church? Do we not maintain the Church-Memberſhip of Infants as far as Scripture will bear it? Firſt, By the Covenant of Grace made with all Mankind, and now confirmed by Chriſt by whom they are bleſſed, and pronounced to be of the Kingdom of God. 2. According to the Law or Covenant of Circumciſion▪ during the term of the Law, till Faith came, or till the time of Reformation.

J. B. 3. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the Viſible p. 52Church of Chriſt, leave them in the viſible Kingdom of the Devil? &c.

T. G.Is not this a Diabolical ſurmiſe? Are any Infants of the viſible Kingdom of the Devil? Are your Infants of the viſible Kingdom of the Devil till you Sprinkle them? Did not Chriſt declare them to be of the Kingdom of God, when yet not one Infant that we read of was Baptized? And what if your Croſſing or Sprinkling prove no true Baptiſm, will it not follow from this your injurious Doctrine, that all your Infants are of the Kingdom of the Devil? Are any of the viſible Kingdom of the Devil till they ſubmit to his Deluſions? and can you charge Infants with this? Be aſhamed, O ye Presbyterians! of this.

J. B. 4. And will you leave us no ſound grounded hope of the Juſtification, or Salvation, of any dying Infants in the World? &c.

T. G.Is not this Query a meer fooliſh out-cry? How plainly do you here damn all Infants that are not Sprinkled? Is not this the only cauſe of all this Clamour? What Doctrine can be more miſchievous than this?

J. B. 5. What a full plain Text is that, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the Children of Believers holy in ſtate? then ought they not to be admitted viſible Church-Members?

T. G.How fully and plainly does Heb. 13. 2. explain this place, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Is not Marriage honourable among all Men, and the Marriage-bed undefiled? And is not that which is undefiled holy in ſtate? And is not the unbeliever ſanctified in this ſtate, 1 Cor. 7. 14? Ye who but Men willing to be deceived, will ſay they ought therefore to be Baptized? And are not the Children therefore ſaid to be holy, becauſe the Unbeliever is ſanctified to, or by the Believer? And how then can that Holineſs be any other than Matrimonial? And does not Eraſmus in his Paraphraſe, give this very expoſition on this Text? And does not Auſtin tell you, That whatſoever this Holineſs is, 1 Cor. 7. 14. yet it is not of power to make Chriſtians, or remit Sins? And why do you grudg that all Infants, procreated according to God's Ordinance, ſhould be holy? See Malachi 2. 15. Doth not Diodate on the Text ſay plainly, That God's chief end in this proceeding, [to wit, in ordaining Marriage] was, that the Poſterity might be Sanctified, being born in chaſte Wedlock according to his Appointment, whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunctions.

J. B. 6. When it is ſaid, Mark 10. 14. Of ſuch is the Kingdom of God, Whether this be not more, than they may be viſible Church-Members? &c.

p. 53T. G. Whether we do not readily conſent to all that is ſaid Mark 10. 14. concerning Infants? do we not grant they are viſibly ſtated in a gracious Right to the Kingdom of God? And if this be more than to ſay, Let them come to Baptiſm; Is it not more alſo than to ſay, Let them come to the Lord's Table? And is it not very conſiderable, that though three Evangeliſts mention theſe Infants, yet none of them ſo much as hints that they were Baptized? And whetheſe words, ſuffer them to come to me, will not be a better plea for us in the Day of Judgment, in devoting our Infants to God by Prayer in the Name of Chriſt, than for you, in going ſo much beyond the Text, as to Croſs or Sprinkle them, without the leaſt ground from this, or any place of Scripture? And whether this your preſumption, be not the real cauſe of our differences in Religion?

DIVISION V.

About the Texts objected againſt the Pedo-baptiſts.

J. B. 1. If theſe Texts, Rom. 9. 8.—Epheſ. 2. 3. be objected. To the firſt Text: What is it the Apoſtle mainly drives at, but that Men are not therefore ſaved becauſe they are Abraham's carnal Seed?—And to Epheſ. 2. 3. What though we are by Nature Children of Wrath, doth it follow that we may not be otherwiſe by Grace? &c.

T. G.Seeing you here grant that Men (but you muſt mean Infants alſo) are not ſaved becauſe they are Abraham's Natural Seed, and that you diſpute not the certainty of their Salvation, but only their Church-Memberſhip; Have you not meerly trifled all this while? Seeing now here is no ſound ground it ſeems from their Church-Memberſhip to prove them ſaved? And ſeeing none, as they are Abraham's Seed according to the Fleſh, are either ſaved, or Members of the Church, ſo as to partake of Ordinances, is it not ſtrange that you ſhould prefer your Carnal Seed before his?

But how are Infants Children of Wrath in the ſence of Epheſ. 2. 3. otherwiſe than with reſpect to that Condemnation which came by Adam? And is not that made void by Chriſt, Rom. 5? We readily therefore conſent, that Infants are otherwiſe by Grace.

J. B. 2. If you object that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptiſm: To this, though Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptiſm,—yet p. 54are they not capable of the principal ends? May it not be a Liſting Sign? &c.

T. G.Here you grant that Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptiſm, nor can you prove them capable of all the benefits which you aſſign: For how are Infants capable of receiving Baptiſm as a Liſting Sign? Ought there not to be a free conſent on the part of him that is Liſted? Or do you not rather preſs poor Infants (againſt their will, as appears by their reſiſting you what they can) then truly Liſt them? Or how do they engage to be God's People, or take Chriſt to be their Lord (as you feign)? are not theſe meer Flouriſhes, and confuted by all Experience? And do not you conſute your ſelf, when you tell us here that they underſtand none of theſe things? And what benefit of Baptiſm are Infants capable of, more than they are capable of the benefits of the Lord's Table? If Remiſſion of Sin be held forth in the one, is it not held forth in the other? And will you narrow up Remiſſion of Sin to your way of Baptiſm? And muſt we ſtill be ordered by Bonds and Leaſes to tranſact Goſpel Myſteries? Do you think to prevail by theſe Fancies?

J. B. 3. And may it not be Operative by its ſignification as ſoon as the Child comes to the uſe of Reaſon? And in the mean time, as his Intereſt is, upon the condition of the Parents Faith,—ſo may not the Parent have the actual comfort of it,—as of a Leaſe that aſſureth an Eſtate to his Child? &c.

T. G.It ſeems then Baptiſm operates not by its ſignification, till the Child comes to Reaſon, and you will not ſay it operates by the Work wrought? Why then cannot you let the Child ſtay till he have the uſe of Reaſon? And is it not abſurd in you to ſay, that your Sprinkling aſſures the Parent of Heaven for his Infant, as a Leaſe aſſures him of an Eſtate? And why then did you tell us it was not the certainty of Salvation which you diſputed for? What ſtrange comfort do you give Parents concerning their Infants? Would any Parent value ſuch a Leaſe as only names his Child, but gives no certain right to the Inheritance? Nay, for ought he knows, the Eſtate is more certain to one that is not named in the Leaſe (for that's the true Import of your holding ſome dying Infants are damned): but what a wretched Intereſt do you give the Child, whilſt it reſts upon the condition of the Father's Faith? Poor Child! if thy Father's Faith be falſe (as many are corrupt in that caſe) or if he fall from the Faith (as many do) what is then become of thy Intereſt? p. 55May not you, as Auguſtine, before you be truly called, Durus Pater Infantium?

You ſuggeſt as if the Child's Baptiſm will operate as ſoon as it comes to the uſe of Reaſon; but that is falſe by all Experience: he muſt have better means than your Sprinkling, or he ſhall never be a Chriſtian. You urge the Sinleſsneſs of Chriſt. But ſuppoſe your Infants were as Sinleſs as he, would that intitle them to Baptiſm? I dare ſay you would hold it an Argument to the contrary. And what though Chriſt was not buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm? Yet is that a Warrant for you to Baptize thoſe that cannot be buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm? And whether would your Fancies lead us at laſt, ſhould we admit your Argumentation in other Caſes?

J. B. 4. If you object, How can an Infant covenant with God, or be engaged by this Sign?—To this, if only the Aged are capable of Engagement, may you not thence conclude that no Infant was ever circumciſed? But may not that be the Childs action Morally, or in a Law-ſence, which is only the Fathers action Phyſically? As when a Man puts his Childs name into a Leaſe? &c.

T. G.Whether you do not here grant the circumciſed Child did not covenant with God properly but in a Law-ſence? And do we not grant this becauſe there was a Law for it? There was alſo once a Law for the Circumciſion of Trees, Lev. 19. 23. [Take away his foreskin, which is his Fruit. Ital. Tranſl.] Now ſhew us your Law for your Mode of admitting Members, viz. Sprinkling of Infants, and we will diſpute no farther. And would you not count us very unwiſe, if we ſhould Baptize our Trees, becauſe the Jews did Circumciſe theirs? And then why may not we count you as unwiſe to Baptize Infants, becauſe the Jews did Circumciſe Infants? But what Book of God taught you this fine diſtinction, viz. That my Baptiſm muſt be anothers act Phyſically, and mine Morally? And let this Fancy run, and what Ordinance can you deny an Infant which his Father may perform Phyſically? i. e. As he may put his Childs name into a Leaſe, which is the thing you refer us to, to underſtand your diſtinction by.

J. B. 5. Another common Objection is, If Infants muſt be Baptized, why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper? To which, may not the very external nature of the Sacraments ſatisfie you? &c.

T. G.Why do you not ſee your Error? Does not Dr. Taylor tell you, The Wit of Man is not able to ſhew (in this caſe) a difference in p. 56theſe Ordinances? And are not little Children as capable to receive a ſmall quantity of Bread and Wine, as to be Baptized? And did not Men admit them to both for five or ſix hundred Years together? Does not the Apoſtle ſay of the whole Church who were engaged in the Chriſtian Worſhip, We are one Body and one Bread, even as we all partakers of that one Bread? 1 Cor. 10. And might not any Man argue as ſtrongly from hence for Infant Communion, as you from any other Text for Infant Baptiſm? And does not God's requiring Repentance of every one that is to be Baptized, Acts 2. 37, 38. reſtrain Baptiſm to ſuch, as 1 Cor. 11. reſtrains the Supper to ſuch as examine themſelves? And does not your Inſtance of a Burgeſs-Infant make againſt you, whilſt you confeſs he is not born to Trade on his Infancy? Why then ſhould Infants Trade in the Myſteries of the Goſpel, though born to the Grace of Life, held forth to Mankind in the Goſpel?

J. B. 6. It bath been objected, That if it be the will of God that Infants ſhould be Baptized, it is ſtrange that he hath left it ſo dark? To which, will you not grant that all Church-Members muſt be admitted by Baptiſm? &c.

T. G.Dare you ſay that all that are under the benefit of the Covenant of Grace muſt be Baptized? And yet are not all ſuch of the Univerſal Church? Are none of the Infants of the Jews of the Kingdom of God; and yet you will ſay they muſt be Baptized? Is it not as plain that all Church-Members muſt eat and drink at the Lord's Table, as that they are all to be Baptized? Does not Chriſt ſay, Drink ye all this? Does not Paul ſay, We being many, are one Body,—for we are all partakers of that Bread? Let Infants then be never ſo truly of the Church, as ſhe contains the whole Body of Chriſt, yet are they not of that Body which are bound to put on Chriſt in Baptiſm, and to continue ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles Doctrine, in breaking of Bread and Prayers. And whether the remainder of this Query hath not been conſidered before?

J. B. 7. Another Objection is, The evil conſequences of Infant-Baptiſm, as groſs Ignorance much occaſioned by it. To which, 1. Is not the Lord Jeſus himſelf the occaſion of the ruine and damnation of Multitudes? Luke 2. 34. 2. Can you ſhew what there is in the nature of the thing that ſhould be hurtful to any? &c.

T. G.Is not that of very evil Conſequence, that naturally tends, to deprive all Men of the ſacerd Ordinance of God, the Baptiſm of p. 57Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sin? Can you deviſe any way ſo natural, to fill the Church with Unregenerated Perſons? And is not this a great evil, when God hath ordained the New Birth, as neceſſary to Memberſhip in his Goſpel-Church? Do you not evidently turn things upſide down? And contradict our Saviour, John 3. 3, 5. and his Apoſtle, Gal. 3. 26. And is not this evil? Is it not evil to ſpeak a word in the Name of the Lord which he never commanded? How dare you then ſay, you Baptize an Infant in the Name of the Lord, when you cannot but know you ſpeak falſly in his Name; and can ſhew no Authority from Heaven for Baptizing Infants, if you did the thing indeed? Suppoſe any ſhould bring Infants to the Lord's Table, what evil can you ſhew us in the nature of the thing, that we cannot as well ſhew you in the nature of your Croſſing or Sprinkling? And how dare you crack it up to be more ſolemn, than our way of Baptizing Repenting Believers? Do we deny any to be preſent when we Baptize, that are fit to be preſent? And why do you count the Footſteps of Chriſt and his Flock immodeſt, in compariſon of your own Tradition? But more of your Immodeſty anon.

J. B. If God would have Infants to be Church-Members, and ſo entered by Baptiſm, are not all theſe Objections againſt God, and a Carping at his Way?

T. G.Whether this be not an idle Query? And ſeeing it does not appear that it is the Will of God that Infants ſhould be admitted to the Church profeſſing the Goſpel, by Baptiſm; are not you evidently the Men that carp at the People of God, and complain becauſe Men will not lay aſide the Command of God, and obſerve your Fancies and Traditions?

DIVISION VI.

About deferring or delaying Infant-Baptiſm.

J. B. 1. Where do you find one word of Precept or Example in all the Bible, for the deferring the Baptiſm of any Child of a Chriſtian till years of Diſcretion? Should you not bring ſome Scripture for your Way? &c.

T. G.Whether it be not vain in you to talk of our delaying Baptiſm, when we take the firſt tender of any Perſon (unleſs we have juſt cauſe to the contrary) to diſpence that ſacred Ordinance? Does p. 58not DELAY ſuppoſe a preſent capacity and obligation for Duty, and then to put it off? But what Scripture have you to Baptize Members of the Church, and then to delay their other Duties and Privileges for 15 or 16 Years? And what Precept or Example have you to Baptize Perſons when they are aſleep? (As your Infants often are when you Sprinkle them) And who taught you to Baptize Perſons per force, whether they will or no? As that is your common practice: As is confeſſed, when we are told by Auſtin, That Infants do ſtrive againſt Baptiſm with great Crying.

J. B. 2. Is not your Way inconſiſtent with obedience to the Rule? Is it not Chriſt's Rule that Perſons ſhall be Baptized without delay when they are firſt made Diſciples? Doth not this appear, Mat. 28. 19, 20.—How can you Baptize (any) when they are firſt made Diſciples▪ unleſs it be in their Infancy? &c.

T. G.Why do you not come forth, and make ſome one Infant (at leaſt) a Diſciple, according to Mat. 28. 19? Would not ſuch a thing, done by you, do more to decide this Controverſy, than a thouſand Queries? I require you to come to the Teſt here, or elſe may we not juſtly count you vain Talkers, and eſpecially you of the Presbyterians; who whilſt you boaſt more of making Infants Diſciples than other Pedo-baptiſts, yet you do no more than they, that is juſt nothing? And why do you ſuggeſt that we cannot tell when a Perſon is firſt made a Diſciple? Did the Apoſtles know this or not? And why may not others know this as well as they? Seeing they judged not in this caſe by immediate Revelation, but by Perſons gladly receiving their Doctrine, Acts 2. 40, 41. And how can you tell when an Infant is firſt made a Diſciple? Are you not aſhamed to pretend to know with eaſe, what is not to be known at all, that ſo you might make all Men ignorant of that they ought to know?

J. B. 3. Would not this Practice of yours neceſſarily fill the Church with perpetual Contentions, as being about a Matter that cannot be determined by any known Rule? &c.

T. G.May I not be confident, that it is hard for any Man to query more indiſcretly than he that formed this Query? But, Sir, we are ſure your Practice hath filled the World with Contention, both in former and latter Ages: your Biſhops could not agree on what Day to Baptize Infants, you cannot tell us the Day. He that ſhould not be Baptized, till you Miniſters agree this Point, by one Voice, ſhould he ever be Baptized? As for us, we have a known Rule to walk by, p. 59and that is, to Baptize them the ſame day they are Converted, if they reject it not. Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the Word were Baptized; and the ſame day was added unto them about three thouſand Souls. Yet it may be thought that the noble Bereans were longer about it, becauſe they ſearched the Scriptures daily, to ſee whether things were ſo. Yet who (but ſuch as feed on Fancies) would imagine the time when they were to be Baptized, could not be determined by any known Rule? And why? Forſooth, becauſe they came gradually to the knowledg of the Truth, ſpectatum admiſſi, &c.

J. B. 4. When you pretend to ground your practice on Mat. 28. 19, 20.—would not your Doctrine turn Baptiſm (for moſt part) out of the Churches of the Saints? For according to you, only they that are made Diſciples by Miniſterial Teaching, directly ſhould be Baptized, &c.

T. G.Whether this your talk of directly, indirectly, and remotely diſcipling the Seed in the Parent, be not plain Barbariſms rather than the Simplicity of the Goſpel? And that cunning Craftineſs whereby you deceive your Admirers? And whether ſuch your indirect doings have not turned holy Baptiſm for the moſt part out of the World? But do you not err, to ſuggeſt that we would have none made Diſciples, but by immediate Miniſterial Inſtruction? Does not Mat. 28. 19, 20. ſhew that Miniſters are to teach thoſe whom they have diſcipled, to obſerve the things which Chriſt commanded his Apoſtles? and is there not liberty ſufficient here for every one to ſpread the knowledg of the Goſpel as he is able, in his Family, or elſewhere, as God gives him opportunity? And is it not a great ſhame that you ſhould thus forge an Opinion to be ours which we never owned, and then to quibble upon it as you do? I profeſs I am aſhamed to reade you in this, and many of theſe your imprudent Queries; which I cannot perceive to have any deſign but to throw ſtumbling Blocks in the way of Chriſtians generally, and to make them queſtion almoſt every thing.

DIVISION VII.

About the manner of Baptizing.

J. B. 1. Your ordinary practice of Baptizing by Dipping over Head in cold Water (which you uſe as neceſſary) is it not a breach of the Sixth Commandment, Thou ſhalt not kill? &c.

p. 60T. G. Is not this Query blaſphemous? In that it reproacheth the Footſteps of God's Anointed? Was not Chriſt Baptized of John into Jordan? (So the Greek reads it) Was not that cold Water? ſeeing he was Baptized in the Winter ſeaſon; for he was born about Midwinter, and Baptized when he began to be about thirty Years of Age, muſt it not then be about the ſame time of Winter? Is there any Form of Baptiſm neceſſary? Or hath God left that to you, to invent what Form you will? May we not better follow Chriſt▪s Form than yours? Did not Chriſt know rightly how to be Baptized? Will not your Way admit of as many Forms of Baptiſm, as there are parts in a Mans Body? And ſhould any urge the ſame part to be the fitteſt part to be Baptized, which was formerly Circumciſed, might not a Man that would ſtrain his Wits and Conſcience, give as probable Arguments for that, as you do for the ſubject of Baptiſm, whilſt you reaſon from Circumciſion? Do you not boldly out-face the Holy Ghoſt by your Sprinkling, John 3. where he tells us the Reaſon why John Baptized in Eanon, was, becauſe there was much Water? And why went Philip and the Eunuch both down into the Water, if your Croſſing and Sprinkling were a due Form of Baptizing? Does not Diodate (and many of your Learned Men) tell us, that (Rom. 6. 4.) Baptiſm was a Dipping in Water; according to the ancient Ceremony? Were the ancient Chriſtians Murtherers? When will you bluſh at your deſperate Vanities? Nay, do not you grant that Dipping was the uſe of the Church in Scripture-times, only you ask us whether it was conſtantly uſed? But if you lay inconſtancy to their Charge, ſhould you not prove it? Does your Inſtance of the Jaylor prove it? Or do not you ſhew that you reade that place with blind Eyes? Elſe you will find they went out of his Houſe even at Midnight, to celebrate holy Baptiſm; for is it not plainly ſaid, That when he and all his were Baptized, that he brought them into his Houſe, and ſet Meat before them? And yet, had they not been in his Houſe before▪ to Preach to him and to all that were in his Houſe? And can any place be more full againſt your childiſh Sprinkling? And whether Mr. Fiſher▪ and Mr. Tombs hath not ſufficiently anſwered your frivolous Quibbles about the quantity of Bread and Wine in the holy Table? And alſo your Quirk about warm Water to Baptize in? And ſeeing by the courſe of Providence Water is warm in the Summer, in compariſon of what it is in Winter, how ſhould it be a Sin to Baptize in warm Water? And that God which ordain'd Water for our nouriſhment as Men, allows us to p. 61uſe it warm or cold, as may be moſt healthful and convenient. And why ſhould we think it unlawful to uſe it ſo in the Sacrament of Baptiſm if neceſſity require it, as in an extreme Froſt perhaps it may? And ſo in reſpect of the weakneſs of the Subject, is here any change of the Ordinance? And will not Mat. 12. 7. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, better defend ſuch an innocent Practice, than your abſurd al…ion of the Ordinance?

J. B. 2. Is it not a breach of the Seventh Commandment. Thou ſhalt not commit Adultery, to Dip Perſons naked, or next to naked? &c.

T. G.Is not this alſo a fooliſh and blaſphemous Query? Is not the having one Garment on only next to naked? And yet may it not be decent enough to be Baptized in one Garment? But why do you ſo baſely ſuggeſt that it is our practice to Baptize naked? Is not our conſtant Practice known to be otherwiſe? Are not both Men and Women attired in decent Garments among us when Baptized? Why do you thus ungraciouſly Scandalize an Innocent People? Will you not ceaſe to pervert the right Ways of the Lord; And to make his Ordinance contemptible as your Fellows did, Mal. 1. 6. 7? Yea, this Reproach hath been by your means, O ye Prieſts; And let me intreat you to lay it to Heart. And are you not more perverſe ſtill in the remainder of your Query? As if the Dipping Perſons cloathed, would deſtroy our Argument for waſhing the whole Body? What is this? You grant Dipping was uſed in the Scripture-times, ſure they were Dipped either with Clothes, or without them: And is it not ſaid of them that their Hearts were ſprinkled from an evil Conſcience, and their Bodies waſhed with pure Water, Heb. 10. 22. Now what ſhall we ſay to your ungodly Query? It will not permit us to be Baptized by Dipping (as you grant it was uſed in Scripture-times) neither with Clothes nor without. So then, nothing but your Croſſing or Sprinkling can pleaſe you. How true is the Proverb? Some Men are much in love with their own Fancies.

J. B. 3. What fruit of theſe things? How many of you that inſtead of labouring after the winning of Souls from Sin to God, make it your main ſcope to propagate your Opinion? &c.

T. G.Whether this Query be not Hypocritical? As if the buſineſs of your Hundreds of Queries did not ſpeak you to be as fond of your Opinion as any other? Or as if the winning Souls from the Errors wherein you have entangled them, and by which you have hardned them againſt plain Truth, were not a winning Souls to God? And p. 62have not you compelled us to defend what we hold? And do you now blame us for ſpending time to unmask your Falacies? For my own part, I could have been glad to have forborn this Labour: But what did you publiſh your Queries for? Was it that you might bear it high againſt the Truth, and that no Man ſhould examine them? And is not your intolerable Calumnies againſt what we profeſs, and your immoderate ſtickling for Pedo-rantiſm, the cauſe of thoſe Diſtractions (at leaſt in part) which you would charge us with? As for Prayer in Families, if there be no ſinful Impoſitions and Formalities, which of us are Enemies to Family Devotions? And are not you as ſtrait in this as other Men? Would you have more Unity with us? This you pretend. But then ceaſe your Heats for things really diſputable, as Mr. Baxter confeſſes Infant-Baptiſm to be: Yea, ſaith he, I know it to be a very difficult Point,— Mr. B. Def. Prin. Lo. p. 7and many Prelatiſts have maintained that it is not determined in Scripture. You may be ſure therefore, you ſhall not hector us into your Opinion, by calling us Murtherers and Adulterers, meerly becauſe of our Baptiſm. And who that is wiſe would take ſuch courſes for Union with Diſſenting Chriſtians? Sure this will keep us from your Communion.

J. B. 4. Whether it be at all credible that Satan would be ſo charitable to Believers Infants, as to plead for their Priviledges, or would be a Propagater of Chriſt's Kingdom? &c.

T. G.Wretched Charity! Is this Charity to damn hundreds of Infants, that you may plead for one? Was not Auguſtine as Charitable in pleading for Infants Communion, as you are in pleading for their Baptiſm? Were not the falſe Apoſtles (in their own Opinion) as Charitable as the beſt of you all for Infants, when they would have had them Circumciſed? For ſay they, except ye be Circumciſed after the manner of Moſes, ye cannot be ſaved. And ſay you leſs, except Infants be Baptized (as they were Circumciſed under the Law) there is no ſound ground of Hope concerning any dying Infant in the World? But in good earneſt, whether we or you, be really and indeed the moſt charitable to Infants, let him that reades theſe Books impartially, judg? And how your practice of Pedo-baptiſm hath propagated Chriſt's Kingdom, may be ſadly ſeen among the Papiſts, where yet Pedo-baptiſm is more common than with you? And how his Kingly Government is oppoſed by your withſtanding his Counſel againſt your ſelves, is too evident. Men have a knack to pretend p. 63Chriſt's Kingdom, when it is their own that they ſtrive to ſet up: and 'twill be well if you do it ignorantly.

J. B. 5. Whereas we tell Sinners of the heinous aggravation of their Sins, as committed after Baptiſm,—Whether you that make Infant-Baptiſm a Nullity, dare undertake to bear the burthen of that Aggravation for them? &c.

T. G.Whether you deceive them not in telling them they are Baptized, when they are not? Yet how dare you charge us for going about to extenuate any Sin, at any time, more than your ſelves? And whether does not Mr. B. himſelf make Infant-Baptiſm a Nullity? When he ſaith to the Adult (notwithſtanding their Infant-Baptiſm) They were never ſtrictly nor comfortably in Covenant with Chriſt, till they freely conſent; and (ſaith he) it was never a match till now. And then is not this the fit time to Seal the Covenant (as you ſpeak); for he ſaith, their Infant-Covenant will not now ſerve. Saints Everlaſting Reſt, P. 178, 182.

J. B. 6. Whether it ſhould not lie heavy on tender Conſciences, to add to God's Word, holding the Repeal of the Ordinance of Infant Church-Memberſhip?—How doleful is it that any Chriſtians ſhould be ſo zealous to diſpute their Children out of Chriſt's Church,—and whether they may not have as many thanks from Chriſt, as the Diſciples had for keeping ſuch from him?

T. G.Whether this be not the great evil of Mr. B. to add to God's Word, telling the World he has given plain Scripture-proof for Infant Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, when in truth there is not one word for their being admitted Church-Members by Baptiſm? And whether we do not ſufficiently evince, that we diſpute no Infant out of the Church of Chriſt, though we deny them to be admitted by Baptiſm? And wherein the Chriſtian Man's Infants have a bleſſing in the timely Dedication of them to God (as far as the Chriſtian hath allowance from Chriſt, to bring them to him) which others have not who are born of thoſe that know not God, have we not likewiſe ſhewed in our firſt Book, and now alſo in this? And whether (for all this Noiſe) Mr. B. does not make Infant Church-Memberſhip a meer Trifle, unleſs they be ſprinkled, when that's all the cauſe of the Cry, that they have no ſound grounded hope concerning them; and that for this cauſe they are ſuppoſed to be left in the Kingdom of the Devil? And whether Chriſt will give Mr. Baxter more thanks for THUS diſputing unbaptized Infants out of Heaven, than he gave to Auſtin p. 64for diſputing Infants out of Life Eternal, becauſe they were not Communicated with at the Lord's? Table. And whether it be not a good wiſh that Mr. Baxter may ſee his Miſtake in the former, as 'tis ſuppoſed (by ſome) that Auſtin ſaw his Miſtake in the latter?

The Concluſion.

FOraſmuch as Mr. Baxter (and from him Mr. J. B.) have delivered a very modeſt Propoſal, for more Concord among Chriſtians who differ about the Point of Infant-Baptiſm, by which it ſeems to me, that notwithſtanding the ſeverity of their Queries, and their ſtiffneſs in fighting for the Point of Infant-Baptiſm, with ſuch intentneſs; yet this is more to let us ſee what (they conceive) may be ſaid, then what they believe, is neceſſary to be ſaid in that caſe. I will therefore ſet down the ſaid Propoſal, and intreat all my Friends that differ from them, in the Point in Controverſie, to take it into conſideration, being loth at preſent to give an Anſwer to it, becauſe it is a matter of moment, and common concern.

Mr. B's. Propoſal.

THat if you would be contented your ſelves to ſatisfie your own Conſciences to be Rebaptized, as one that doubted whether he were well Married, would ſecure it by being Married over again [or as one that doubted his Ordination, would be Ordain'd again] and would afterwards live peaceably in Communion with your Brethren, and not appropriate Church-Communion to your own Sect: And if you would not deny our Infants Church-Memberſhip, and only deferred the Baptiſmal Inveſtiture, for the more ſolemn Inauguration and Obligation: Though I ſhould not be of your mind, I would live in as loving forbearance and Communion with you, as with other Chriſtians.

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Grantham, The Controversy About Infants Church Membership and Baptism (1680)