Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Fourth TREATISE. THE QUERIST EXAMINED: OR, Fifty Anti-queries seriously propounded to the People called PRESBYTERIANS, &c.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 1. WHether under the Covenant of Works, if Adam had not sinned, Infants should not have been holy to God, and so Members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 1. Whether this be not a groundless and unlearned Query? For seeing the word Church, as used in the Holy Scriptures, signifieth, A People called out, namely, from another People; out of what People should they have been called, had the whole World been in the state of Innocency? And seeing no Man can tell whether any Man should have had Authority committed to him in Matters of Religion, or whether God should immediately have exercised his own Government? Neither yet in what capacity Children should have come into the World, whe∣ther endowed with Knowledg or otherwise: Whether therefore it con∣cern or become any Man, to let his Fancy rove about in such an unknown or unknowable case? And thereupon, 1. Suggest how Infants should be

concern'd, or not concern'd in Matters of Religion? And how can any thing be concluded from such an Imagination, as imitable for us about Infant Church-Membership? And whether we are not like to have a fine Superstructure, when the Foundation is a meer Fancy?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 2. Whether God was any more obliged to order it so, that the Chil∣dren of Righteous Parents should have been born with all the Perfections of their Parents, and enjoyed the same Priviledges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace, to grant that Infants should be of the same Society with their Parents, and have the Immunities of that Society.

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 2. More obliged: Whether it be not vain to suppose, that God was obliged at all in either of those cases, seeing he is absolutely free to do whatsoever he pleaseth with his own? And what ground have you to believe, that some Infants were more concern'd than others in Matters of Religion, by virtue of any Covenant made with Adam? And what so∣ciety were Infants capable of with Adam, by virtue of any Covenant made with him after his fall? certainly the Scripture is silent as to these Matters.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 3. Whether we have any reason, when the Design of Redemption is the magnifying of Love and Grace, to think that Love and Grace are so much less under the Gospel to the Members of Christ, than under the Law to the Members or Seed of Adam, as that then all the Seed should have partaken of the same Blessings with their Righteous Parents, and now they shall all be turned out of the Society, whereof the Parents are Members?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 3. Whether you your selves do not lessen the magnifying Love of God in Man's Redemption, whilst in respect of Infants you would restrain it to the Seed of such Parents as are in Covenant with God, yea, to such Infants as partake with them in Practicals of Religion, which you seem to intend by the Blessings you speak of? But who denies any Blessing to Infants under the Gospel, which was their Portion under the Law made with Adam? And how were Infants Members of the Society of the Seed of Adam, more than of the Society of the Baptists? Shew the difference if you can; and then, Eris mihi magnus Apollo.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 4. Whether though our Innocency be lost, Parents be not Parents still, and have not as much interest in Children, and whether God hath re∣versed

this natural Order? And if God change not his Order therein, whe∣ther Parents be not as capable of consenting to Grace for their Children, as they were of being innocent for them?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 4. Whether there be any that question whether Parents be Parents still, or what need of such Enquiries? Or what do you mean by God's Natural Order? If you mean Natural Religion, then shew us what Infants are bound to in Matters of Religion by Nature; or what this Natural Order ties Parents to do to their Infants, upon the account of Practicals in Religion, which we omit? And whether Parents could be innocent for their Infants, if their Infants were not innocent as well as they? And if not, how should their consenting to Grace be the Child's consent? And whether it will not as well hold retro, that the Pa∣rents consenting to wickedness is the Child's consent? And whether this do not give the Parents the Power to Save or Damn their Infants? And can such Conceits stand with the Wisdom, Justice, or Mercy of God?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 5. Whether Infants be not included in the first Edition of the Cove∣nant of Grace made with Adam? (Gen. 3. 15.) Whether unless it can be proved that Infants are none of the Womans Seed, we must not take that Fundamental Promise to extend to Infants? And was she not thereby obliged to list her self, and all her Infant-Progeny in the Redeemer's Army, against the Proclaimed Enemy, and to teach her Posterity to do the like? And did they not continue visible Members of Christ's Army and Kingdom, till such time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation, and as the Seed of the Ser∣pent fought against Christ and his Kingdom, for Satan and his Kingdom?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 5. Whether the Baptists do not as clearly assert Infants Right to the Grace of God in the first Edition of the Covenant made with Adam, as any whatsoever? And if by the Seed of the Woman you understand all that are saved, who then questions Infants belonging to that Seed? But where is the Woman bound to List her Infants in the Re∣deemer's Army? Or where shall we find them visible Members of Christ's Army in the first Edition of the Covenant? Are not these meer words without Authority of Scripture? Or where did ever Infants fight for or against the Serpent? and if not, Why do you make them the Seed of the Serpent, and Fighters against the Kingdom of Christ? And if you say, you speak not these things of Infants qua tales; Then whether you have not transferr'd the Question, and so it is impertinent?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 6. Whether in that first Proclamation of Grace to fallen Man, or in the first Promise of Redemption to Sinners, Gen. 3. 15. an Infant of the Woman be not Promised to be General, and Head of the Church? And whe∣ther the Promise of an Infant-Head, doth not declare God's Mind, that he will have Infant-Members, because the Head is the principal Member, &c.

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 6. Whether Christ in his Infancy was not as truly God as Man? And whether there be any Parity between the Infants you speak of, and Christ, seeing he was able even then to vanquish the greatest Ad∣versary?

And if by the Redeemed Church, you mean the whole number of the saved; who doubts but Infants were of the Redeemed Church? But how doth it follow, that all that are to be saved, ought to be admitted to pra∣ctical Ordinances in the Visible Church? Seeing then all Infants, (for ought you know) have the same right, which yet you deny; but why so? are you sure they are not within the verge of Christ's Redemption, and so of the Redeemed Church?

And though Christ was once an Infant, yet where do you find that he was then a Member of the Gospel-Church? Was he not born under the Law? Gal. 4. 4. and born King of the Jews, Mat. 2. 2. and according to the estate of the Jewish Church, an Infant might be both a Member and a Prince; And was not the Kingly Office in Israel a Type of Christ? But what is this to the order and state of the Church under the Gospel? And further, though Christ an Infant was born Head of the Church as aforesaid, yet in his Infant-State, he did not intermeddle with the exer∣cise of the least part of his Authority. And then whether it be not more rational to say, That seeing Christ the Head of the Church did not actu∣ally possess, or at least not use any of that Power, as an Infant, or while he was an Infant, that Infants (supposing they were as truly born Mem∣bers of his Church, as he was born King of the Jews) should be uncon∣cern'd in the actual possession of Ordinances in Infancy?

And what if we grant that Infants may be Disciples by designation, as Christ was King, Priest, and Prophet by designation, (though the Case is not a like easie to prove); yet seeing Christ was not a Prophet (as you confess) in actu exercito, how came you to be so bold to bring Infants to the exercise of Baptism? And why can you not rather content your selves with the designation or dedication of your Infants to God by Pray∣er, and make them Disciples in actu exercito, when they are able? And whether you may not as well repute them thus among Disciples, and as safely conclude them to be in the Covenant of Grace, and of the Re∣deemed Church without Baptism, as without the Lord's Supper? Sith it's said, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you; as well as it's said, Except a Man be born again of

Water, &c. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And whether Do∣ctor Taylor, a Learned Pedo-Baptist, do not ingenuously confess, That the Wit of Man is not able to shew a difference in these cases?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 7. Why are those two Titles put on those two distinct Generations, (scil. the Posterity of Cain, and the Posterity of Seth) calling one the Sons of God, and the other the Daughters of Men, Gen. 6. 2. But that the one was a Generation separated from the Church from their Birth, (their Progenitors being cast out before them) when the other was the Seed of Saints not cast out? &c.

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 7. Whether this Text, Gen. 6. 2. be not ambiguous, inso∣much that your own Doctors are not agreed about the Exposition thereof? But supposing it to respect the Posterities of Cain and Seth, yet whether it can be meant of Infants, seeing they committed none of these sins, in taking Wives? &c. And whether your Exposition do not damn all In∣fants proceeding from Cain's Posterity; and consequently all the In∣fants of all Nations which profess not the true Religion? And whether such a Censure be rational?

And supposing that the Infants of godly Parents are in some sense more immediately related to the Church, than the Infants of Pagans, by rea∣son of the Prayers and Designation of their Parents, and the opportunities of Education? Yet what makes this for any Infants actual participation of Ordinances in the Church, and what one Ordinance did the Infants of these Sons of God partake of? And sith the Scripture is wholly silent of any such thing, whether this doth not more strongly conclude against In∣fant-Baptism than for it? And whether it be needful to say any thing to the latter part of this Query, seeing we grant all, and something more than this Text will prove, though we deny them actually right to Ordi∣nances? And whether the common or equal overthrow of these Genera∣tions, in respect of the Infants of both, do not evidently shew, That as to the business of their Salvation, they were in the same condition? And then whether it be safe for us to conclude, That the wickedness of any Progenitors have any further effect upon the Infant-Children, than to ex∣pose them to external Calamities, seeing Christ died to redeem them from the condemnation brought upon them by Adam? Rom. 5. 18.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 8. Whether it was not the same Church before, and after Abra∣ham's time, that was called the Tents of Shem? Gen. 9. 27. Was not the Jewish Church denominated the Tents of Shem? And does it not hence appear, that the Church Priviledges of that People, did not begin with or from Abraham, but that they were before? And how was it the same

Church that was of Sem, and of Abraham, if it had not the same sort of Members or Materials? &c.

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 8. Though it be true, that the Church is the same in some sense from the beginning of the World to the end; yet whether it may not truly be said also, not to be the same in divers respects? And whether the Covenant as made with Noah, Gen. 9. do not differ from the Cove∣nant as made with Adam, though both were made with all Mankind, and are affirmed to be the Covenant of Grace by Mr. Baxter. And whether there was not yet a further difference between these and the Covenant as made with Abraham? Gen. 17. the former being made with all Man∣kind, and never yet abrogated, (as saith Mr. Baxter). The other was made with Abraham and his Seed, distinct from the rest of Mankind, but as they should be proselyted thereto. And though the Church may be denominated the Tents of Shem, both before and after Abraham, yet whether this conclude there was to be no alteration of the state of the Church under these times respectively? And whether in any of the Tents of Shem, before Abraham's time, so much as any one Infant can be found admitted to the practical Part of any Ordinance in the Church, which was peculiar to her as such, (for as touching Prayer, it is a moral Duty, and to be made for all Men). And whether thus boldly to suppose a thing without the least shew of proof, be not a plain begging the main thing in question.

And though it be never so true, that the Universal redeemed Church consists of the same Materials in all Ages; yet whether it be not evident that God made a difference, as to the time of dispensing Ordinances to them? As first, no practical Ordinance or Rite dispensed to any Infant that we read of till Abraham's time; and though then Circumcision was ordained for Males, yet not for all the Male Children, for all under eight days of Age were prohibited, (and yet you grant they were in that Covenant) nor any Rite at all for the Females, who yet were of the same Church? And whether under Moses they were not admitted to other Rites also, as the Passover, Sacrifices, and other Holy Peasts of the Jews? We therefore ask you why the Infants of Converted Gentiles are not in as good a condition, without any Rite or Ceremony, as the Infants of all the faithful from Adam to Abraham? And whether those Infants before Abraham were not as happy as the Infants of Abraham? And then doth it not follow, that the Infants of Faithful Gentiles, are as happy without Circumcision, or any other Rite or Ceremony whatso∣ever, as Abraham's was under a Ceremony, seeing God hath not ob∣liged them to any in the Days of the Gospel, or since the Abrogation of the Law and Circumcision?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 9. Whether if we could shew no written Law or Promise at first

constituting the Duty, or granting the Priviledg of Church-Membership, it were the least disparagement to our Cause, as long as we can shew those follow∣ing Laws which presuppose this? If Moses at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had been without any written Law, found all the Infants of Church-Members in possession of this benefit, what need was there of a new Law about it? Or why should God promise it as a new thing?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 9. Whether if there be any such Law, you would not have shewed us where it is long ere this day? and whether you do not now grant in effect there is no such written Law? And what need you thus to query, seeing we deny no lawful thing to Infants, to be done for them by their Godly Parents, but only oppose your doing that for which you have no Law? And whether Austin himself be not clear for us, that there was no Ordinance or outward Sign belonging unto Infants before the Flood? His words are these; But whether there were of Regeneration be∣fore the Deluge, or until Circumcision was commended to Abraham, the Scripture doth not manifest? Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 15. c. 16. And whe∣ther the Rule, Non Credimus, quia non Legimus, will not here hold good against you?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 10. Whether there being certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church Membership, but none, except that before alledged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all speaking of it as no new thing; we have not great reason to assign its beginning, which from Gen. 3. is before spoken of?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 10. Why do you say that Gen. 3. 15. makes mention of In∣fants Church-Membership, (otherwise than what we allow)? Is here the least hint of your mode of making Infants Church-Members? that is, Doth this place bid you admit them to any Ordinance? As for the graci∣ous Covenant here made with Adam, do we not grant that it extends to Infants? Yea, we say with Mr. Baxter, It was never abrogated.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 11. Is it not unquestionable, that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, comprehended Infants for Church-Members? And was it not the same with that Gen. 3. 15. But in some things clearlier opened? Were not both these the Covenant of Grace, and free Justification by Faith in the Redeemer? And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed, comprehend Infants? And should not the same Promise, expressed more concisely, be expounded by the same expressed more fully?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 11. Though it be unquestionable that the Covenant of Grace did extend to Infants, Gen. 3. 15. as well as in Abraham's time, yet there was a vast difference in respect of Ceremonies. And whether the difference between the Baptists and Pedo-Baptists be not chiefly (if not only) about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants? And whether it be not evident, That what Ceremonies the Word of God did ever assign to In∣fants, we allow them, respecting the time of their duration, and only oppose your imposing Ceremonies upon Infants, for which you can as∣sign no Authority in the Holy Scriptures; as is confessed by many Pedo-Baptists. See Mr. Baxter's Cure, p. 7. And how are Infants justified by Faith in the Redeemer, seeing Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, which was never ordained to be preached to Infants?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 12. Whether (though the Hebrews had their Peculiarities) it be at all credible, that the Infants of that one small Country only should be so differently dealt with by God, from all the World else, even Enoch's, Noah's, Shem's, and all from Adam to the end of the World, that these Infants only should be Church-Members, and no others?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 12. Whether this Query (as indeed almost all the rest) do not miss the true state of the case, seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sense acknowledg Infants to be related to the Church, viz. by Redempti∣on, pious Dedication to God, &c. And seeing you grant the Hebrews had their Peculiarities, in what thing could it be but in external Rites and Ceremonies, especially concerning Infants; and shew us, if you can, any one Nation under Heaven, from the beginning of the World to this day, to whom God gave any Law, to bring their Infants to any Rites, either Legal or Evangelical. And sith Circumcision was forcibly put up∣on Infants, we ask whether you be able to prove, that any Persons what∣soever are to be forced to Baptism, which Augustin tells us, Infants do strive against with great crying; from whence he infers they have no Faith; Lib. de Peccat. Remis. c. 28.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 13. What can be more absurd, than to maintain a Transient Fast, (as Mr. T. hath done) making Infants Church-Members, without any Law, Promise, or Covenant Grant of God giving them Right? Whether a Gift that was never given, be not a contradiction? (V. p. 32, 35, 39, 44, 45, 151.) And if there was any such Promise, or Covenant-Grant of Infants Church-Membership, When, or where was it revoked?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 13. Whether these things be truly suggested against Mr. T. and whether you ought not to have set down his Opinion in his own words? And whether he doth not mainly oppose himself against Mr. Bax∣ter's pretended Law for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism, whilst yet he denies not Infants a saving Promise, or the Promise of saving Pro∣priety in God? Anti-pedobap. 3. Part. p. 33. And whether that Book was ever answered by Mr. Baxter, or ever will by any other?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 14. Were it only the Infants of the Hebrews, or of those that were at their absolute dispose, that were Church-Members? Were not the Infants of free Proselytes Church-Members too?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 14. What need of this Query? Who doubts but that as many as became Jews by being proselyted to the Law, were circumcised according to the Law? But where do you find, that any, either Jews or Gentiles, when they were baptized, had any obligation to baptize their Children and Servants also? And then whether the Law and Gospel do not manifestly differ in this case? and whether this be not the great case depending between the Baptist and the Pedo-baptist?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 15. Was it not then the duty of all the Nations round about, that could have information of the Jewish Religion, to engage themselves and their Children to God by Circumcision?

And did not many of the People in Hester's time become Jews, Hest. 8. 17. who yet were not under their Government? And is it not well known, that this was to be circumcised, they and their little Ones, (as the Proselytes were) and so to keep Law of Moses?

And whether the circumcised Servants of Israel, sold away to another Na∣tion, and so separated from the Civil state of Israel, did eo nomine, cease to be Church-Members, though they forsook not God? And so of the Infants, if they were sold in Infancy? And so whether Infants might not be Church-Members, that were not of the Jews Common-Wealth?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 15. Although other Nations had a liberty to become Jews, yet whether they were under such an Obligation, as that they must be∣come Jews, or else not be saved, is worthy consideration? and whether the contrary will not be found true, when the case of Cornelius, Act. 10.

and of the Gentiles, Rom. 2. are duly considered, whereas the one is ac∣cepted as fearing God and working Righteousness, as much as the Jew upon the account of his Jewish Worship? And the other Gentiles ge∣nerally, who did by nature the things contained in the Law, were coun∣ted the Circumcision, so as to Judg the Jew, who only had the Circum∣cision in the Flesh: and not only so, but so as to be accepted of God, as far (at least) as the Righteousness of the Law would avail the Jew? And whether the Infants of these devout Gentiles were not free from any obligation to Circumcision, or any other external Ceremony? And whe∣ther there be not an evident difference between the Law and the Gospel in this, the one being fitted to the Jewish Nation only, so as to be capa∣ble of an orderly observation there only? And the Gospel fitted for the observation of all Nations equally; and consequently all Nations equal∣ly obliged to the full and orderly profession thereof? Also whether the Jews being sold to other Nations, did not only make them Captives, and that they still remained of the Jewish Nation? and then whether this part of the Query be not grounded on a gross mistake; For how are Jews of our Common-Wealth that now live in London?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 16. Were not the Israelites Children Members of the Universal Visible Church, as well as of the Congregation of Israel?

As he that is a Member of the City, is a Member of the Kingdom; and a part of a part, is a part of the whole; so was not every Member of the Jewish Church, also a Member of God's Universal Church?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 16. Whether it be well said to call the Universal Church Visi∣ble, without some term to distinguish what Church you mean, as distinct from the Congregation of Israel? And whether the Universal Church did not contain many thousands such, as Job, Cornelius, &c. who were neither Jews by Nature nor Religion? And whether any Infants might be said to be Members of the Universal Church, who were not Members of the Jewish Church? And if not, how shall they be saved, seeing Christ is only the Saviour of his Body finally?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 17. Was there ever any true Church, or Ecclesiastical Worship∣ping-Society appointed by God in all the World since the Fall, but the Church of Christ? Were not Infants therefore either Members of Christ's Church, or of no Church of God's Institution? Was not Moses Christ's Usher, and Moses's Church and Christ's Church one according to God's Institution?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 17. Whether this Query be not either captious, or else im∣pertinent? For though it should be granted, that the Church of Christ was the same in some sense from the beginning, yet who knows not that the time and way for admission of the Members thereof to external Ce∣remonies, was not always the same? And who doubts but the Church was always of God's Institution? But doth it therefore follow, that the Ordinances Instituted therein, belong to Infants? Might they not have the Passover, as well as Circumcision in the Mosaical Church, and yet have neither the Lord's Supper nor Baptism in the Christian Church? you deny them the one, why may not we as well deny the other?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 18. Whether was Abraham made a Member of the Church by Circumcision, or circumcised because a Member of the Church? The like of Infants born in his House.

And how can the ceasing of Circumcision prove Infants Church-member∣ship ceased, any more than it can prove their Church-membership began with Circumcision; or that Women were not Church-Members, because not cir∣cumcised; or that all Israel was unchurched in the Wilderness, when they were uncircumcised for forty years?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 18. Although Abraham was in the Church of God essentially by Faith, yet whether formally in that Church-state, which God was then about to settle, till circumcised, will not I suppose be hastily affirmed. And how can Infants be said to be in the Church, as Abraham then was, seeing they have no Faith as he had? And whether the Jewish Church-state did not cease de jure, when Circumcision so ceased? And then whe∣ther that state of Infant Church-membership did not also cease? And like as the ceasing of the Passover de jure, was the ceasing of Infants right to any such Ordinance: even so we ask why the ceasing of Circum∣cision de jure, is not as truly the cessation of Infants right to any such Ordinance? Certainly, if God's Word assign any Ordinances in lieu of the former, the place where 'tis written would have been known to this day.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 19. Whether the Blessing of Abraham consists not chiefly in this, That God promised to be a God in Covenant with him, and his Seed? And how are the believing Gentiles blessed with faithful Abraham, and Heirs of the same Promise, if their Infants are not also comprehended in the same Co∣venant?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 19. Whether the Blessing of Abraham (if you understand it of Eternal Life) was not the blessing of the Fathers that went before him? And whether that Blessing did not belong to their Infants? And whether their Infants were Partakers with them in any Rites or Ceremonies of In∣stituted Worship? And if not, then, why may not the Infants of the Gentiles partake of the Blessing of Abraham, though not concern'd in Rites or Ceremonies; or whether you think the Blessing of Abraham is consined to Ceremonies in respect of Infants? If so, shew us what Cere∣monies these were before Abraham? when, or at what Age they were di∣spensed? and what they are now? and at what Age Infants are to be brought to these Ceremonies? and what these Ceremonies are by name?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 20. Whether in that great Promise, Gen. 12. 3. Tribes, Kin∣dreds, Families, do not most certainly comprehend Infants? As it was to such Families that the Promise was made before Christ, as to the Jewish Church? What warrant have we to understand Families or Tribes otherwise, when the same Promise is made to the Gentiles?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 20. Whether you ought not to distinguish in this great Pro∣mise, the things which are Eternal, from the things that were but for a time? And then whether you can imagine, that all the temporal Bles∣sings, Rites and Ceremonies, concern'd any Nation, as it concern'd the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh? But if by this Promise you understand it as the Apostle Paul doth, Gal. 3. 16. then we doubt not but all the Kindreds of the Earth are concern'd in it; and then whether we do not sufficiently comprize the Gentiles therein? But how can Abraham's Rites and Ceremonies be part of this Blessing to the Gentiles, which are abro∣gated long ago? And which now would render Christ unprofitable to us, if we should submit to them? Gal. 5. 2.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 21. Whether the second Commandment, Exod. 20. 5, 6. doth not contain a standing Promise, and discovery of God's Resolution concerning the Children of all that love him, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom this Com∣mandment belongs? Whether God meaneth not that his Retribution to Pa∣rents that love or hate him, shall extend to their Children as such, unless they interrupt it at Age by their own Acts? and if to their Children qua tales, then whether not to Infants?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 21. Whoever doubted but that Infants are advantaged many ways, in the Blessings which God bestows on them that fear him? And ac∣cordingly greatly disadvantaged by the wickedness of their Parents, even so as to bear their Fathers Iniquities many times, as is evident in the over∣throw of the World, the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. yet whe∣ther the Blessing or Mercy of Eternal Life to Infants, depend upon the Parents love to God? And whether the damnation of Infants depends on the Wickedness of their Parents? And whether the Blessings of the se∣cond Commandment belong only to the Church as such? or whether all Men that follow the Rules of Morality, are not within the reach of these Blessings also? And then how should Infant Church-Membership and Baptism be the Blessings of the second Commandment, seeing this Law concerns all Men as Men, being part of the Moral Law, and is not pro∣per to the Church only? or whether this Query will not make the whole World Church-Members, as well as a part, if they obey but the second Commandment?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 22. Whether any without the Church are secured of God's Mercy by Promise? And whether Mercy be not promised to Children of the Faithful as such? (See Psal. 102. 28. and 103. 17. Prov. 20. 7. Isa. 61. 8, 9. and 65. 23, &c.)

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 22. Whether God hath not said that his Ways are all equal? And whether this do not secure Infants of God's Mercy, though not bap∣tized into the Visible Church? (for otherwise we say Infants are of the Redeemed-Church); when God saith, That the Son shall not bear the Ini∣quity of the Father, and every one shall bear his own Iniquity; whether this be not a Promise of Mercy to Infant-Children, and that in respect of Eternal Life? And whether this Query be not near a kin to that position of the Papists, when they say, Out of the Church there is no Salvation, Restraining that word Church, to Visible or Actual Professors only? And why must these five Quotations be applied to Infants only, sith the things spoken of these Children, Seed, or Off-spring, are mostly such as are exclusive of Infants? nor are Blessings which include Infants, expressed to be their right to Practical Ordinances in the Church of Christ.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 23. Whether these Promises in the making of them were limited to a certain time when they were to cease? Or whether they have been since re∣voked?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 23. Suppose these Promises yet remain, as we doubt not but they do, sith they are not entail'd upon the Jewish Nation, (at least the three first Quotations); How will this avail to the point in hand? Are all the Blessings of God to the Infant Off-spring of those that fear him, &c. bound up in your supposed Church-Membership and Baptism? And whe∣ther the Promises, Isa. 61. 8, 9. & 65. 23. were yet fulfilled to the Jews themselves? and if not, then how to their Infants, or to the Infants of the Gentiles?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 24. If it was on the Jews rejection of Christ, that they were bro∣ken off from being God's People; were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off? If not, then whether were not the Children of all believing Jews Church-Members in Infancy? Or otherwise, was it not somewhat else than Unbelief that brake them off?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 24. Whether were those that cried, His Blood be upon us and our Children, thereby rejecting the great Messenger of the Covenant, justly broken off? And whether the renting of the Vail of the Temple, did not shew the Abrogation of the Covenant, and the Legal Ministry? Whe∣ther was Saul broken off when he persecuted the Church, causing many to blaspheme? And how could the Jews lawfully be married to Christ, if Moses was not now removed, without being called an Adulteress? And then whether those thousands of Jews which believed were not first broken off from the Jewish Church (at least de jure) before they could be in∣corporate with the Gospel-Church; and now to plead no longer upon this Issue, We are Abraham's Children, we are free-born? &c. And now also to look upon Circumcision, and whatsoever was gain to them on a legal account, to be loss for Christ? Or is there any other way to be grafted into the Church of Christ but by Faith? Now therefore seeing the Jews were in no better case than the Gentiles, Circumcision being now nothing, even as Uncircumcision was nothing, but a new Crea∣ture? then, whether all the Infants of the Jews now ceased to be Members of any Visible Church, seeing their Parents had de jure lost their Mem∣bership?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 25. Were not the Infants of the Christian Jews, the day before their Conversion, Members of the Jewish Church, and of God's Universal Church, of which the Jews were but a part? and doth it not sound strange∣ly, that such Infants as were the day before Members of the Jewish Church, and of God's Universal Church, should be put out of the Jewish and the whole Visible Church, by the Faith of their Parents, or without unbelief? Either

it was a Mercy to be a Member of the Church, or not; if it was no Mercy, then will it not follow, that the unbelieving Jews lost nothing by being broken off? If it was a Mercy, how did the Christians Children forfeit it?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 25. Whether we have not sufficiently shewed, that the Infants of the Jews were now no Members of the Jewish Church, that being now abrogated, and the Gospel Church-state confirmed by the death of Christ, and the pouring out of the Holy Ghost? neither could two di∣stinct Church-states stand together de jure. And then whether it be not a great mistake for the Querist to suppose the Jews were a part of God's Universal Church, when in truth they were no Church at all? and there∣fore whether the Wonder which he makes about the Jews Infants which believed, be not groundless? And yet whether the Infants of the believing Jews were not in a far better estate, than when their Parents were unbe∣lievers, sith the Curse they then had imprecated, was now removed? Also whether it was not a Mercy, that both Parents and Infants were set free from Circumcision? which what-ever it was before, now ceased to be a Mercy to any Man, because it was an Obligation to the Yoke of Bon∣dage, and rendred Christ unprofitable to such as should now receive it; and consequently a Release from that Church-membership according to the Law, was a great Mercy to Infants, who still retain Membership in the Invisible Church, as they did before Circumcision was in being?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 26. Whether it be credible, that he who came not to cast out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the Partition-wall, and making of two one Church, would have a Church of so different form and constitution, that the Church at Jerusalem should have Infant-Members, and the Church at Rome should have none? That the Jews Infants should be Members, and not Gentiles?

If the Jews were broken off by unbelief, should they not be graffed in again upon their Repentance of Faith? And so should not every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-Members? Or otherwise how would their graffing in, answer to their breaking off, should they be but in part graffed in?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 26. Whether it be not a great mistake to say, That Christ came to make the Jew and Gentile one Church, otherwise than by taking away the Jewish Church, and making all things new, 2 Cor. 5. 17, &c. And whether this might not be done without setling any of the Practical Ordinances upon Infants as under the Law? If otherwise, why have you not shewed us where Christ hath required Parents to get their Infants bap∣tized? and where he forbad them to be brought to Imposition of Hands, the Table of the Lord? &c. If the denial of the first make our Infants

no Members of the Church, doth not our denial of the other two, which do as generally pertain to Members of the Church, make yours none al∣so? And if the Church at Jerusalem, Rome, &c. had any Infant Mem∣bers therein, in the sense wherein you would have them Members, why do you not name some one Infant so made a Member, sith you know it would suffice?

Whether if the Jews grafting in, must in all Points answer to their breaking off, their Infants must not come to other Ordinances as well as Baptism? Or will you say Infants cannot partake with their Parents of Salvation without Baptism? or whether were the Infants of the Jews ex∣posed to damnation by their Parents unbelief? And if so, what is be∣come of all their Infants ever since? were they broken off as the damned, when their Parents only sinned? God forbid.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 27. Was not Christ's Church Spiritual before his Incarnation (when it took in Infants) and gathered in a spiritual way? Was not the Visi∣ble Frame of the Jewish Church set up and erected by the Father of Spirits? and were not Spiritual Duties commanded then, upon Promises of Spiritual Blessings, even Life Eternal?

How will any prove that it was a blemish to the old Frame, that Infants were Members? What was the Church the worse for Infants Rights? If it be no blemish, why must it be done away?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 27. Though it be true, that Christ's Church was always Spi∣ritual in some measure, and his Services such also; yet whether it be not also true, that the Church under the Law of Moses was Carnal, in respect of the Spirituality of the Church under the Gospel? Does not the Apostle say, 2 Cor. 3. These two Ministrations differ as much as the Let∣ter and Spirit differ; and that the Glory of the one had no Glory in re∣spect of the Glory which excelleth? And is it not then rational, that the Churches concern'd under these Ministrations respectively, should differ accordingly? And though it was no blemish to the Jewish Church, to have Infants Partakers of their Ordinances, which are called Carnal; yet whether it be not a more perfect state, when the Church do all know God, from the least to the greatest of them? And whether this be not the state of the Church under the Gospel, according to God's appointment? Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12, 13. And whether that which is less perfect ought not to vanish away, when that which is more perfect is come? In that he saith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8. 13.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 28. In what regard was the new Frame better, supposing the cast∣ing

out of Infants which were in the old? How doth Infants Relation detract from its Spirituality? Do not the Adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves, as they make for their Infants? And do not the Adult blemish the Church with more carnal Sins than Infants? Would any Kingdom be more excellent, if all Infants were disfranchised? Does not Nature teach all King∣doms on earth, to take them for Members, though but Infant-Members?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 28. Whether it be necessary to say, Infants are cast out of that whereof they were never possessed, to wit, the use of Ordinances in the new Frame of the Church? Or how can Infants be said to be a Spi∣ritual Seed? How are they living Stones, built up a Spiritual House, to offer Spiritual Sacrifices in a Gospel sense? Or how are your Infants a more Spiritual Seed than our Infants? And whether any other are by Christ's Order to partake in Gospel-Ordinances, than such as therein worship God Spiritually? Whether hence it be not clear, that the way of making Infants Church-Members, doth not detract from the spirituality of the new Frame of the Church? Also where hath God required the Adult to consent for their Infant Church-membership in this new Frame? And whether the comparison between an Earthly Kingdom and the Church of Christ be any way fitting, seeing Infants have as much need of the priviledg of Humane Laws, for the preservation of their Lives and Rights, as grown Persons? But how stand they in need of the Laws of the Church (and particularly Baptism) for the preservation of their Souls? And whether this Similitude may not be improved against you, seeing Infants, though Members of Kingdoms, yet are excused from all Duties perso∣nal whatsoever; and then why may they not be reputed of the King∣dom of God, and yet exempt from the Duties of his Kingdom? Or how come they to be concern'd so much in that one Duty of Baptism, and no other whatsoever?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 29. Whether any Jew at Age was a Member of the old Church with∣out professing Faith, (in the Articles then necessary to Salvation) Repentance, and Obedience? And wherein the supposed new Call and Frame doth in this differ from the old, save only that a more full and express Revelation of Christ requireth a more full express Faith? Is it not evident, that they were to pro∣fess consent to God's Covenant; which who so denied Asa, would be put to Death? And was not Circumcision a Covenanting Act? And did they not thereby profess to take God for their God? Or would God else have taken them for his People? And would not renouncing God have cut them off?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 29. What is become now of your Infant Church-membership; if when grown up they cease to be Members upon that account? Were

the Jews Infants twice made Members of their Church? Or is every re∣newing the Covenant, (as in the case of Asa) making Men Members of the Church? But where did the Church ever admit one Member to her Communion by Baptism without Profession? Or where did she ever de∣cree, that those who would not submit to her new Frame should be put to death? And whether in this the new Frame of the Church do not greatly differ from the old? And whether the Gospel-Church be not really new∣framed, 2 Cor. 5. 17. And why then do you call it a supposed new Frame only?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 30. Whether God's Law obligeth not Persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God, by consenting to God's Covenant for themselves and them? Whether it was not the Duty of the Israelites, to engage and devote their Children to God in Covenant? Whether this be not evident from the Pe∣nalty (even to be cut off from his People) annexed for the non-performance? (And whether this be not as much our Duty still?) Does not the Law of Na∣ture bind us to give to every one his own due? and are not Infants God's own due? Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God, by ac∣knowledging his Right, with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 30. Where are Christian-Parents required to devote their Chil∣dren by consenting to any Covenant for them (or in their stead) as the Jews were in Matters of Religion? What Penalty hath God imposed on them that devote not their Infants by sprinkling them as you do? And whether we do indeed omit the duty of devoting our Children to God in any thing wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us, (abating us only what all Men must be abated?) And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-Relation, Obligation, or Right; or who opposes their being devoted to God in their capacity? And whether this be not a meer noise of words, as if all that do not as you do, do lay aside their Care and Duty towards Infants? And where is the Institution of your publick Way? Have we not a more certain instituted way to devote them to God by Prayer, and to educate them in his Fear, as they are capable, than you have to cross or sprinkle them?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 31. Whether Anabaptists themselves, all of them that are truly pious, do not virtually (though not actually) devote their Children to God, and consent to their Covenant Relation, while they vehemently plead against it?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 31. Whether you do not greatly wrong your self, and those you call Anabaptists, in saying, They vehemently plead against devoting their Children to God? yea sure, they do it actually as far as God's Word

requires. And can you believe, that there is no way to devote Children to God but in your way? How then did Adam, Enoch, Seth, Noah, &c. devote their Children to God? And it would do well also if you could shew us how they consented to any Covenant for their Infants, more than we do? or prove, if you can, that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants, more than we whom you call Ana∣baptists?

Does not Eusebius Pamphilius count Christianity as old as Adam? l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian say, Enoch justissimum non circumcisum nec Sabbatizantem, &c. Enoch an upright Man was translated by God, though he were not circumcised, neither yet did observe the Sabbath. — Ut Aeter∣nitas candidatis, &c. To the end, that he who did aspire to Eternity might shew us, that we might please God without the burthen of Moses's Law. And what Law (save the Law of Circumcision) did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 32. Is it not a desperate undertaking, and dare any adventure on it, to justifie all the World before Christ's Incarnation, except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their Children to God? And do not they that say there is no Law in this case, say there is no Transgression? And dare any in like manner undertake to justifie, at the Bar of God, all the World since Christ's Incarnation from the guilt of Sin, in not dedicating their Children to Christ, and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church? Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwise Query; As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God, unless they brought them to some Practical Ordinance in the Church, which is the only thing you do so complain of? And how, I pray you, did Abraham, Isaac, and Ja∣cob dedicate their Female Infants to God, sith we find no practical Ordi∣nance for them in Infancy? or who goes about to justifie the World, if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their In∣fants? And may we not well justifie all Men, for not doing that which the Law of God never required, and also blame you for doing that which God never required at your hands?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledg to be a Visible Church-Member of Christ as Head of the Church, and of his Church as Visible? Is it not a benefit in it self (besides the Consequents) to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body? Is not such a Relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to the Church, an honour? And how great is the misery of a contrary state?

And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit, then how were they that had it (when they came to Age, or their Parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulness for it? Will any say, That neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God re∣quires not of them? or whether it be any loss to them till God requires it? And seeing you make your Pedo-Rantism all in all, shew us what benefit or priviledge you had when sprinkled, more than the Infants of a pious Baptist? And what is that benefit, that all who are sprinkled by the Papists do receive, which you ratifie for good Baptism? Or how are their Infants Church-members more than ours? And whether our Chil∣dren, when grown up, have not a fairer way to the Purity of Christiani∣ty, in that they are not entangled with such Traditions? How dare you think that you can unite Infants to Christ and his Body, by doing that in his Name, which he never required? And how is that you count all In∣fants in a miserable state that are not sprinkled as yours are? for in no∣thing else can you pretend such advantage, which God knows proves your loss.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this Benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the Aged? And is it not cer∣tain, that they are actually Members of all the Common Wealths in the World? (non perfecte, sed imperfecte Membra) And does not Nature seem actu∣ally to have taught most People on Earth, to repute their Infants in the same Religious Society with themselves, as well as in the same Civil Society?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is ve∣ry true; And we therefore ask, whether Infants be not as capable of the Lord's Supper as Baptism, if the Lord will give it them? And as far as God's Will is, that Infants should be related to his Church, we doubt not of their capacity for it. And why is the order of Common-wealths so much insisted on in this case? Are we to fetch our Rules for dispensing Ordinances in the Church, from the Civil Policy of Nations? We desire you still to shew us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our In∣fants, which we do not? Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be crossed or sprinkled as you do? Sure you can never make this good. And whether they abuse not the Law of Nature, who say, That it teacheth any Body to repute Infants to be of this or that Religion, seeing it's certain they are ignorant of all Religion. And if bare reputing Infants make them of the same Religion with their Parents, then Infants of Idolaters are Idolaters, which is ab∣surd to imagine.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 35. Whether according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace, God will not vouchsafe to be their God, and take them for his People, (that are in a natural, or Law-sense) willing to be his People, and take him for their God? And whether the Infants of Believing Parents are not thus wil∣ling? When Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in a natural sense, must not the Reason and Will of another be theirs in Law-sense; that is, if the Parents have the full dispose of them, and are warranted by the Law of Na∣ture to chuse for them, (for their good) till they come to the use of Reason themselves?

Whether in God's acceptance the Child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents, and doth not covenant with God, as a Child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among Men, who by his Parents is made a Party in Contract, as in a Lease for his Life, or the Like?

And so granting the Relation of Church-membership, to be founded in a mutual Contract, Covenant or Consent betwixt God and us, yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of In∣fants, and the Adult? Were not the Israelites Infants Church-Members, who consented not actually in their own Persons, but virtually, and reputa∣tively?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 35. We still require you to shew where this Law is, that oblig∣eth Christians to will the baptizing of their Infants, and that will war∣rant the baptizing of one Person by virtue of anothers Will? And why may not a reputative Baptism serve as well as a reputative Covenant, sith the Covenant is greater than Baptism? And whether this be an advised Speech, that the Parent hath the whole disposal of his Child in Matters of Religion? And who must judg what is good for his Infant in religi∣ous Matters? Must not God's Word do this? And shew us what Com∣mand we have omitted, in not bringing our Infants to the Font as you do? Or do you think that your instance of a Lease, is sufficient to rectifie Mens Consciences in Matters of this nature? And what if some of the Jews had failed to consent for their Children, were they therefore not in Covenant? Sure it was the Law, not the Parents consent, that regu∣lated these Matters. Neither do we find that the Israelites were bound to repent and believe in the Person of the Child, and accordingly to make profession in his Name, when circumcised, as you do at the Font when you pretend to baptize your Infants, when yet you baptize them not, see∣ing Sprinkling cannot be truly called Baptism? And seeing that in a Law∣sense the Parent may bring his Child with himself into slavery, will it not follow, from your way of reasoning, that a Parent may by an evil Cove∣nant in Religion, bring his Infant into Hell? which is an absurdity that cannot be avoided, but by avoiding your Scriptureless reasonings.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 36. Whether it be not the Duty of Parents, by the Law of Na∣ture, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their Children? the In∣fant being not sui Juris, but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good, have not the Parents power to oblige their Children to any future duty or suffering, that is certainly for their own good? And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly? And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own Child? And doth it not deserve to be called the unthankful Error, that op∣poseth Childrens Rights and Blessings?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 36. Whether this Query be not the same in effect, which we have had again and again? And we would know what offered benefits the Infants of the Pedo-baptists meet with among the Papists, or your selves either, which we receive not, meerly for this cause of not doing to our Infants, as they and you are pleased to do? And whether it were not as reasonable for Parents to be baptized in the Child's stead, as to profess Faith and Repentance for him? And whether it be reasonable for a Parent to oblige his Infant to be of his Opinion and Practice, and to suffer for the same? And what Law of God requires this, and whether this may not be called the unreasonable Error?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 37. Whether it may be thought, or any dare maintain, that the Co∣venant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World? Are they all excluded? And why? Are they worse than their Parents? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally, as it doth to Parents, must it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents, or such as are so far entrusted?

Or can this be called a Covenant, for God only to say [I will save all such Infants as I elect] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition, nor give a title to any Person that can be known by themselves or others? Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant? And what Right or Hope doth this give to Christians for their Children, more than to Pagans?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 37. Whether it may be thought that God should require the conditions of the Covenant of Grace on them, which he knows can ob∣serve none at all? or whether it be his Will that the Grace of that Cove∣nant should depend upon others observation of the Conditions for them? And whether this be not to put the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand, and into the hand of such as commonly neglect their own? And is not this to expose poor Infants to ruin, whose Parents generally are so

far from keeping, that they are strangers to the Conditions of this Co∣venant?

And where are we taught to doubt the Salvation of the Infants of Pa∣gans? or to conclude ours only are in a state of Salvation?

And is it not much more secure to hope the Salvation of Infants on the ground of Christ's dying for them, and rising again for their Justification, than upon any practical in Religion? And where did God ever since the beginning of the World, give any Ordinance to be necessary to the Sal∣vation of any Infant in the World? Can you believe that the cutting off of the uncircumcised Man-child, was a cutting off from Salvation? how then were all the Infants saved which were born to the Israelites for forty years together, such of them, I mean, as died during that time? And why may not Infants as well be made righteous without any thing done on their part, as they are made sinners without any thing done on their part? Will not the second Adam's Obedience salve the first Adam's Disobedi∣ence? And may not poor Infants better plead in the Day of Judgment what Christ did for them, than what your God-fathers or Pro-parents did for them?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 38. Though all that are saved, are saved by the meritorious Righte∣ousness of Christ by way of free Gift; yet whether the condition be not a suita∣ble acceptance? And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his Child, who hath no will to accept it for himself? Shall he be certainly shut out unto Damnation? Or shall he have that Gift absolutely, which is conditional to all others? Or is he not concerned in the Donation at all▪ And have not Infants guilt and misery from their Parents? And though Life and Pardon be by Christ only, yet is it not congruous, that the meer condition of Acceptance may be performed by the Parents, while they cannot accept for themselves?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 38. Whether the meritoriousness of Christ is not as available to save Infants, without any Man's acceptance thereof for them? Or whether hath God tied the Salvation of any Person to the acceptance of another? And whether these be not unreasonable and unscriptural Con∣ceits? And whether it be not for want of better grounds for Infant-Bap∣tism, that you thus continually tautologize, varying little from that which you have said once and again?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 39. Whether it be no advantage for Children to be under an early engagement to God, and Jesus Christ? Whether to dedicate them betimes to God, doth not tend to secure God's right and Childrens good, and to prevent their sin and misery; they being thus under a double Obligation, which they may be minded of betimes, and which may hold them more strongly to their Du∣ty, and disadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God, &c?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 39. Who is against as early an engagement of Children to God as can lawfully be made? And do not the Baptists engage their Children to God as soon as they can, by Prayer and Supplication whilst Infants; and then by the best education they are able when docible? But whether any thing be done to purpose in your Judgment, (when yet all is done that can be done) unless it be rantized in your way? And whether it be not better to leave the Event of their accepting Baptism, to the wise dispose of God, than to do it per force in Infancy, without Precept from God? Also whether Infant-Baptism be such a means to propagate Reli∣gion as you suppose, may be seen, when you consider how in the darkness of Popery, Pedo-Baptism was more common than now, but Christianity much less? And name one if you can that was bettered in Christian Ver∣tue by Pedo-Baptism? We think we can name one, and that your self, which is worse for it; for had you not that to rest on, you would probably desire to put on Christ in Baptism? Whether it be not the fittest time to be buried with Christ in Baptism, when we are dead with him from the Rudiments of the World, or whether it be reasonable to bury Sinners therein till they be dead to sin? and whether it can profit any Person to be baptized, unless he have the answer of a good Conscience, by the Re∣surrection of Christ from the dead, 1 Pet. 3. therein?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 40. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was one Age or Church (particular) on Earth since Adam, till about 200 years ago, that the Anabaptists rose, wherein Infants de facto were not Members of the Church?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 40. Whether in your sense of making Infants Members of the Church de facto, it can be proved there was any one so made a Member from the beginning of the World till Abraham's time? and whether John Baptist, Christ, or any by his order, did receive Infants into the Church de facto?

And whether the Baptists do not better prove the Antiquity of their Faith and Practice in Baptism, than any Pedo-Baptist in the World? and doth not your Conscience tell you, that the Baptism of Men and Women, upon professing of Faith and Repentance, is beyond the reach of con∣tradiction? whilst Mr. Baxter himself confesseth Infant-Baptism to be so difficult, that many of its Assertors, both Protestants and Papists, are forced to confess it cannot be proved by the Scriptures? See his Cure, p. 7. And seeing you and we are generally agreed, that our way both for Sub∣ject and manner is out of dispute, clear in the Scriptures; and you con∣fess by the Pen of Mr. Baxter, that yours is very difficult; Is it not reason the difficult Way should give place to the clear and evident Way?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 41. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was any one Infant of true Church-Members, that was not rightfully a Church-Member himself from the Creation till Christ's days? Or from the Creation till this day; ex∣cept the Anabaptists, who reject the benefit, whose case we will not presume to determine?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 41. Whether this Query be not the same we had before? And whether what is said to it, may not also suffice to this?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 42. Seeing that Infants have been de facto Church-Members from the Creation to this day, (as far as any Records can lead us); Is it likely that the Lord, and Head, and all-sufficient Governour of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now, to be actually made up of such Subjects, as in regard of Age be disallowed, and suffered his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reasonable, modest, and lawful Undertaking, to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new-fram'd Church, as to the Age of the Subjects? And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame, as all the Saints of Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptists did attempt an Alteration?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 42. Whether it be not utterly untrue, that Infants were Mem∣bers of the Church de facto, i. e. to be brought to partake of Ordinan∣ces Practical in the Church, save only from Abraham to the end of the Law? And whether all the Pedo-Baptists in the World have not hitherto been unable to shew any one instance before. Abraham, or since the Law was abrogated, so much as one Infant admitted to any such Ordinance in the Church of God, according to what the Scriptures afford in this case? And whether it be not as modest in us to labour to restore Baptism to its pure use in the Church, both in respect of the Subject and Manner of administration thereof, as it was for the Protestants to do the like in re∣spect of the Lord's Supper? Also whether your pretending the Authori∣ty of the Universal Church, be not the same figment with which the Pa∣pists deceived themselves and others? And how can you pretend the Universal Church, when the Primitive Church is on our side?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 43. Whether considering Christ's own Infant-membership, and his kind reception of Infants, and his chiding those that would have kept them off, and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation, (Mat. 23. 37.) and that they

were broken off by unbelief, and consequently the Seed of Believers broken off from the Church Universal, and that whole Housholds are oft said to be bapti∣zed; and that Paul pronounceth Believers Children Holy, and that Christ (Mat. 28.) commandeth his Ministers, as much as in them lieth, to disciple all Nations, baptizing them? &c.

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 43. Whether Christ's Infant-Church-membership did not per∣tain to the Jewish Church only? Gal. 4. 4. born under the Law only, &c. And whether he was not about thirty years when he entred into our Pro∣fession? Heb. 3. 3. The Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ; See Luke 3. And then whether his Example be not flat against you?

Also whether Christ's only praying for Infants, and not baptizing them though brought to him, neither ordering any other to do it that we read of, do not shew us that Infants may be under the Blessings of Christ with∣out Baptism? And whether you may not tremble to presume to do more than he did, or appointed to be done? Are you wiser than he?

Also whether it lies within the power of any Minister to disciple an Infant; or shew us one Infant with you, or any Pedo-Baptist ever made a Disciple? Or be pleased to come and make my Infants Disciples if you can, and I promise you I will assist you what I can in the baptizing them? and not only so, but do my best to employ you elsewhere, I speak it seriou∣sly. And whether this would not do more to decide the Controversie, than all the Books that are written by any of you? And if you cannot do this, how will Mat. 28. 19. warrant you to baptize Infants, sith it's plain that discipling goes before baptizing? And how Disciples are to be made, we think it best to learn of Jesus, John 4. 3. How think you? Do you in∣deed believe, that any Persons being of a Nation, entitles them to Bap∣tism? Why then who is not a fit Subject, seeing all Infants and Men too are of one Nation or another? And if there be other Qualifications ne∣cessary, whether to be taught be not one of the chief of them? and why do you say we take Infants away from Christ's Church, because we baptize them not; are they in it before baptized? If so, how do we take them away?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 44. In summ; Whether, 1. God would not have Parents devote their Children to him, and enter them according to their capacity in his Cove∣nant? 2. Whether also he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him, and be not peculiarly their God, that such Children are Holy? 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members (ac∣cording to an Infant capacity) of the Visible Church, as they are of all King∣doms under Heaven? 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their Sal∣vation, than of those without? 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their Salvation certain, if they so die? 6. Whether the Investiture and Solemnization of their Covenant with Christ should not be made in Infan∣cy? &c.

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 44. In summ, 1. Whether we do not as much to our Infants, (in our capacity) as Christ did to the Infants which were brought to him? and will not that satisfie, unless we go from him to follow you? And as to the business of the Covenant, let us hear what Mr. Baxter saith, More Reas. p. 86. 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 entire Nature was made with all Mankind in Innocent Adam, so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed; and re∣newed again with all Mankind in Noah, &c. And now we ask, Whether our Infants, according to this account of the Covenant of Grace, be not in it without Baptism, sith they have not abused the Grace of the Cove∣nant? And whether Baptism be not far more proper, when after they have corrupted themselves by sin, they come to Humiliation, and so to enter into this Covenant upon the terms of the Gospel?

Whether your Exposition of the Universal Church, upon Mat. 28. 19. do take in the Practice of the Apostles in pursuance of that Commission in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Exposition of the Baptists? And if not, then you either deny us to be of the Universal Church, or else you have not the Exposition of the Church Universal?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 45. How inconsiderable a part of the Universal Church do the Anabaptists hold communion with? And do they not unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth? (may we not think, that they rob Christ of more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom, or Church Universal? V. p. 305.)

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 25. Whether upon Luther's revolt from the Pope, you were not upbraided with holding communion with an inconsiderable part of the Universal Church? Why do you take up the Papists Weapons? Did not that pious Man that succoured Athanasius in the time of the Arrian Persecution, answer the Objection well, when he said, The cause of Truth is not therefore impaired, because I am alone; — Glory not therefore in Mul∣titudes, for it is not the Multitude but the Cause that justifieth or condemn∣eth? Also whether we may not conclude, That many are of the Univer∣sal Church, that do not communicate with us or your selves? and yet whether your separation from many Pedo-Baptists will not justifie our se∣paration from you more clearly?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 46. Whether they can possibly hope, that ever the Church on Earth

will unite upon their terms, of rejecting all their Infants from the Visible Church, and renouncing all our Infant-Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of Grace?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 46. Whether this be not in effect to say, What will these feeble Jews do? And why may we not hope that this great Mistake of yours may vanish, as well as that great Mistake of Austin, and the generality of Men professing Christianity, who brought Infants also to the Lord's Table, and that for many hundreds of years together, and defended it by as plausible Reasons as any you have for baptizing them? Could God reform so great and general an Error, forced on by Learning and Autho∣rity of eminent Men; And shall we think this thing only too hard for God? Our small number shall not make us doubt, for we know God doth great things by small means. And what Baptismal Grace do we de∣sire you to renounce, when we only desire you to mend an Error? Did the twelve Disciples, Acts 19. renounce any Baptismal Grace, when (according to the Interpretation of the Ancients) they were baptized again? Surely Reformation is no Error?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 47. And whether if they continue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Worlds end to separate from almost all the Churches, and unchurch them, their Employment will not be still to serve the great Enemy of Love and Concord, against the Lord of Love and Peace, and against the Prosperity of Faith and Godliness, and against the welfare of the Church and Souls, and to the scandal and hardning of the un∣godly?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 47. Whether the separation is not justly chargeable upon those which cause Divisions and Offences, by asserting and maintaining such Errors, as being admitted, the Way of God must be corrupted, or laid aside? And whether these are not the Men, that (at least unawares) serve the design of the great Enemy, and whether you are not guilty of the Fault wherewith you would charge us?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 48. Whether too many well-meaning, but weak Christians, are not disaffected to lawful and warrantable things in the Worship of God, meerly be∣cause they see such as are ungodly use and own them? And whether if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers, that were against Infant-Baptism, and singing of Psalms, &c. and would make Laws for their own way, and impose it on others, so that the ungodly Multitude should fall in with them, it would not presently cure many that are now for such Opinions?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 48. Whether many, but weak Christians, would hold to the Er∣rot of Infant-sprinkling, but meerly because J. B. and Mr. Baxter, &c. do so? And whether this be not as much weakness of the one hand, as the case put by you on the other? and whether both ought not to be amen∣ded? And whether the latter part of this Query doth not shew, that to fol∣low the greatest number, is not always the best way? And why then would you discourage us by our paucity, or small number? And whether such Considerations might not have discouraged the Apostles, seeing they were to alter the state of Religion in the Jewish Church, yea, throughout the whole World?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 49. Whether Mr. Baxter in the second and third part of that his second Defence of our Infants Rights, have not sufficiently detected the great and notorious untruths in Fact and History, wherewith Mr. H. D. Treatise of Baptism, and reply to Mr. Wills, is fully stuffed?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 49. Whether Mr. D. and Mr. Tombs have not sufficiently de∣tected Mr. Baxter's Mistakes in many of his Works about Infant-Bap∣tism, and particularly in Mr. Tombs his Felo de se? Also whether Mr. Wills's Exceptions against Mr. D. are not well answered by Mr. D. in his Two-fold Defence of his Treatise of Baptism? And whether Mr. Baxter did ever yet, or ever will accept of Mr. Tombs his serious Challenge lately made in these words:

I challeng him to set down distinctly his Theses, concerning the Grace he means, the Covenant of Grace, what and whose it is, how it is Baptismal, what are the Rights and Benefits conferred to Infants by it, using words in their proper Sense and genuine Notions; and then without Questions, Ex∣clamations, Flirts, Suppositions improved, set down his Scriptures, and form his Arguments substantially — and then I doubt not but learned and accurate Disputants will see his folly, &c. Postscript to Mr. D. second Reply, p. 267.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 50. Whether the Anabaptists Schism, or Separation from Com∣munion with our Churches, be not worse yet than their simple Opinion? And whether it be not desirable, and possible, that some may be sound out, and Terms laid down, in which good and sober Men on both sides would agree and hold Communion?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 50. Whether the Papists may not on fairer grounds Query thus with the Protestant, than you can do with us, especially when the Cause you manage against us is so doubtful in the Judgment of its best Friends, as we shewed in our Preface; And here we shall further add what Mr. T. notes in his first Reply, p. 126. Mr. Chillingworth (saith he) in his Answer to Knot's Charity Maintain'd, Part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 44. p. 152. saith, The Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is of that sort, of which the Scrip∣ture is silent. And the Oxford Divines, in their Reasons of the present Judgment of the University, &c. June 1. 1674. do (Sect. 4. p. 9.) say, That without the Consent, Judgment and Practice of the Universal Church, (which they distinguish from the Scriptures) they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof of the Baptizing Infants. Now this consi∣dered with what Dr. Taylor saith, Dissuasive from Popery, p. 118. That it is certain, there is no universal or prime Tradition for baptizing Infants. Then whether you may not more securely forbear baptizing your Infants, till endowed with Knowledg and Faith, than to do it without? And in the mean time retain your Opinion about their being in the Covenant of Grace, and let Christ's Ministers or your selves pray for them after the Ex∣ample of Christ. And whether this might not be a more likely way for a lasting Peace between the Baptists and the Pedo-baptists, and more conso∣nant to the Scriptures, than the way propounded by you?

And seeing it hath come into your hearts to make some Overtures for Peace, we desire you would prosecute that needful Work. And whe∣ther it may not better be done by personal Conference in a friendly and Christian manner, than by writing Books one to another? And whether the Baptists have not offered this, and been rejected by you in such their tenders of friendship?

May these Queries and Anti-queries have an effectual tendency to the increase of Love and Christian-friendship; and if not, whether it had not been better they had been unwritten?