<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-02-07</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Olivia Bottum</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed text and corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A78189">
<STC T="W">B907A</STC>
<STC T="C">R212079</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99897741</BIBNO>
<VID>170924</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<P>FIFTY QUERIES, Seriou&s;ly Propounded To tho&s;e that QUESTION, Or deny Infants Right TO BAPTISM.</P>
<P><HI>By</HI> J. B. <HI>an hearty well-wi&s;her to their Souls, and to the Churches Peace.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>Nevil Symonds</HI> at the <HI>Princes Arms,</HI> and <HI>Jonathan Robin&s;on</HI> at the <HI>Golden Lyon</HI> in St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Church Yard, 1675.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Men and Brethren:</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THough many of you are exceeding zealous, and confident in your Way; yet I hope you do not think your &s;elves in|fallible, or to be as &s;ure that you are in the right here, as you are that there is a God, or that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Te&s;tament are the Word of God: Now granting that it is po&s;&s;ible, you may be under a Mi&s;take in denying our Childrens Intere&s;t in the Covenant and Right to Bap|ti&s;m, methinks, it concerns you to enquire and examine again and again, whether you be not indeed mi&s;taken; &s;eeing, if the Truth lieth in the Affirmative, that Chil|dren have &s;uch a Right, which you oppo&s;e, then you mu&s;t needs be found very ungrate|ful unto God, in denying &s;o much of his Grace and Favour, injurious to our poor Infants, in depriviving them (what in you lieth) of their Birth-right, and of the Ble&s;|&s;ing, and very trouble&s;ome to the Church of Chri&s;t, in rai&s;ing &s;o great a bu&s;le there, and making &s;o great a Breach. And there|fore I cannot but earne&s;tly reque&s;t this of
<PB REF="3">all of you that have any &s;eriou&s;ne&s;s, and tenderne&s;s of Spirit, that you would not take up your Opinion upon Tru&s;t; but make &s;ome further Search and enquiry after the Truth. It may be &s;afe for you, let it not be grievous to you, to view over the&s;e Queries: Of which yet I mu&s;t &s;ay, as the Young Prophet &s;aid of the Axe (2 <HI>Kings</HI> 6.5.) They are but borrowed being collected out of a &s;ea&s;onable and u&s;eful Piece of a Worthy Authour, Entituled, <HI>[more Proofs of Infants Church member&s;hip, and con&s;equent|ly of their Right to Bapti&s;m]</HI> I would hope that the&s;e Lines will lead and direct you to the Book it &s;elf, being as an Index to it. Some of the Que&s;tions put here I am &s;ure are &s;uch as you &s;hould be prepared to an|&s;wer unto God, and Con&s;cience; Con&s;ider of the&s;e things, and the Lord give you Un|der&s;tanding. <HI>Farewel.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>IF thou woulde&s;t have fuller Satisfaction, that it is the undoubled Will of God, that Infants be Mem|bers of his Vi&s;ible Church, as verily as they are Mem|bers of Kingdoms, Cities, and Families, and that they are as capable of it, and that Chri&s;t was in his
<PB REF="3">Infancy the Chief Member of the Church, even the Head, its Prophet, Prie&s;t, and King, though yet he did not Teach, Sacrifice, Rule or Intercede actually, and that God never had a Church on Earth &s;ince there were Infants in the World, of which Infants were not Members, (except any did congregate that had no In|fants, or a few &s;ingular Per&s;ons in the end of the World have upon mi&s;take refu&s;ed the Priviledge) and that the Go&s;pel hath clearly acquainted us that Chri&s;t hath not deprived Infants of this Benefit, but more ful|ly given and confirmed it; and that he hath in&s;tituted Bapti&s;m to be the initiating Sacrament, and Solemn Inve&s;titure of Vi&s;ible Church-members; And yet that we may hold Loving and Comfortable Communion with tho&s;e that by unwilling Error do think that Infants &s;hould not be baptized, if they will but profe&s;s that <HI>they heartily con&s;ent that their Children be Chri&s;t's as far as he will accept them,</HI> and with them that to &s;atisfie their doubting or mi&s;taking Con&s;ciences are re|baptized, and when they have done will live in Love and Communion with others; And that tho&s;e few of the Ancients that were for the delaying of the Bapti&s;m of Infants a while, did not dream of denying or delay|ing their Covenant-intere&s;t and Church-member&s;hip according to their Infant Capacity, but only the Bapti&s;|mal Solemnization and Inve&s;titure, that it might be more powerfully obligatory: (as Kings are oft crowned long after they are Kings) All this and much more, you may &s;ee fully proved in the Book from which the&s;e Que|ries are collected, lately Printed, and in the Authors former Treati&s;e of Infants Church-member&s;hip and Bap|ti&s;m. The&s;e Queries more are here further offered to every con&s;cientious Doubter, Whether it be at all cre|dible that tho&s;e <HI>Jews</HI> that were &s;o quarrel&s;ome with
<PB REF="4">Chri&s;t, and tenacious of their Legal Rights, would ne|ver have quarrelled with Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles, for &s;hut|ting all Infants out of the Vi&s;ible Church, if he or they had done it? And whether tho&s;e Jewi&s;h Chri&s;tians that were &s;o loath to let go Circumci&s;ion, would have let go even their Infant-Member&s;hip and Covenant-right, without one Word of Exception? What con&s;iderate Per&s;on can believe this? <HI>2.</HI> Yea when Chri&s;t offered to gather all <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> and her Children, as a Hen ga|thereth her Chickins, and the <HI>Jews</HI> were broken off but by &V;nbelief, whether the Children of the Believing <HI>Jews</HI> then were broken off? <HI>3.</HI> And when the King|doms of the World becomes Chri&s;t's Kingdoms; are In|fants no part of the Kingdoms?</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="4">
<HEAD>Some Sober Queries gathered out of M^r^. <HI>Baxters</HI> [more Proofs of Infants Church-Member&s;hip, and con&s;equently their Right to Bapti&s;m] &s;eri|ou&s;ly offered to &s;uch as are ta|ken with the unthankful Er|ror of denying and rejecting of their Infants Rights, and Ble&s;&s;ings.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> I. _WHether under the Cove|nant of Works,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 77, 79, 112.</NOTE> if <HI>A|dam</HI> had not &s;inned, Infants &s;hould not have been holy to God, and &s;o Mem|bers of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> II.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 112.</NOTE> Whether God was any more ob|liged to order it &s;o, that the Children of Righteous Parents &s;hould have been born with all the perfections of their Parents, and enjoyed the &s;ame priviledges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants &s;hould be
<PB N="2" REF="5">of the &s;ame Society with their Parents, and have the Immunities of that Society?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> III.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. ibid.</NOTE> Whether we have any rea&s;on, when the de&s;ign of Redemption is the mag|nifying of Love and Grace, to think that Love and Grace are &s;o much le&s;s under the Go&s;pel to the Members of Chri&s;t, than un|der the Law to the Members or Seed of <HI>A|dam,</HI> as that then all the Seed &s;hould have partaken of the &s;ame Ble&s;&s;ings with their righteous Parents, and now they &s;hall all be turned out of the Society whereof the Parents are Members?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> IV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 79, 80.</NOTE> Whether though our Innocency be lo&s;t, parents be not parents &s;till, and have not as much Intere&s;t in children, and whether God have ever rever&s;ed this natu|ral Order? and if God change not his or|der therein, whether parents be not as capa|ble of con&s;enting to Grace for their child|ren, as they were of being innocent for them?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> V.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 81, 83.</NOTE> Whether Infants be not included in the fir&s;t Edition of the Covenant of Grace made with <HI>Adam?</HI> (<HI>Gen.</HI> 3.15.) Whether unle&s;s it can be proved that In|&s;ants are none of the Womans Seed, we mu&s;t not take that Fundamental promi&s;e to extend to Infants?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 96.</NOTE> And was &s;he not there|by obliged to li&s;t her &s;elf, and all her Infant-progeny in the Redeemer's Army, again&s;t the proclaimed Enemy, and to teach her po&s;terity to do the like?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 94.</NOTE> And did they not continue vi&s;ible Members of Chri&s;t's Ar|my
<PB N="3" REF="5">and Kingdom, till &s;uch time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation, and as the Seed of the Serpent fought again&s;t Chri&s;t and his Kingdom,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 95.</NOTE> for Satan and his Kingdom?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> VI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 82, 83.</NOTE> Whether in that fir&s;t Proclamati|on of Grace to fallen man, or in the fir&s;t pro|mi&s;e of Redemption to &s;inners, <HI>Gen.</HI> 3.15. An Infant of the Woman be not promi&s;ed to be General, and Head of the Church? And whether the promi&s;e of an Infant Head, doth not declare God's mind that he will have Infants Members, becau&s;e the Head is the principal Member? Whether God doth not a&s;&s;ure us hereby, that he doth not exclude the Infant-&s;tate, or Age from the redeemed Church, which he admitted into the Church by the Laws of Creation? Would he have made the Head fir&s;t an In|fant; if he had excluded the Infant-&s;tate from the vi&s;ible Church? Is not the Head a Member, even the principal Member? And are not Infants hereby clearly warranted to he Members of a lower Nature? If an In|fant may be Soveraign, then may not In|fants be Subjects? If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church, then may not Infants be Di&s;ciples? if it be &s;aid, they are no Di&s;ciples that learn not; may it not as well be &s;aid, he is no Prophet that teacheth not? If it be granted, that Chri&s;t in Infan|cy was the Prophet of his Church by de|&s;ignation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 86.</NOTE> (though not <HI>in actu exercito?</HI>) Why may not Infants be Di&s;ciples too by
<PB N="4" REF="6">De&s;ignation, or Separation (though not yet actual Learners?)</P>
<P>How doth their Infancy incapacitate them to be in Covenant with God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 84.</NOTE> to be Church-members, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> when Chri&s;t in In|fancy bare all the Connter-relations, and was in the Covenant of God as Mediator; and that (as far as we can judge) only by a virtual, and not actual con&s;ent (in his In|fancy and Humane Nature) to the Cove|nant of Mediation?</P>
<P>If an Infant <HI>qua talis,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 88.</NOTE> as &s;uch be exclu|ded from Church-member&s;hip, then will it not hold <HI>ad omnes</HI> univer&s;ally, and then had not Chri&s;t him&s;elf been excluded?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> VII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 118, 119.</NOTE> Why are tho&s;e two Titles put on tho&s;e two di&s;tinct Generations, (<HI>&s;cil.</HI> the Po&s;terity of <HI>Cain,</HI> and the Po&s;terity of <HI>Seth</HI>) calling one the Sons of God, and the others the Daughters of men, <HI>Gen.</HI> 6.2. But that the one was a Generation &s;epara|ted from the Church from their Birth (their Progenitors being ca&s;t out before them) when the other was the Seed of Saints not ca&s;t out, but Members of the Church, or the Sons of tho&s;e who were de|voted to God, and &s;o devoted to him them|&s;elves, a &s;eparated Generation belonging to God as his vi&s;ible Church? Were the&s;e call|ed the Sons of God in regard of their god|line&s;s (who were &s;o wicked that God re|pented that he had made them, and de|&s;troyed them in the Flood) or for their Re|lation, Church-&s;tate, and vi&s;ible Separation
<PB N="5" REF="6">from open unchurched Idolaters? like tho&s;e <HI>Deut.</HI> 14.1, 2.</P>
<P>Doth it not hence appear that the Gene|ration of the righteous then even from the Womb,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 119, 120.</NOTE> were numbered among God's peo|ple, in that they are not mentioned as a peo|ple called out here and there, and initiated at Age? (there is no mention, or hint, of a|ny &s;uch thing) but as a Stock or Generati|on oppo&s;ed to the Daughters of men, or of the unchurched, who were &s;uch from their Infancy, as all will grant? were they the &s;ame men that were Parents of tho&s;e here called the Daughters of men, and of tho&s;e called the Sons of God?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> VIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 122.</NOTE> Whether it was not the &s;ame Church before, and after <HI>Abraham</HI>'s time, that was called the Tents of <HI>Sem? Gen.</HI> 19.27. Was not the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church de|nominated the Tents of <HI>Sem?</HI> And does it not hence appear, that the Church-priviledges of that people did not begin with or from <HI>Abraham,</HI> but that they were before? And how was it the &s;ame Church that was of <HI>Sem,</HI> and of <HI>Abraham,</HI> if it had not the &s;ame &s;ort of Members, or materials; if Infants were not Members before <HI>Abra|ham</HI>'s dayes, as well as after? And if <HI>Ja|phet</HI>'s Children mu&s;t dwell in <HI>Sem</HI>'s Tents,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 123.</NOTE> then will it not follow, that as <HI>Sem</HI>'s In|fants were Church-members, &s;o <HI>Japhet</HI>'s (or the converted <HI>Gentiles</HI>) Seed are not ca&s;t, or left out?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> IX.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 7<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> Whether if we could &s;hew no
<PB N="6" REF="7">written Law or promi&s;e at fir&s;t con&s;tituting the Duty, or granting the priviledge of Church-member&s;hip, it were the lea&s;t di&s;|paragement to our Cau&s;e, as long as we can &s;hew tho&s;e following Laws which pre&s;up|po&s;e this? If <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> 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 po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of this bene|fit; what need was there of a new Law about it? Or why &s;hould God promi&s;e it as a new thing?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> X.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 115.</NOTE> Whether there being certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-mem|ber&s;hip, but none except that before alledg|ed from <HI>Gen.</HI> 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all &s;peaking of it as no new thing; we have not great rea|&s;on to a&s;&s;ign its beginning which from <HI>Gen.</HI> 3. is before &s;poken of?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 97, 98.</NOTE> Is it not unque&s;tionable, that the Covenant of Grace made to <HI>Abraham</HI> the Father of the faithful, comprehended In|fants for Church-members? And was it not the &s;ame with that <HI>Gen.</HI> 3.15. But in &s;ome things clearlier opened? Were not both the&s;e the Covenant of Grace and free Ju&s;ti|fication by Faith in the Redeemer? And did not the Covenant made to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his Seed, comprehend Infants? And &s;hould not the &s;ame promi&s;e expre&s;&s;ed more con|ci&s;ely be expounded by the &s;ame expre&s;&s;ed more fully?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 115.</NOTE> Whether (though the <HI>Hebrews</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="7">had their peculiarities) it be at all credible, that the Infants of that one &s;mall Country only &s;hould be &s;o differently dealt with by God, from all the World el&s;e, even <HI>Enoch</HI>'s, <HI>Noah</HI>'s, <HI>Sem</HI>'s, and all from <HI>Adam</HI> to the end of the World, that the&s;e Infants only &s;hould be Church-members, and no others?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XIII. What can be more ab&s;urd, than to maintain a Tran&s;ient Fact (as Mr. <HI>T.</HI> hath done) making Infants Church-members, without any Law, Promi&s;e, or Covenant Grant of God giving them Right? Whether a Gift that was never given be not a contradiction? (<HI>V. p.</HI> 32, 35, 39, 44, 45, 151.) And if there was any &s;uch Promi&s;e, or Covenant-grant of In|fants Church-member&s;hip, when, or where was it revoked?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XIV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 19.</NOTE> Was it only the Infants of the <HI>Hebrews,</HI> or of tho&s;e that were at their ab|&s;olute di&s;po&s;e, that were Church-members? Were not the Infants of free Pro&s;elytes Church-members too?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 21.</NOTE> Was it not then the Duty of all the Nations round about, that could have information of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Religion, to en|gage them&s;elves, and their children to God by Circumci&s;ion?</P>
<P>And did not many of the people in <HI>He|&s;ter</HI>'s time become <HI>Jews,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 24.</NOTE> <HI>He&s;t.</HI> 8.17. who yet were not under their Government? And is it not well known, that this was to be circumci&s;ed, they and their little ones (as the Pro&s;elytes were) and &s;o to keep the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es?</HI></P>
<PB N="8" REF="8">
<P> And whether the circumci&s;ed Servants of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> &s;old away to another Nation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 145.</NOTE> and &s;o &s;eparated from the Civil State of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> did <HI>eo nomine</HI> cea&s;e to be Church-members, though they for&s;ook not God? And &s;o of the Infants, if they were &s;old in Infancy? And &s;o whether Infants might not be Church-members, that were not of the <HI>Jews</HI> Commonwealth?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XVI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 26.</NOTE> Were not the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> Children Members of the univer&s;al vi&s;ible Church, as well as of the Congregation of <HI>I&s;rael?</HI></P>
<P>As he that is a Member of the City is a Member of the Kingdom,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 146.</NOTE> and a part of a part is a part of the whole; &s;o was not every Member of the <HI>Jews</HI> Church al&s;o a Member of God's Univer&s;al Church?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XVII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 27.</NOTE> Was there ever any true Church, or Eccle&s;ia&s;tical wor&s;hipping Soci|ety appointed by God in all the World &s;ince the Fall, but the Church of Chri&s;t? Were not Infants therefore either Members of Chri&s;t's Church, or of no Church of God's In&s;titu|tion? Was not <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Chri&s;t's U&s;her, and <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Church and Chri&s;t's Church one, ac|cording to God's In&s;titution?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XVIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 124, 125.</NOTE> Whether was <HI>Abraham</HI> made a Member of the Church by Circumci&s;ion, or circumci&s;ed becau&s;e a Member of the Church? The like of Infants born in his Hou&s;e?</P>
<P>And how can the cea&s;ing of Circumci&s;ion prove Infants Church-member&s;hip cea&s;ed,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 127, 128.</NOTE> any more than it can prove their Church-member&s;hip
<PB N="9" REF="8">began with Circumci&s;ion; or that Women were not Church-members, becau&s;e not circumci&s;ed; or that all <HI>I&s;rael</HI> was unchurched in the Wilderne&s;s, when they were uncircumci&s;ed for forty years?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XIX.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 126,</NOTE> Whether the ble&s;&s;ing of <HI>Abra|ham</HI> con&s;i&s;ts not chiefly in this, that God promi&s;ed to be a God in Covenant with him, and his Seed? And how are the Be|lieving <HI>Gentiles</HI> ble&s;&s;ed with faithful <HI>Abra|ham,</HI> and Heirs of the &s;ame Promi&s;e, if their Infants are not al&s;o comprehended in the &s;ame Covenant?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XX. Whether in that great Promi&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 126, 127.</NOTE> <HI>Gen.</HI> 12.3. Tribes, Kindreds, Families, do not mo&s;t certainly comprehend Infants? As it was to &s;uch Families that the promi&s;e was made before Chri&s;t, as to the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church? What warrant have we to under|&s;tand Families or Tribes otherwi&s;e, when the &s;ame promi&s;e is made to the <HI>Gentiles?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXI. Whether the &s;econd Com|mandment,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 135.</NOTE> <HI>Exod.</HI> 20.5, 6. doth not con|tain a &s;tanding promi&s;e, and di&s;covery of God's Re&s;olution, concerning the children of all that love him, whether <HI>Jews</HI> or <HI>Gentiles,</HI> to whom this Commandment be|longs?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 136.</NOTE> Whether God meaneth not that his Retribution to Parents that love or hate him, &s;hall extend to their children as &s;uch; unle&s;s they interrupt it at Age by their own Acts; and if to their children <HI>qu&agrave; tales,</HI> then whether not to Infants? And when God hath recorded this, decreed, granted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 137.</NOTE>
<PB N="10" REF="9">di&s;tingui&s;hing mercy to the children of the faithful as &s;uch in Tables of Stone, whether it be not a vi&s;ible notification, which will make them vi&s;ible Favourites and Church-members as &s;oon as they vi&s;ibly exi&s;t?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 138.</NOTE> Whether any without the Church are &s;ecured of God's mercy by pro|mi&s;e? And whether mercy be not promi&s;ed to the Children of the Faithful as &s;uch? (See <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 102.28. and 103.17. <HI>Prov.</HI> 20.7. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 61.8, 9. and 65.23. <HI>&amp;c.</HI>)</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 143.</NOTE> Whether the&s;e Promi&s;es in the making of them were limited to a cer|tain time when they were to cea&s;e? Or whether they have been &s;ince revoked?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXIV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 146.</NOTE> If it was on the <HI>Jews</HI> reje|ction of Chri&s;t that they were broken off from being God's people, were tho&s;e thou|&s;ands of <HI>Jews</HI> that believed in Chri&s;t &s;o broken off? If not, then whether were not the Children of all believing <HI>Jews</HI> Church-members in Infancy? Or otherwi&s;e, was it not &s;omewhat el&s;e than Unbelief that brake them off?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 146, 147.</NOTE> Were not the Infants of the <HI>Chri|&s;tian Jews</HI> the day before their conver&s;ion Members of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church, and of Gods univer&s;al Church (of which the <HI>Jews</HI> were but a part? and doth it not &s;ound &s;trangely, that &s;uch Infants as were the day before Members of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church, and of God's univer&s;al Church, &s;hould be put out of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> and the whole vi&s;ible Church by the Faith of their Parents, or without Un|belief?
<PB N="11" REF="9">Either it was a mercy to be a Mem|ber of the Church, or not: If it was no mercy, then will it not follow, that the unbelieving <HI>Jews</HI> lo&s;t nothing by being broken off? If it was a mercy, how did the <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> Children forfeit it?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXVI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 147.</NOTE> Whether it be credible that he who came not to ca&s;t out <HI>Jews,</HI> but to bring in <HI>Gentiles,</HI> breaking down the partition-wall, and making of two one Church, would have a Church of &s;o different form and con&s;titution, that the Church at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> &s;hould have Infant-members, and the Church at <HI>Rome</HI> &s;hould have none? That the <HI>Jews</HI> Infants &s;hould be Members, and not <HI>Gentiles?</HI></P>
<P>If the <HI>Jews</HI> were broken off by unbelief,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 147.</NOTE> &s;hould they not be graffed in again upon their Repentance of Faith? And &s;o &s;hould not every repenting believing <HI>Jews</HI> Infants be Church-members? Or otherwi&s;e how would their graffing in an&s;wer to their breaking off? Should they be but in part graffed in?</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> XXVII. Was not Chri&s;t's Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 148.</NOTE> Spiritual before his Incarnation (when it took in Infants) and gathered in a &s;piritual way? was not the vi&s;ible frame of the <HI>Jew|i&s;h</HI> Church &s;et up and erected by the Father of Spirits, and were not Spiritual Duties commanded then, upon promi&s;es of Spiri|tual Ble&s;&s;ings, even life eternal?</P>
<P>How will any prove that it was a Blemi&s;h to the old frame;<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 148.</NOTE> that Infants were Mem|bers?
<PB N="12" REF="10">What was the Church the wor&s;e for Infants Rights? If it be no blemi&s;h, why mu&s;t it be done away?</P>
<P>Q. XXVIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V, p, 149.</NOTE> In what regard were the new frame better, &s;uppo&s;ing the ca&s;ting out of Infants, which were in the old? How doth Infants relation detract from its Spi|rituality? Do not the adult come in by the &s;ame kind of con&s;ent for them&s;elves, as they make for their Infants? And do not the Adult blemi&s;h the Church with more carnal &s;ins than Infants do? Would any Kingdom be more excellent, if all Infants were disfranchi&s;ed? Does not Nature teach all Kingdoms on Earth to take them for Members, though but Infant-members?</P>
<P>Q. XXIX.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 149, 150.</NOTE> Whether any <HI>Jew</HI> at age was a Member of the old Church without pro|fe&s;&s;ing Faith (in the Articles then nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation) Repentance and Obedience? And wherein the &s;uppo&s;ed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old; &s;ave only that a more full and expre&s;s Revelati|on of Chri&s;t requireth a more full expre&s;s Faith? Is it not evident, that they were to profe&s;s con&s;ent to God's Covenant, which who&s;o denied <HI>A&s;a</HI> would put to death?<NOTE PLACE="marg">v. p. 4<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> And was not circumci&s;ion a covenanting Act? And did they not thereby profe&s;s to take God for their God? Or would God el&s;e have taken them for his people? And would not renouncing God have cut them off?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 78.</NOTE></P>
<P>Q. XXX Whether God's Law obligeth
<PB N="13" REF="10">not per&s;ons to devote them&s;elves, and their Infants to God, by con&s;enting to God's Co|venant for them&s;elves and them?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 50.</NOTE> Whether it was not the Duty of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> to en|gage and devote their children to God in Covenant? Whether this be not evident from the penalty (even to be cut off from his People) annexed for the <HI>non</HI>-perform|ance? (And whether this be not as much our Duty &s;till?)<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 105.</NOTE> 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 acknowledging his right, with a free re&s;ignation and dedi|cation of the Infant to God, as his own; for his u&s;e and &s;ervice, when he is capable thereof? If Infants are not capable of do|ing (pre&s;ent) Service; yet are they not ca|pable at pre&s;ent of a legal Obligation to fu|ture Duty, as al&s;o of the relation following the Obligation?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 49.</NOTE> And is it not the very na|ture of our own holy Covenant, that in it we give up to God, our &s;elves, and all that is ours according to the capacity of the all? Are not Infants capable of Infant-re|lation, Obligation, and Right? What is it that a &s;anctified man mu&s;t not devote to God that is his?<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 308.</NOTE> Are we allowed to ex|cept children? Should not Infants there|fore be devoted according to their capacity, which God him&s;elf hath expounded? And if Parents may and mu&s;t devote them pri|vately by heart-con&s;ent,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 106.</NOTE> will it not follow
<PB N="14" REF="11">they mu&s;t do it publickly in the in&s;tituted way?</P>
<P>Q. XXXI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 198, 199.</NOTE> Whether Anabapti&s;ts them|&s;elves, all of them that are truly pious do not vertually (though not actually) devote their children to God, and con&s;ent to their Covenant-relation, while they vehemently plead again&s;t it?</P>
<P>Q. XXXII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 152.</NOTE> Is it not a de&s;perate under|taking, and dare any adventure on it, to ju&s;tifie all the World before Chri&s;t's Incar|nation, except the <HI>Jews,</HI> from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God? And do not they that &s;ay there is no Law in this ca&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 153.</NOTE> &s;ay there is no Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion? And dare any in like manner undertake to ju&s;ti|fie at the Bar of God all the World &s;ince Chri&s;t's Incarnation from the guilt of &s;in, in not dedicating their children to Chri&s;t, and entring them into his Covenant as Mem|bers of his Church? Dare any maintain that all the World is &s;inle&s;s in this re&s;pect?</P>
<P>Q. XXXIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 34, 35.</NOTE> Is it not a great Benefit, and Priviledge to be a vi&s;ible Church-mem|ber of Chri&s;t as Head of the Church, and of his Church as vi&s;ible? Is it not a benefit in it &s;elf (be&s;ides the con&s;equents) to be vi|&s;ibly united and related to Chri&s;t and his Body? Is not &s;uch a Relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t, and to the Church, an honor? And how great is the mi&s;ery of the contrary &s;tate?</P>
<P>And if Infant Church-member&s;hip were no benefit,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 33.</NOTE> then how were they that had i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">
<PB N="15" REF="11">(when they came to age, or their Parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulne&s;s for it? Will any &s;ay, that neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulne&s;s upon this account?</P>
<P>Q XXXIV. Is it not certain,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 111, 112.</NOTE> that In|fants are capable of this benefit, if God de|ny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged? And is it not certain that they are actually Members of all the Common|wealths in the World? <HI>(perfect&egrave;, &s;ed imperfe|cta membra)</HI> And does not nature &s;eem a|ctually to have taught mo&s;t people on Earth, to repute their Infants in the &s;ame Religi|ous Society with them&s;elves, as well as in the &s;ame civil Society?</P>
<P>Q. XXXV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 113, 114.</NOTE> Whether according to the te|nour of the Covenant of Grace, God will not vouch&s;afe to be their God, and take them for his people, that are (in a natural, or Law-&s;ence) willing to be his people, and to take him for their God? And whether the Infants of believing Parents are not thus willing? When Infants cannot be actually willing them&s;elves in a natural &s;ence, mu&s;t not the rea&s;on, and will of another be theirs in Law-&s;ence, that is, of the Parents, who have the full di&s;po&s;e of them, and are war|ranted by the Law of nature to chu&s;e for them (for their good) till they come to the u&s;e of rea&s;on them&s;elves?</P>
<P>Whether in God's acceptance the child doth not thus truly con&s;ent by the believing Parents, and doth not covenant with God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 286, 287.</NOTE>
<PB N="16" REF="12">as a child covenanteth and con&s;enteth re|putatively among men, who by his Parents is made a party in a contract, as in a lea&s;e for his life, or the like?</P>
<P>And &s;o granting the Relation of Church-member&s;hip to be founded in a mutual con|tract, covenant,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 68, 69, 169, 171.</NOTE> or con&s;ent betwixt God and us, yet mu&s;t not this con&s;ent on our part differ according to the different age and ca|pacity of Infants, and the adult? Were not the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> Infants Church-members, who con&s;ented not actually in their own per&s;ons, but virtually, and reputatively?</P>
<P>Q. XXXVI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 110, 111.</NOTE> Whether it be not the duty of Parents by the Law of nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children? The Infant being not <HI>&s;ui Juris,</HI> but at his Parents di&s;po&s;e in all things that are for his good, have not the Parents power to oblige their children to any future duty or &s;uffering, that is certainly for their own good? And &s;o may they not enter them in|to Covenants accordingly? And is it not unnaturally &s;inful for a Parent to refu&s;e to do &s;uch a thing, when it is to the great be|nefit of his own child? And doth it not de|&s;erve to be called, the unthankful Error, that oppo&s;eth childrens Rights, and Ble&s;|&s;ings? (<HI>V. p.</HI> 339.)</P>
<P>Q. XXXVII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 100.</NOTE> VVhether it may be thought, or any dare maintain, that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the VVorld? Are they all exclu|ded? And why? Are they wor&s;e than their
<PB N="17" REF="12">Parents? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally, as it doth to Parents, mu&s;t it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents, or &s;uch as are &s;o far entru&s;ted?</P>
<P>Or can this be called a Covenant,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 10<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> for God only to &s;ay [I will &s;ave all &s;uch Infants as I elect] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition, nor give a title to any per&s;on that can be known by them&s;elves or others? Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Co|venant? And what Right or hope doth this give to <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> for their children, more than to <HI>Pagans?</HI></P>
<P>Whether they that will lay all the Right of Infants to the pardon of &s;in,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 209, 205.</NOTE> and &s;alvati|on upon &s;ecret election only; as if all that we knew of Infants &s;alvation were, that God would &s;ave &s;ome whom he hath ele|cted: but that there is no promi&s;e of Grace or Salvation to any particular Infant in the World, as under any condition, or qualifi|cation? Whether they mu&s;t not &s;ay, that no Infant hath any Right to Pardon, Grace and Salvation, given him by the Covenant of Grace; no more than any elect per&s;on at age hath before Faith and Regeneration? And mu&s;t they not &s;ay too, that we have no a&s;&s;urance that God will &s;ave ten or three In|fants in all the World? For he hath not told us whether he hath elected &s;o many? Or that they may all, or almo&s;t all be &s;aved, while the number of the Elect is unreveal|ed? Or can they &s;ay, that any more of the
<PB N="18" REF="13">children of the faithful are &s;aved, than of the <HI>Heathens</HI> or <HI>Infidels;</HI> of tho&s;e that love God and keep his Commandment, than of tho&s;e that hate him? Yea, how can they have any proper hope upon Covenant-right, that God will &s;ave any one Individual In|fant in the World? For how can we hope (in this proper &s;ence) of any thing but what we do believe? And how can we believe what is not promi&s;ed, or revealed? And &s;o mu&s;t not Parents thus far be left hopele&s;s?</P>
<P>And if God will &s;ave more (yea,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 205, 206.</NOTE> &s;o great numbers as we hope are &s;aved in Infancy) than ever he promi&s;ed to &s;ave, and gave any Antecedent Right to Salvation to, whether will it not open &s;uch a gap to the hopes of pre&s;umptuous <HI>Heathens</HI> and <HI>Infidels</HI> this way, as will cro&s;s our common Doctrine? As &s;ome will &s;ay, why may he not do &s;o al&s;o by Parents, at lea&s;t renewing them <HI>in tran&s;itu?</HI></P>
<P>And further,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">2.</NOTE> if God hath given no con|dition or character Antecedent, as a differen|cing qualification of tho&s;e that he will &s;ave from tho&s;e that he will not, but only told us that he will &s;ave whom he li&s;teth, whether this maketh not Infants to be no Subjects of his Kingdom, under no Law, and &s;o liable to no Judgment, nor to &s;tand in judgment with the re&s;t of the World, but only to be u&s;ed as Bea&s;ts or Stones, by Divine natural motion as he will? And then if there be no Law that giveth Right to pardon and &s;al|vation to any one Infant in the World, and yet many are &s;aved, will it not follow, that
<PB N="19" REF="13">God is (as the prophane &s;ay) better than his word, and will &s;ave many to whom he ne|ver gave right to it by promi&s;e?</P>
<P>Q. XXXVIII. Though all that are &s;aved,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 203, 204.</NOTE> are &s;aved for the meritorious righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, by way of free gift; yet whether the condition be not a &s;utable acceptance? And why may not a Parent accept a Dona|tion for his child, who hath no will to ac|cept it for him&s;elf? Shall he be certainly &s;hut out unto damnation? Or &s;hall he have that gift ab&s;olutely which is conditional to all others? Or is he not concerned in the Donation at all? And have not Infants guilt and mi&s;ery from their Parents? And though life and pardon be by Chri&s;t only, yet is it not congruous, that the meer con|dition of acceptance may be performed by the Parents (while they cannot accept for them&s;elves?)</P>
<P>Q. XXXIX.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 106, 107.</NOTE> (Whether it be no advan|tage for children to be under an early en|gagement to God, and Je&s;us Chri&s;t?) Whe|ther to dedicate them betimes to God, doth not tend to &s;ecure God's right and child|rens good, and to prevent their &s;in and mi|&s;ery; they being thus under a double Ob|ligation, which they may be minded of be|times, and which may hold them more &s;trongly to their duty, and di&s;advantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God?</P>
<P>And may it not do much to awe the minds of children; yea,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 107.</NOTE> and cau&s;e them to
<PB N="20" REF="14">love that Chri&s;t which hath received them, and that Society to which they belong? And, is Infant-covenanting any hinderance in Nature, or Rea&s;on from per&s;onal &s;erious covenanting with God at age? Do we not tell our children and all the adult, that their Infant-covenanting by Parents, will &s;erve them but till they have Rea&s;on and will of their own to chu&s;e for them&s;elves?</P>
<P>If it were deferred till ripene&s;s of age would not one part neglect it and continue <HI>Infidels;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 222, 223.</NOTE> and another part do all formally, as we &s;ee they do now at the other Sacra|ment, where the &s;ame Covenant is to be re|newed? Is there not a better remedy, that all that are baptized in Infancy &s;hould as un|der&s;tandingly, and as &s;eriou&s;ly, and (if it may be conveniently) as &s;olemnly, own and make that Covenant with God when they come to age, as if they had never been baptized (if not more, as being more obliged?)</P>
<P>Is it not much liker to tend to the good of Souls,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 109.</NOTE> and the propagating <HI>Chri&s;tianity,</HI> and the &s;trength of the Church for to have both the obligation and comfort of our In|fant-covenant, and Church-&s;tate, and as &s;e|rious a covenanting al&s;o at age, when we pa&s;s into the Church-&s;tate of the Adult; than to be without the former, and left on|ly to the expectation of the latter?</P>
<P>Whether to be &s;eriou&s;ly devoted to God by our Parents fir&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 223.</NOTE> and to be brought at age as &s;eriou&s;ly to devote our &s;elves to him, as any Anabapti&s;t can do, be not a much
<PB N="21" REF="14">likelier way to fill the Church with &s;erious <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> than to leave all men without an early Infant-obligation?</P>
<P>Q. XL.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 156, 157.</NOTE> Whether it can be proved that ever there was one Age, or Church (parti|cular) on Earth &s;ince <HI>Adam</HI> till about 200. years ago, that the Anabapti&s;ts ro&s;e, where|in Infants were not <HI>de facto</HI> taken for Mem|bers of the Church?</P>
<P>Q. XLI. Whether it can be proved,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 157, 104.</NOTE> that ever there was any one Infant of true Church-members, that was not rightfully a Church-member him&s;elf from the Creation till Chri&s;t's dayes? Or from the Creation till this day; except the Anabapti&s;ts, who reject the benefit, who&s;e ca&s;e we will not pre&s;ume to determine?</P>
<P>Q. XLII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 157, 158.</NOTE> Seeing that Infants have been <HI>de facto,</HI> Church-members from the Creati|on to this day (as far as any Records can lead us) Is it likely that the Lord, and Head and all &s;ufficient Governour of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of &s;uch Subjects, as in regard of age be di&s;allowed, and &s;uffered his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a rea&s;onable, mode&s;t, and lawful un|dertaking, to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new framed Church, as to the age of the Subjects? And is it not more mode&s;t and &s;afe to live quietly in a Church of that frame, as all the Saints of Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabapti&s;ts did attempt an Alteration?</P>
<PB N="22" REF="15">
<P> Q. XLIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 160.</NOTE> Whether con&s;idering Chri&s;t's own Infant-member&s;hip, and his kind re|ception of Infants, and his chiding tho&s;e that would have kept them off, and his of|fers of taking in all the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Nation, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 23.37.) and that they were broken off by unbelief,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 143.</NOTE> and con&s;equently the Seed of Believers not broken off from the Church Univer&s;al, and that whole Hou&s;holds are oft &s;aid to be baptized, and that <HI>Paul</HI> pro|nounceth Believers children holy, and that Chri&s;t expre&s;ly (<HI>Matth.</HI> 28.) commandeth his Mini&s;ters, as much as in them lieth to di&s;ciple all Nations baptizing them, and that it is prophe&s;ied that the Kingdoms of the World &s;hall be made the Kingdoms of Chri&s;t, and there is no Nation or Kingdom on Earth that Infants are not Members of; whether in all this, and much more, there be not a plain notification of God's will, that as he never had a Church which excluded Infants; &s;o neither doth he now exclude them?</P>
<P>And if any will take him for Antichri&s;t that taketh Infants into the vi&s;ible Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 305.</NOTE> whether it will not prove to be Chri&s;t him|&s;elf?</P>
<P>Q. XLIV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 209,</NOTE> In &s;umm, whether 1. God would not have Parents devote their children to him, and enter them according to their ca|pacity in his Covenant? 2. Whether al&s;o he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him, and be not peculiarly their God, that &s;uch children
<PB N="23" REF="15">are holy? 3. Whether they are not as cer|tainly Members, according to an Infant ca|pacity, of the vi&s;ible Church, as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven? 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their Salvati|on, than of tho&s;e without? 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their Salvati|on certain, if they &s;o die? 6. Whether the Inve&s;titure and Solemnization of their Co|venant with Chri&s;t &s;hould not be made in Infancy?</P>
<P>Whether ever it can be proved,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 233.</NOTE> that granting Infants vi&s;ible Church-member|&s;hip, yet they are not to be baptized, and that Bapti&s;m was appointed for initiating none but adult Members? Whether Bap|ti&s;m be not the common entrance into the Church, and the plain Law of Chri&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19. and the Expo&s;ition of the Univer&s;al Church doth not &s;tand on Record to con|fute &s;uch an Opinion?</P>
<P>Q. XLV.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Preface p. 4.</NOTE> How incon&s;iderable a part of the Univer&s;al Church do the Anabapti&s;ts hold Communion with? And do they not unchurch almo&s;t all the Churches on Earth? (may we not think, that they rob Chri&s;t of more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom, or Church Univer&s;al? <HI>V. p.</HI> 305.)</P>
<P>Q. XLVI.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Preface ib.</NOTE> Whether they can po&s;&s;i|bly hope that ever the Church on Earth will unite upon their terms, of reje|cting all their Infants from the vi&s;i|ble Church, and renouncing all our
<PB N="24" REF="16">Infant Rights and Benefits conferred by the Bapti&s;mal Covenant of Grace?</P>
<P>Q. XLVII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Preface ib.</NOTE> And whether if they conti|nue to the World's end to &s;eparate from al|mo&s;t all the Churches and unchurch them, their employment will not be &s;till to &s;erve the great Enemy of Love and Concord, a|gain&s;t the Lord of Love and Peace, and a|gain&s;t the Pro&s;perity of Faith and Godli|ne&s;s, and again&s;t the welfare of the Church and Souls, and to the &s;candal and hardning of the ungodly?</P>
<P>Q. XLVIII.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 189.</NOTE> Whether too many well-meaning, but weak <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> are not di&s;|affected to lawful and warrantable things in the Wor&s;hip of God, meerly becau&s;e they &s;ee &s;uch as are ungodly u&s;e and own them? And whether if God &s;hould but let us have a King and other Rulers that were again&s;t Infant-bapti&s;m, and &s;inging of P&s;alms, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and would make Laws for their own way, and impo&s;e it on others, &s;o that the ungod|ly multitude &s;hould fall in with them, it would not pre&s;ently cure many that are now for &s;uch Opinions?</P>
<P>Q. XLIX. Whether Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> in the &s;econd and third part of that his &s;econd Defence of our Infants Rights, have not &s;ufficiently detected the great and notorious Untruths in Fact and Hi&s;tory, wherewith Mr. <HI>H. D.</HI> Treati&s;e of Bapti&s;m, and Reply to Mr. <HI>Willes</HI> is fully &s;tuffed?</P>
<P>Q. L.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 228, 229.</NOTE> Whether the Anabapti&s;ts Schi&s;m, or Separation from Communion with our
<PB N="25" REF="16">Churches be not wor&s;e (yet) than their &s;imple O|pinion? And whether it be not de&s;irable, and po&s;&s;ible, that &s;ome way be found out, and terms layd down in which good and &s;ober men on both &s;ides would agree and hold Communion? As <HI>v. g.</HI> If the Anabapti&s;ts would con&s;ent to, and pro|fe&s;s as followeth, or to this &s;ence: <Q>Though we judge Infant-bapti&s;m d&s;&s;onant from Chri&s;t's in&s;tituted Order, yet finding that God hath made many Promi&s;es to the Seed of the Faithful above others, and that Chri&s;t expre&s;&s;ed his rea|dine&s;s to receive little Children when they were brought to him for his Ble&s;&s;ing, and knowing that all Chri&s;tian Parents &s;hould earne&s;tly de|&s;ire that their Children may be the Children of God through Chri&s;t, and &s;hould devote them to him, as far as is in their power, and knowing that there are difficulties about the extent of this Power, and Chri&s;t's Promi&s;es; we do here &s;olemnly profe&s;s, that we thankfully de&s;ire all tho&s;e Mercies for this Child which God hath promi&s;ed to &s;uch in his Word; and that we heartily offer, devote and dedicate this Child to God the Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t, as far as he hath given us power to do it, be|&s;eeching him accordingly to accept him: And we promi&s;e faithfully to endeavour to educate him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and as we are able to per&s;wade him when he is capable, to believe in Chri&s;t, and &s;olemnly de|vote him&s;elf to God the Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t in Bapti&s;m.</Q> If thus much were done in the Church, or &s;o openly as may &s;atisfie the Church, that they are not de&s;pi&s;ers of God's mer|cies, nor of their Childrens Souls: And much more, if tho&s;e that profe&s;s that they cannot &s;atis|fie their Con&s;ciences in their Infant-bapti&s;m,<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. p. 230. 231.</NOTE> would but do as the Liturgy doth by tho&s;e who&s;e Bapti&s;m is uncertain, <HI>[If thou be not baptized, I
<PB N="26" REF="17">baptize thee,]</HI> and &s;o would &s;ay, [Being uncertain whether my Infant-bapti&s;m be valid, if it be not I now receive that which is.] And when they have &s;atisfied their Con&s;ciences, would live quiet|ly in the Love and Communion of the Church, who would not receive them, though we approve not of their way?</P>
<P>And &s;hould not we be willing to give &s;atisfacti|on by &s;uch an an&s;werable profe&s;&s;ion as this? <Q>Though it be our Judgment that Infants have ever been Members of God's vi&s;ible Church, &s;ince he had a Church and there were Infants in the World, and do believe that Chri&s;t hath &s;ignified in the Go&s;pel that it is his gracious will, that they &s;hould &s;till be &s;o, and that he hath made Bapti&s;m the regular orderly way of &s;o|lemn entrance into a vi&s;ible Church-&s;tate; and therefore we devote this Child to God in the Bapti&s;mal Covenant: yet we do al&s;o hold, that when he cometh to age, it will be his duty as &s;e|riou&s;ly and devoutly to make this Covenant with God under&s;tandingly him&s;elf, and to dedi|cate him&s;elf to God the Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t, as tho&s;e mu&s;t do that never were bapti|zed in Infancy: And we promi&s;e to endeavour faithfully as we have opportunity, to in&s;truct and per&s;wade him &s;o to do, hoping that this his early Bapti&s;mal Dedication and Obligation to God, will rather much prepare him for it, than hinder it.</Q></P>
<P>Whether might not &s;ome &s;uch Profe&s;&s;ions put off the chief matter of Offence and Exception a|gain&s;t each other, as to the ill con&s;equents of our Opinions? and would not &s;ober good men by &s;uch a mutual approach, be more di&s;po&s;ed to live together in Love and Holy Peace (which we &s;hould all pray for, and what in us lieth, as far as po&s;&s;i|bly we can, promote?)</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
