FIFTY QUERIES, Seriously Propounded To those that QUESTION, Or deny Infants Right TO BAPTISM.  
By J. B. an hearty wellwisher to their Souls, and to the Church's Peace.  
LONDON, Printed for Nevil Symonds at the Prince's Arms, and Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church Yard, 1675.   

Men and Brethren:  
THough many of you are exceeding zealous, and confident in your Way; yet I hope you do not think yourselves infallible, or to be as sure 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 Testament are the Word of God: Now granting that it is possible, you may be under a Mistake in denying our children's Interest in the Covenant and Right to Baptism, methinks, it concerns you to inquire and examine again and again, whether you be not indeed mistaken; seeing, if the Truth lieth in the Affirmative, that Children have such a Right, which you oppose, than you must needs be found very ungrateful unto God, in denying so much of his Grace and Favour, injurious to our poor Infants, in depriviving them (what in you lieth) of their Birthright, and of the Blessing, and very troublesome to the Church of Christ, in raising so great a bustle there, and making so great a Breach. And therefore I cannot but earnestly request this of all of you that have any seriousness, and tenderness of Spirit, that you would not take up your Opinion upon Trust; but make some further Search and enquiry after the Truth. It may be safe for you, let it not be grievous to you, to view over these Queries: Of which yet I must say, as the Young Prophet said of the Axe (2 Kings 6.5.) They are but borrowed being collected out of a seasonable and useful Piece of a Worthy Author, Entitled, [more Proofs of Infant's Church membership, and consequently of their Right to Baptism] I would hope that these Lines will lead and direct you to the Book itself, being as an Index to it. Some of the Questions put here I am sure are such as you should be prepared to answer unto God, and Conscience; Consider of these things, and the Lord give you Understanding. Farewell.   

Reader,  
IF thou wouldst have fuller Satisfaction, that it is the undoubled Will of God, that Infants be Members of his Visible Church, as verily as they are Members of Kingdoms, Cities, and Families, and that they are as capable of it, and that Christ was in his Infancy the Chief Member of the Church, even the Head, its Prophet, Priest, and King, though yet he did not Teach, Sacrifice, Rule or Intercede actually, and that God never had a Church on Earth since there were Infants in the World, of which Infants were not Members, (except any did congregate that had no Infants, or a few singular Persons in the end of the World have upon mistake refused the Privilege) and that the Gospel hath clearly acquainted us that Christ hath not deprived Infants of this Benefit, but more fully given and confirmed it; and that he hath instituted Baptism to be the initiating Sacrament, and Solemn Investiture of Visible Church-members; And yet that we may hold Loving and Comfortable Communion with those that by unwilling Error do think that Infants should not be baptised, if they will but profess that they hearty consent that their Children be Christ's as far as he will accept them, and with them that to satisfy their doubting or mistaking Consciences are rebaptised, and when they have done will live in Love and Communion with others; And that those few of the Ancients that were for the delaying of the Baptism of Infants a while, did not dream of denying or delaying their Covenant-interest and Church-membership according to their Infant Capacity, but only the Baptismal Solemnisation and Investiture, that it might be more powerfully obligatory: (as Kings are oft crowned long after they are Kings) All this and much more, you may see fully proved in the Book from which these Queries are collected, lately Printed, and in the Author's former Treatise of Infants Church-membership and Baptism. These Queries more are here further offered to every conscientious Doubter, Whether it be at all credible that those Jews that were so quarrelsome with Christ, and tenacious of their Legal Rights, would never have quarrelled with Christ or his Apostles, for shutting all Infants out of the Visible Church, if he or they had done it? And whether those Jewish Christians that were so loath to let go Circumcision, would have let go even their Infant-Membership and Covenant-right, without one Word of Exception? What considerate Person can believe this? 2. Yea when Christ offered to gather all Jerusalem and her Children, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens, and the Jews were broken off but by Unbelief, whether the Children of the Believing Jews than were broken off? 3. And when the Kingdoms of the World becomes Christ's Kingdoms; are Infants no part of the Kingdoms?   

Some Sober Queries gathered out of Mr. Baxter's [more Proofs of Infant's Church-Membership, and consequently their Right to Baptism] seriously offered to such as are taken with the unthankful Error of denying and rejecting of their Infant's Rights, and Blessings.  
Q. I. WHether under the Covenant of Works, 
V p. 77, 79, 112.  if Adam had not sinned, Infants should not have been holy to God, and so Members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God?  
Q. II. 
V p. 112.  Whether God was any more obliged to order it so, that the Children of Righteous Parents should have been born with all the perfections of their Parents, and enjoyed the same privileges, 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?  
Q. III. 
V ibid.  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?  
Q. IU. 
V p. 79, 80.  Whether though our Innocency be lost, parents be not parents still, and have not as much Interest in children, and whether God have ever reversed this natural Order? and if God change not his order therein, whether parents be not as capable of consenting to Grace for their children, as they were of being innocent for them?  
Q. V 
V p. 81, 83.  Whether Infants be not included in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace made with Adam? (Gen. 3.15.) Whether unless it can be proved that Infants are none of the Woman's Seed, we must not take that Fundamental promise to extend to Infants? 
V p. 96.  And was she not thereby obliged to list herself, and all her Infant-progeny in the Redeemer's Army, against the proclaimed Enemy, and to teach her posterity to do the like? 
V p. 94.  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 Serpent fought against Christ and his Kingdom, 
V p. 95.  for Satan and his Kingdom?  
Q. VI 
V p. 82, 83.  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 whether the promise of an Infant Head, doth not declare God's mind that he will have Infants Members, because the Head is the principal Member? Whether God doth not assure us hereby, that he doth not exclude the Infant-state, or Age from the redeemed Church, which he admitted into the Church by the Laws of Creation? Would he have made the Head first an Infant; if he had excluded the Infant-state from the visible 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 Infant may be Sovereign, then may not Infants be Subjects? If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church, then may not Infants be Disciples? if it be said, they are no Disciples that learn not; may it not as well be said, he is no Prophet that teacheth not? If it be granted, that Christ in Infancy was the Prophet of his Church by designation, 
V p. 86.  (though not in actu exercito?) Why may not Infants be Disciples too by Designation, or Separation (though not yet actual Learners?)  
How doth their Infancy incapacitate them to be in Covenant with God, 
V p. 84.  to be Church-members, etc. when Christ in Infancy bore 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 consent (in his Infancy and Humane Nature) to the Covenant of Mediation?  
If an Infant qua talis, 
V p. 88  as such be excluded from Church-membership, then will it not hold ad omnes universally, and then had not Christ himself been excluded?  
Q. VII. 
V p. 118, 119.  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 others 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, but Members of the Church, or the Sons of those who were devoted to God, and so devoted to him themselves, a separated Generation belonging to God as his visible Church? Were these called the Sons of God in regard of their godliness (who were so wicked that God repent that he had made them, and destroyed them in the Flood) or for their Relation, Church-state, and visible Separation from open unchurched Idolaters? like those Deut. 14.1, 2.  
Doth it not hence appear that the Generation of the righteous then even from the Womb, 
V p. 119, 120.  were numbered among God's people, in that they are not mentioned as a people called out here and there, and initiated at Age? (there is no mention, or hint, of any such thing) but as a Stock or Generation opposed to the Daughters of men, or of the unchurched, who were such from their Infancy, as all will grant? were they the same men that were Parents of those here called the Daughters of men, and of those called the Sons of God?  
Q. VIII. 
V p. 122.  Whether it was not the same Church before, and after Abraham's time, that was called the Tents of Sem? Gen. 19.27. Was not the Jewish Church denominated the Tents of Sem? 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; if Infants were not Members before Abraham's days, as well as after? And if Japhet's Children must dwell in Sem's Tents, 
V p. 123.  then will it not follow, that as Sem's Infants were Church-members, so Japhet's (or the converted Gentiles) Seed are not cast, or left out?  
Q. IX. 
V p. 7●.  Whether if we could show no written Law or promise at first constituting the Duty, or granting the privilege of Church-membership, it were the least disparagement to our Cause, as long as we can show those following 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?  
Q. X. 
V p. 115.  Whether there being certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-membership, but none except that before alleged 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?  
Q. XI. 
V p. 97, 98.  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?  
Q. XII. 
V p. 115.  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, Sem's, and all from Adam to the end of the World, that these Infants only should be Church-members, and not others?  
Q. XIII. What can be more absurd, than to maintain a Transient Fact (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?  
Q. XIV. 
V p. 19  Was 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?  
Q. XV. 
V p. 21.  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, 
V p. 24.  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 the Law of Moses?  
And whether the circumcised Servants of Israel sold away to another Nation, 
V p. 145.  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 Commonwealth?  
Q. XVI. 
V p. 26.  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, 
V p. 146.  and a part of a part is a part of the whole; so was not every Member of the Jews Church also a Member of God's Universal Church?  
Q. XVII. 
V p. 27.  Was there ever any true Church, or Ecclesiastical worshipping Society appointed by God in all the World since the Fall, but the Church of Christ? Were not Infants therefore either Members of Christ's Church, or of no Church of God's Institution? Was not Moses Christ's Usher, and Moses Church and Christ's Church one, according to God's Institution?  
Q. XVIII. 
V p. 124, 125.  Whether was Abraham made a Member of the Church by Circumcision, or circumcised because a Member of the Church? The like of Infants born in his House?  
And how can the ceasing of Circumcision prove Infants Church-membership ceased, 
V p. 127, 128.  any more than it can prove their Church-membership begins with Circumcision; or that Women were not Church-members, because not circumcised; or that all Israel was unchurched in the Wilderness, when they were uncircumcised for forty years?  
Q. XIX. 
V p. 126,  Whether the blessing of Abraham consists not chief in this, that God promised to be a God in Covenant with him, and his Seed? And how are the Believing Gentiles blessed with faithful Abraham, and Heirs of the same Promise, if their Infants are not also comprehended in the same Covenant?  
Q. XX. Whether in that great Promise, 
V p. 126, 127.  Gen. 12.3. Tribes, Kindred's, 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?  
Q. XXI. Whether the second Commandment, 
V p. 135.  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 Commandment belongs? 
V p. 136.  Whether God meaneth not that his Retribution to Parents that love or hate him, shall extend to their children as such; unless they interrupt it at Age by their own Acts; and if to their children quà tales, then whether not to Infants? And when God hath recorded this, decreed, granted, 
V p. 137.  distinguishing mercy to the children of the faithful as such in Tables of Stone, whether it be not a visible notification, which will make them visible Favourites and Church-members as soon as they visibly exist?  
Q. XXII. 
V p. 138.  Whether any without the Church are secured of God's mercy by promise? And whether mercy be not promised to the Children of the Faithful as such? (See Psal. 102.28. and 103.17. Prov. 20.7. Isai. 61.8, 9 and 65.23. etc.)  
Q. XXIII. 
V p. 143.  Whether these Promises in the making of them were limited to a certain time when they were to cease? Or whether they have been since revoked?  
Q. XXIV. 
V p. 146.  If it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken 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 broke them off?  
Q. XXV. 
V p. 146, 147.  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 strangely, 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?  
Q. XXVI. 
V p. 147.  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, 
V p. 147.  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?  
Q. XXVII. Was not Christ's Church, 
V p. 148.  Spiritual before his Incarnation (when it took in Infants) and gathered in a spiritual way? was not the visible frame of the Jewish Church set up and erected by the Father of Spirits, and were not Spiritual Duties commanded then, upon promises of Spiritual Blessings, even life eternal?  
How will any prove that it was a Blemish to the old frame; 
V p. 148.  that Infants were Members? What was the Church the worse for Infants Rights? If it be no blemish, why must it be done away?  
Q. XXVIII. 
V, p, 149.  In what regard were the new frame better, supposing the casting out of Infants, which were in the old? How doth Infants relation detract from its Spirituality? Do not the adult come in by 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 do? Would any Kingdom be more excellent, if all Infants were disfranchised? Does not Nature teach all Kingdoms on Earth to take them for Members, though but Infant-members?  
Q. XXIX. 
V p. 149, 150.  Whether any Jew at age was a Member of the old Church without professing Faith (in the Articles then necessary to Salvation) Repentance and Obedience? And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old; save only that a more full and express Revelation of Christ requireth a more full express Faith? Is it not evident, that they were to profess consent to God's Covenant, which whoso denied Asa would put to death? 
v. p. 4●.  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? 
V p. 78.   
Q. XXX 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? 
V p. 50.  Whether it was not the Duty of the Israelites to engage and devote their children to God in Covenant? Whether this be not evident from the penalty (even to be cut off from his People) annexed for the non-performance? (And whether this be not as much our Duty still?) 
V p. 105.  Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to every one his own due? And are not Infants God's own due? Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God, by acknowledging his right, with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God, as his own; for his use and service, when he is capable thereof? If Infants are not capable of doing (present) Service; yet are they not capable at present of a legal Obligation to future Duty, as also of the relation following the Obligation? 
V p. 49.  And is it not the very nature of our own holy Covenant, that in it we give up to God, ourselves, and all that is ours according to the capacity of the all? Are not Infants capable of Infant-relation, Obligation, and Right? What is it that a sanctified man must not devote to God that is his? 
V p. 308.  Are we allowed to except children? Should not Infants therefore be devoted according to their capacity, which God himself hath expounded? And if Parents may and must devote them privately by heart-consent, 
V p. 106.  will it not follow they must do it publicly in the instituted way?  
Q. XXXI. 
V p. 198, 199.  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?  
Q. XXXII. 
V p. 152.  Is it not a desperate undertaking, and dare any adventure on it, to justify 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, 
V p. 153.  say there is no Transgression? And dare any in like manner undertake to justify 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 entering them into his Covenant as Members of his Church? Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect?  
Q. XXXIII. 
V p. 34, 35.  Is it not a great Benefit, and Privilege 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 itself (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 the contrary state?  
And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit, 
V p. 33.  then how were they that had i●● (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?  
Q XXXIV. Is it not certain, 
V p. 111, 112.  that Infants are capable of this benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged? And is it not certain that they are actually Members of all the Commonwealths in the World? (perfectè, sed imperfecta membra) And does not nature seem actually 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?  
Q. XXXV. 
V p. 113, 114.  Whether according to the tenor 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-sence) 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 themselves in a natural sense, must not the reason, and will of another be theirs in Law-sence, that is, of the Parents, who have the full dispose of them, and are warranted by the Law of nature to choose for them (for their good) till they come to the use of reason themselves?  
Whether in God's acceptance the child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents, and doth not covenant with God, 
V p. 286, 287.  as a child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men, who by his Parents is made a party in a 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, 
V p. 68, 69, 169, 171.  or consent betwixt God and us, yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of Infants, and the adult? Were not the Israelites Infants Church-members, who consented not actually in their own persons, but virtually, and reputatively?  
Q. XXXVI. 
V p. 110, 111.  Whether it be not the duty of Parents by the Law of nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children? The Infant being not sui Juris, but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good, have not the Parent's power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering, that is certainly for their own good? And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly? And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own child? And doth it not deserve to be called, the unthankful Error, that opposeth children's Rights, and Blessings? (V. p. 339.)  
Q. XXXVII. 
V p. 100  Whether it may be thought, or any dare maintain, that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World? Are they all excluded? And why? Are they worse 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, 
V p. 10●.  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?  
Whether they that will lay all the Right of Infants to the pardon of sin, 
V p. 209, 205.  and salvation upon secret election only; as if all that we knew of Infant's salvation were, that God would save some whom he hath elected: but that there is no promise of Grace or Salvation to any particular Infant in the World, as under any condition, or qualification? Whether they must not say, that no Infant hath any Right to Pardon, Grace and Salvation, given him by the Covenant of Grace; no more than any elect person at age hath before Faith and Regeneration? And must they not say too, that we have no assurance that God will save ten or three Infants in all the World? For he hath not told us whether he hath elected so many? Or that they may all, or almost all be saved, while the number of the Elect is unrevealed? Or can they say, that any more of the children of the faithful are saved, than of the Heathens or Infidels; of those that love God and keep his Commandment, than of those that hate him? Yea, how can they have any proper hope upon Covenant-right, that God will save any one Individual Infant in the World? For how can we hope (in this proper sense) of any thing but what we do believe? And how can we believe what is not promised, or revealed? And so must not Parents thus far be left hopeless?  
And if God will save more (yea, 
V p. 205, 206.  so great numbers as we hope are saved in Infancy) than ever he promised to save, and gave any Antecedent Right to Salvation to, whether will it not open such a gap to the hopes of presumptuous Heathens and Infidels this way, as will cross our common Doctrine? As some will say, why may he not do so also by Parents, at least renewing them in transitu?  
And further, 
V p. 1●2.  if God hath given no condition or character Antecedent, as a differencing qualification of those that he will save from those that he will not, but only told us that he will save whom he listeth, whether this maketh not Infants to be no Subjects of his Kingdom, under no Law, and so liable to no Judgement, nor to stand in judgement with the rest of the World, but only to be used as Beasts or Stones, by Divine natural motion as he will? And then if there be no Law that giveth Right to pardon and salvation to any one Infant in the World, and yet many are saved, will it not follow, that God is (as the profane say) better than his word, and will save many to whom he never gave right to it by promise?  
Q. XXXVIII. Though all that are saved, 
V p. 203, 204.  are saved for the meritorious righteousness of Christ, by way of free gift; yet whether the condition be not a suitable 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 Infant's guilt and misery from their Parents? And though life and pardon be by Christ only, yet is it not congruous, that the mere condition of acceptance may be performed by the Parents (while they cannot accept for themselves?)  
Q. XXXIX. 
V p. 106, 107.  (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 children's good, and to prevent their sin and misery; they being thus under a double Obligation, which they may be minded of betimes, and which may hold them more strongly to their duty, and disadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God?  
And may it not do much to awe the minds of children; yea, 
V p. 107.  and cause them to love that Christ which hath received them, and that Society to which they belong? And, is Infant-covenanting any hindrance in Nature, or Reason from personal serious covenanting with God at age? Do we not tell our children and all the adult, that their Infant-covenanting by Parents, will serve them but till they have Reason and will of their own to choose for themselves?  
If it were deferred till ripeness of age would not one part neglect it and continue Infidels; 
V p. 222, 223.  and another part do all formally, as we see they do now at the other Sacrament, where the same Covenant is to be renewed? Is there not a better remedy, that all that are baptised in Infancy should as understandingly, and as seriously, and (if it may be conveniently) as solemnly, own and make that Covenant with God when they come to age, as if they had never been baptised (if not more, as being more obliged?)  
Is it not much liker to tend to the good of Souls, 
V p. 109.  and the propagating Christianity, and the strength of the Church for to have both the obligation and comfort of our Infant-covenant, and Church-state, and as serious a covenanting also at age, when we pass into the Church-state of the Adult; than to be without the former, and left only to the expectation of the latter?  
Whether to be seriously devoted to God by our Parents first, 
V p. 223.  and to be brought at age as seriously to devote ourselves to him, as any Anabaptist can do, be not a much likelier way to fill the Church with serious Christians, than to leave all men without an early Infant-obligation?  
Q. XL. 
V p. 156, 157.  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 were not the facto taken for Members of the Church?  
Q. XLI. Whether it can be proved, 
V p. 157, 104.  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; except the Anabaptists, who reject the benefit, whose case we will not presume to determine?  
Q. XLII. 
V p. 157, 158.  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 Governor of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such Subjects, as in regard of age be disallowed, and suffered his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reasonable, modest, and lawful undertaking, to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new framed Church, as to the age of the Subjects? And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame, as all the Saints of Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptists did attempt an Alteration?  
Q. XLIII. 
V p. 160.  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, (Matth. 23.37.) and that they were broken off by unbelief, 
V p. 143.  and consequently the Seed of Believers not broken off from the Church Universal, and that whole Households are oft said to be baptised, and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy, and that Christ expressly (Matth. 28.) commandeth his Ministers, as much as in them lieth to disciple all Nations baptising them, and that it is prophesied that the Kingdoms of the World shall be made the Kingdoms of Christ, 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; so neither doth he now exclude them?  
And if any will take him for Antichrist that taketh Infants into the visible Church, 
V p. 305.  whether it will not prove to be Christ himself?  
Q. XLIV. 
V p. 209,  In sum, whether 1. God would not have Parents devote their children to him, and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant? 2. Whether also he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him, and be not peculiarly their God, that such children are holy? 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members, according to an Infant capacity, of the visible Church, as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven? 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their Salvation, than of those without? 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their Salvation certain, if they so die? 6. Whether the Investiture and Solemnisation of their Covenant with Christ should not be made in Infancy?  
Whether ever it can be proved, 
V p. 233.  that granting Infants visible Church-membership, yet they are not to be baptised, and that Baptism was appointed for initiating none but adult Members? Whether Baptism be not the common entrance into the Church, and the plain Law of Christ, Matth. 28.19. and the Exposition of the Universal Church doth not stand on Record to confute such an Opinion?  
Q. XLV. 
Preface p. 4.  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.)  
Q. XLVI. 
Preface ib.  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?  
Q. XLVII. 
Preface ib.  And whether if they continue to the World's 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 hardening of the ungodly?  
Q. XLVIII. 
V p. 189.  Whether too many well-meaning, but weak Christians are not disaffected to lawful and warrantable things in the Worship of God, merely because they see such as are ungodly use and own them? And whether if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers that were against Infant-baptism, and singing of Psalms, etc. 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?  
Q. XLIX. Whether Mr. Baxter in the second and third part of that his second Defence of our Infant's 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. wiles is fully stuffed?  
Q. L. 
V p. 228, 229.  Whether the Anabaptists Schism, or Separation from Communion with our Churches be not worse (yet) than their simple Opinion? And whether it be not desirable, and possible, that some way be found out, and terms laid down in which good and sober men on both sides would agree and hold Communion? As v. g. If the Anabaptists would consent to, and profess as followeth, or to this sense: Though we judge Infant-baptism dssonant from Christ's instituted Order, yet finding that God hath made many Promises to the Seed of the Faithful above others, and that Christ expressed his readiness to receive little Children when they were brought to him for his Blessing, and knowing that all Christian Parents should earnestly desire that their Children may be the Children of God through Christ, and should devote them to him, as far as is in their power, and knowing that there are difficulties about the extent of this Power, and Christ's Promises; we do here solemnly profess, that we thankfully desire all those Mercies for this Child which God hath promised to such in his Word; and that we hearty offer, devote and dedicate this Child to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as far as he hath given us power to do it, beseeching him accordingly to accept him: And we promise faithfully to endeavour to educate him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and as we are able to persuade him when he is capable, to believe in Christ, and solemnly devote himself to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Baptism. If thus much were done in the Church, or so openly as may satisfy the Church, that they are not despisers of God's mercies, nor of their children's Souls: And much more, if those that profess that they cannot satisfy their Consciences in their Infant-baptism, 
V p. 230. 231.  would but do as the Liturgy doth by those whose Baptism is uncertain, [If thou be not baptised, I baptise thee,] and so would say, [Being uncertain whether my Infant-baptism be valid, if it be not I now receive that which is.] And when they have satisfied their Consciences, would live quietly in the Love and Communion of the Church, who would not receive them, though we approve not of their way?  
And should not we be willing to give satisfaction by such an answerable profession as this? Though it be our Judgement that Infants have ever been Members of God's visible Church, since he had a Church and there were Infants in the World, and do believe that Christ hath signified in the Gospel that it is his gracious will, that they should still be so, and that he hath made Baptism the regular orderly way of solemn entrance into a visible Church-state; and therefore we devote this Child to God in the Baptismal Covenant: yet we do also hold, that when he cometh to age, it will be his duty as seriously and devoutly to make this Covenant with God understandingly himself, and to dedicate himself to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as those must do that never were baptised in Infancy: And we promise to endeavour faithfully as we have opportunity, to instruct and persuade him so to do, hoping that this his early Baptismal Dedication and Obligation to God, will rather much prepare him for it, than hinder it.  
Whether might not some such Professions put off the chief matter of Offence and Exception against each other, as to the ill consequents of our Opinions? and would not sober good men by such a mutual approach, be more disposed to live together in Love and Holy Peace (which we should all pray for, and what in us lieth, as far as possibly we can, promote?)  
FINIS.