THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT Infant's Church-Membership and BAPTISM, Epitomised.  
In two TREATISES.  
The First, Showing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants, against the Doctrine of the Paedo-Baptists, who deny Salvation to all Infants that die Unbaptised, either directly, or by the natural Consequence of their Arguments.  
The Second, Being a plain Confutation of Mr. J. B. his second Book of more than 60 Queries, about Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism, by a proportionable number of Antiqueries.  
Being an Essay towards a more Christian Accommodation between the Paedo-Baptists, and the Baptised Believers. Published for that happy end.  
By THOMAS GRANTHAM, Author of The Querist Examined: wherein Fifty Queries gathered and propounded by the said J. B. are Redargued.  
Mr. Baxter tells us (in his Saints Rest, p. 179. 3 d Edit.) That in the Primitive Times, none were Baptised without an express Covenanting, wherein they renounced the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey Him.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1680.   

To Mr. J. B. Collector of the Queries, etc.  
SIR,  
I Shall here requite your Thanks you gave me in your last, by returning Thanks to you for your endeavours for Peace among differing Christians, and particularly for the terms propounded for an Accommodation; and I find the same delivered lately by Mr. Baxter himself, for which I return him thanks also; For methinks there wants but a little more than is offered towards the obtaining so much Union between the Baptists, and Paedo-Baptists, as might make them a great Blessing one to another.  
But Sir, now give me leave to blame you (and Mr. Baxter also) for misrepresenting your Friends, the Baptised Churches: Whilst you in your Epistle, and he in his Books, do represent us to the World, as a People who exclude Infants from Gospel Grace; deny them to be capable of Pardon by a gracious Covenant; as if we left all Infants in the Kingdom of the Devil, took away all Comfort from Parents concerning their dying Infants. When yet it is most certain, all these things are utterly untrue; and it is also certain, that our Doctrine concerning dying Infants, is far more comfortable than yours, as I am persuaded will appear to such as read the ensuing Treatises.  
And I am also persuaded, could there be once a free and friendly Debate between the Baptists and Pedo Baptists, about Infant's interest in the Covenant of Grace, and the certainty of their Salvation by Christ; without encumbering that Discourse with Baptism, it were easy to compose their Difference in that Point. Which done, it's hoped might be no impossible thing to accommodate their difference in the case of Baptism itself. But whilst these two things are confounded, Disputes are Perplexed, in so much as that a right understanding can hardly be attained on either side. Nor do many Readers understand what Mr. B. means, when he would have Infants admitted Members of the Visible Church by the Law of Infant's Church-Membership unrepealed, any more than they know what is intended on Mr. 't's. part, by their being taken to be Members by a Transient Fact; both passages being too occult for every Reader.  
Sir, let me say this farther, Can but the Reformed Christians once get over this stumbling-block of Paedo-Rantism, and resolve upon the way of Believers Baptism, which is so perspicuous in the Scripture, and in the mean time take the most solemn way (which might be warrantable) to dedicate their Infants to God in the Name of Christ; It would certainly prove the best Expedient to bring down the Papal Confidence: for as they know (and acknowledge) that usage to stand upon the authority of Tradition, and not upon the Scripture Warrant, so they glory over the Protestant for his Inconstancy, in denying unwritten Tradition, and yet their very Baptism hath no other Foundation: But were the Doctrine of Baptism purged from this Leven, and restored to its Primitive Purity, it would find all the Universities of the Papists as much business to defend their Infant Sprinkling, as ever they were at to defend their Transubstantiation.  
What you writ concerning my Querist Examined, I shall take little Notice of, especially for that I find it attended with overmuch Levity; and at the most is but a kind of Carping at Words, rather than a solid Answer; and there seems to me an unwillingness in you to understand what you flirt at, about the Messenger's Office, and about Imposition of Hands, which being no Scriptureless Matters (as your Paedo-Rantism is) requires your more serious thoughts, whether you understand, or like my Sentiments there or not. I am your Real Friend,  
THO. GRANTHAM.   

The Controversy of Infant's Church-Membership, and Baptism Epitomised. The first Treatise showing the certainty of the Salvation of all Dying Infants.  

SECTION I.  
IT is evident by the Writings of many Paedo-Baptists, both Papists, Prelatists, and Presbyterians, that they do all either hold absolutely that no Unbaptized Infant can be saved, or at least that their Salvation is very doubtful. And among these Mr. Baxter, and from him Mr. J. B. hath not a little amused the Minds of Men about this Matter. Only they have used a more subtle way, coupling the Church-Membership of Infants with Baptism, confounding thereby the Readers and themselves too, they not being able to say which hath the Precedency: for if Infants be Church-Members without, or before they be Baptised; let them say so, and let them prove it well, I shall be glad to see it done. But then let them never say, as Mr. J. B. doth, in his Epistle, and Mr. Baxter in his Books, That Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation; that Parents can have no comfort of their dying Children, Making Baptism the sovereign Antidote against their Griefs and Fears, when they are removed in Infancy. As will appear more fully in the Examination of the Queries in the second Treatise.  
Now this new art of pleading for Infant-Baptism by virtue of their Church-Membership (and not from the Scriptures directly, as others have assayed to do, but could never perform the Task, and therefore have been forced to take sanctuary with the Papists in unwritten Traditions, and that with ill success) I say, considering this new Subtlety of Mr. Baxter, I perceived the Controversy to rise very high, and Questions thereupon to be greatly multiplied, especially upon the Point of Infant's Church-Membership. Hereupon I thought it needful to consider this Matter, for I perceived very good Men engaged on both sides, and, as I conceive, much more straining in the Point than needed, by which means the Reader shall sooner fill his Head with amazement than satisfaction, in tracing the several wind of their Disputations.  
Nor do I think myself wiser than they, but having the advantage to stand and view whilst they engage, I hope I have thereby been led to the consideration of a Medium, which if duly considered, and improved by better Pens than mine, will (I am much persuaded) reconcile the difference about Infants visible Church-Membership. And yet I do not at all doubt, that Infant-Baptism will remain without any ground at all.   

SECT. II.  
And this I shall demonstrate, by showing, That all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation, and so of the Universal Church of God, and cannot be put out of that blessed state, till by their voluntary departure from God, by choosing sinful ways, they destroy themselves. And here we will make our entrance by a passage out of Mr. Baxter himself, who saith▪ All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace, which is not vain nor repealed by God; But as their abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out. For as a Covenant of entire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam, 
Mr. Baxter's more Reasons, pag. 8. 6.  so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed, and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah.  
Now this Doctrine being no more than plain truth, we shall apply it to the case in hand, by showing, First, That this Covenant of Grace, was a visible Church-Covenant. 2. That it was made with all Mankind, and takes place in their Infancy. 3. That it was never repealed by God. 4. That no Infant did ever abuse the Grace of this Covenant. And therefore, no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant. And then fifthly, They all stand visible Members of the Catholic Church by virtue of this Covenant, however their Parents do abuse, or neglect it; and hence it will follow, no dying Infant is Damned, but are all in a visible state of Salvation.  
1. That this Covenant of Grace, first expressed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant, or else there was no Church-Covenant in the World, that we read of, from Adam to Noah, this being indeed all the Covenant that is named, during these Times, besides that Covenant of Entire Nature made before the Fall. And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam, and in him by all his Posterity, it being not a Covenant of Grace, could not justify the Offenders in the ●ight of God. There must therefore be some supervening Act of Grace, or Mercy from God, else Adam (even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins) must have stood under Condemnation for ever, seeing no Man could by any means redeem his Brother, nor give to God a Ransom for him.  
It is the received Doctrine of Christians that the Visible Church began in Adam, and that his Family was the Church, wherefore the whole World being then the Church, and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World, that was to proceed from Adam, and this Covenant yet remaining; it follows against all contradiction, that whole Mankind, considered as they come into the World in all the several Ages of it, are in a visible state of Salvation, and so of the Catholic Church of God.  
But whereas many did Apostatise from the Grace of God's Covenant, by corrupting his way, Gen. 6. 12. It was necessary that they should be ejected, and therefore was the Covenant accommodated, and appropriated to those who had not sinned themselves out of it; but still the Innocent must not be ejected with the Nocent: for it is he only that sinneth, whose Name shall be blotted out of the Book which God hath written, Gen. 32. 32, 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah, in settling the Covenant of his Grace, nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham, was exclusive of any Infant in the World, as to the Grace of God in order to Eternal Life, no more than the establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel, in a far more excellent order for distinguishing the Precious from the Vile, is in any wise exclusive of any dying Infant; for of such is the Kingdom of God. Nor can any Man show either by Scripture or Reason, that God will shut out all the dying Infants of wicked Men, from Life and Salvation by Christ, no nor so much as any one of them; for we are sure that the Judgement of God is according to truth, that the Judge of all the Earth will do right. That the Condemned shall be judged according to the deeds done in the Body; but alas, as for poor Infants, what have they done?  
2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind, is thus cleared, because it was made with Adam, without the least intimation of the exclusion of any part of his Posterity (as they proceed from him) to the end of the World; neither hath God himself explained the Covenant of Grace to be Exclusive of any, but for the cause of their own iniquity; and this was evident first in the case of Cain, who not being faithful in his offering was not accepted. Yet God was pleased to show him the cause, Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? It should seem God never rejected him till this time, neither did he now delight to reject him, but graciously expostulates with Cain, to convince him of his evil, and assures him of acceptation if he did well. If then Cain had an interest in the Grace of God, who can we suppose to be shut out, till they with Cain shut themselves out of it?  
Evident it is that the Covenant of Grace extended to those Rebels in the Old World, because we read the long suffering of God waited on them, and he gave them time of Repentance, and sent a Preacher of Righteousness (even the Righteousness of Faith) among them, Heb. 11. 7. 2 Pet. 2. 5. therefore it is said, Christ went by his Spirit and preached to them, 1 Pet. 3. though none of them believed his Word. Now such Acts on God's part are great Evidences of his Graciousness towards Men, and shows that he remembers his Covenant, made in Christ with them, even for them that rebel against him, and so perish. And then how shall we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants, who never rebelled against him?  
3. The Covenant of Grace was never repealed by God; for if it be, there is now no Covenant at all; nor can it be repealed to one Man, but it must be repealed to all Men. 'Tis true, Men may forfeit the Mercy held forth in that Covenant, but the Covenant cannot be repealed, for then there can be no certainty of any Mercy for Sinners; Christ himself may as soon be made Null, as this Covenant. For what if some Apostatise, or do not believe, shall this make the Grace of God without effect? God forbidden. When we continually see that Covenant of God's Grace displayed, making overtures of kindness to Sinners (even to the chief of Sinners) what shall we say, if any Infant be without a part in that Covenant? Is he not then the chief of Sinners? It is not then the Sin of Parents that can repeal the Covenant of Grace with respect to Infants.  
4. No Infants did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam, Gen. 3. 15. therefore no Infant was cast out of it.  
Although it is most true, that Original Sin is come upon Infants, and Death by Sin; yet this is as true, that Original Sin was not committed against the Covenant of Grace, and therefore Infants are not guilty of any Sin committed against the Covenant of Grace, and consequently are not deprived of the benefit of it. Otherwise if the Sin of Subsequent Parents should make void the Grace of the second Covenant to their Infants, as the Sin of Adam made his Posterity guilty of the breach of the first Covenant; we may then justly cry out, Who then can be saved? And therefore was our Saviour the Mediator of the New Testament, for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament, Heb. 9 15. Wherefore seeing Infants stand acquitted from the Trespasses against the First Testament, and having not sinned against the Grace of the Second Testament, they cannot come into the Condemnation of Hellish Torments. The Papists themselves, as 
* Witness the Massacre in Ireland.  Cruel as they sometimes are to the Bodies of Infants, yet are more merciful to their Souls than the Presbyterians: For they say, That Infants shall only suffer the punishment of Loss, but not of Torment. Whilst the other tells the World, Infants of a Span long are yelling in the flames of Hell.  
5. That all dying Infants (or Infants in general) are to be accounted Members of the vast Body (or Catholic Church) of which Christ is the Saviour finally, is evident, because they are all in a visible state of Salvation: And I think no Man will deny the Catholic Church to contain the whole number of the saved; I have nothing more to do therefore but to prove all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation, which I shall further clear, by answering what is objected against their Salvation, by Mr. J. B. my present Adversary, who saith, Page 9   

SECT. III.  
I gave you thanks before for some things before granted concerning Infants, and I here promise more thanks if you will prove the same of all Infants.  
Answer. When I speak of the Right which Infants have to Life by Christ, I intent it only of that Right derived to them by the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. wherein they are equally concerned, and so have the same Right. And I hope you will not say that any Infant did forfeit this gracious Right by abusing the Grace of the Covenant. And then Mr. B. tells you the Covenant is not vain, nor repealed by God, nor they cast out of it.  
My Proves are such as these: Infants are either all Saved, (dying such) or some of them are Damned. But none of them are Damned, therefore they are all Saved. See more of this anon.  
2. Our Saviour saith, It is not the Will of his Heavenly Father, that one of those little ones should perish; which is certainly as true of Infants, as of any Persons in the World.  
3. Christ dying for all Infants, and they do not sin themselves out of the benefit of his Death. Shortly thus, God will not Damn any (not not one) of these little ones; Men and Devils cannot Damn them; they cannot Damn themselves. Ergo, Christ's dying for them will save them all. See the conclusion of this Treatise.   

SECT. FOUR  
J. B. Pag. 11. The overthrow of both these Generations in the Deluge, is a strange Medium to prove the Salvation of all Infants, etc.  
Answer, I do not say, that God's destroying the Infants of those that were called his Sons, Gen. 6. as well as the Infants of others, was an Evidence of God's saving any of them: But this I do say, That it was an Evidence that they were all in one State, or Predicament. And how would you (or any Body else) prove so much as one Infant in all the Old World was saved eternally, better than I shall prove the Salvation of them all? And shall we suffer it to enter into our Hearts, that they were all Damned? When therefore we read, 2 Pet. 2. 5. That God brought the Flood upon the World of the ungodly. And Judas, ver. 7. 'tis said of those who suffered the Vengeance of Eternal Fire, That they were given over to Fornication, and went after strange Flesh; may we not perceive some Light which may guide us to believe, that God did not plead in such Wrath against the Infant-seed, as he did against the Wicked themselves? And though it is true, God suffered the Infants to die with the wicked Parents, yet that is no Argument of God's condemning them to Hell Torments: For did not the same God suffer his Servant Samson. to die by the fall of the Theatre, among the wicked Philistines? And we see the Righteous often taken away by the same common Calamities which have befallen Nations and Cities. Let us remember how tender the Lord was of the Infants in Nineveh; and it may convince us he was tender to Infants in the Old World: And he that made those little ones an Argument to justify his sparing Nineveh, (against the murmuring of Jonah) would certainly make that an Argument for us to believe, That had his Judgements proceeded against that City according to the Prophecy of Jonah, yet he would have distinguished between the Innocent and the Nocent, in respect to their future State and Condition; for it was not the Wickedness of the Infants which cried to Heaven, but of the Adult.  
When we consider how hardly Almighty God was drawn to inflict those Judgements upon men's Bodies (though grievous Sinners) in the Old World, in Sodom, Gen. 18. and frequently where we read of the Execution of his Judgements, it may justly seem very strange, that Men should think that God can be so easily provoked to damn Infants to Hell Torments for him (I say) to damn poor Infants in Eternal Fire, who was so hardly drawn to Inflict on the Ninevites Children so much as a Temporal Judgement! Nay, he is unwilling to destroy the very  for Man's Sin, Jonah 4. which are only capable of Temporal Punishment. And can it become us to think that God will send Millions, or any poor dying Babes to Hell? And pray what have they done thus highly to stir up his Wrath against them? Show the Cause if you can.  
J. B. To the Text, Rom. 5. The Free-gift abounded towards all Men to Justification of Life. You answer, This all must be restrained to all in Christ.  
But by your favour, There is none so out of Christ as they come into the World, but God hath provided Mercy for them in Christ, John 1. 29. so that here is no restraint of the Justification here spoken of, till Men abuse the Mercy of God by sinning against their own Souls. Nor can your restriction [which I suppose would limit this Free-gift to the Elect only] hold agreement with the scope of the place; for seeing Mankind, or all Men, are Personated as well in the second, as in the First Adam, 
* The Law entered, that Sin might abound; but where Sin abounded, Grace did much more abound. That, as Sin hath reigned unto Death, even so might Grace reign through Righteousness unto Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord.  You can no more exclude any from the Justification of Life [as having abounded towards them by Christ] than you can exclude them from the Condemnation [which abounded towards all Men] by the First Adam; For tell me, How many came under Condemnation by the Sin of Adam? Is there any (or any Infant) that can plead Impunity? Why even so, saith the Apostle, the Free-gift came upon all Men to Justification of Life.  
And may we not now safely conclude, that had Mankind never been guilty of any other Sin, but that (I say, upon a supposition, that Adam and his Posterity, had from the time of the Promise, Gen. 3. 15. lived holily, and done no Iniquity) would you not conclude with me, that none should have perished in Hellish Torments? And if you grant this, than we must either find some Man, SO concerned in the Covenant of Grace, AS, that if he sinned against it, his Posterity is condemned with him Eternally; as all Adam's Posterity were exposed to Condemnation for his Sin: Or else we must hold, that no Infant shall die eternally for Adam's, nor for any other Persons iniquity. If you name any Man thus concerned in the Covenant of Grace, you can name none so apt for the purpose as Adam, seeing we were all in him when that Covenant was made with him, and there is no doubt but that he sinned after the Covenant was made, Gen. 3. 15. Yet where do we find any Sin which he afterward committed, imputed to any part of his Posterity? And seeing we cannot prove an Universal Resurrection from 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. unless Mankind be equally concerned in the Death of Christ. We must necessarily believe whole Mankind to be interessed in him, and as they are interessed in Christ they are saved of the Lord; and in him they are as clearly interessed in God's Mercy, as they were Objects of his Wrath by the first Man: So being justified from the guilt of Adam's Transgression, who shall lay any thing to the charge of poor Infants, that may justly cast them into Hell Fire? sure 'tis but meet Men should be able plainly to Convict them, before they thus Condemn them. Yea, you that hold the Eternal Damnation of Infants, ought you not to bring substantial Proof for so dreadful a Doctrine? And when you have done your worst that way, you have only destroyed your own certainty of Comfort concerning your dying Infants; for I am persuaded you are not so unwise to think (whatever you make others believe) that your Infants are therefore saved because of your pretended Church-Membership and Baptism; seeing 'tis too evident that many attain to that Estate, and yet are unlikely to be saved.   

SECT. V  
J. B. pag. 13.— To assert the Salvation of all that die in Infancy, seems to imply that God's destroying the Old World and Sodom, etc. were eminent Acts of God's Mercy rather than of Justice, etc. help me over this Difficulty.  
Answ. Although it is not unjust for God to take Infants out of the World, yet his Justice in destroying the Old World and Sodom, lay not against the Infants (as I proved in the Section next before) but in Justice he punished those wicked Parents in putting a period to their Posterity. Did not God in the days of Noah, destroy all Beasts and Fowls (almost)? yet who so weak to think he was offended with them, was the Lord angry with the Beasts of the Field?  
God was just in taking away David's Child, 2 Sam, 12. 14, yet who so rash to say, That God did this in point of Justice against the Child? Or that God was angry with the Child? much less that the Child was damned. David was far from any such opinion; for though that Child was conceived and born in Sin and Iniquity, as much as well could be, and doubtless had the imputation of Original Sin, as much as any, yet David nothing feared that Child's damnation, but rather intimates his confidence of its Salvation, when he said, I shall go to it. For had it gone to Hell Torments, he would not have comforted himself with thoughts of going to it.  
I cannot make your speech to agree with the Justice of God, where you say, That Infants perish not purely for another's Sin, but for their own contracted. For though I can hear Men talk big words against Infants, as if they were little better than Devils, yet I never saw any proof that any Infant had any Sin of its own, for which you would here make them perish, or at least some of them; The Scripture saith, Sin is the transgression of a Law, and tells us also, that where no Law is there is NO TRANSGRESSION. You must therefore either show some Law to be given to Infants, or else you cannot make them guilty, of any Sin of their own. And though I have not seen Mr. Baxter's Book to which you refer me, yet I do not deny Original Sin, for I know it is come upon all Adam's Posterity, and Death passeth upon them, for that all have sinned in him. Howbeit, I do believe that all Infants are as clearly justified from the condemning power of Sin, in respect of Damnation, as any Saint whatsoever, which I think I have also proved from John 1. 29. and other places. And seeing you now grant that none shall perish purely for another's Sin, it remains for you to show what Sin (excepting Adam's) is come upon any Infant, to render him subject to Damnation. You talk of their Contracting Sin of their own, but I am to learn how this can be truly said of them, that neither Act, nor consent to Sin at all; and surely such Scriptureless Notions are fit to be exploded than embraced.  
And though you seem to have some Charity for those, and their Seed, that only come up to the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah (though they never heard the Gospel) whilst you say, you do not rank them with Infidels. Yet this is but a slender kindness, you do not say they shall be saved. And you are positive in this, That Infants are not saved by the Covenant of Grace, if they neither be Believers, nor the Seed of such, Page 17.  
How this Doctrine will stand with the justice of a Gracious God, I cannot conceive; when I consider that God hath neither given to Infants a capacity to believe, nor any liberty to choose whether they will be the Seed of Believers, or Unbelievers. Will you yet say, the most High will be more harsh in the Acts of Justice, than the Rules will bear which he hath given to Men, Deut. 22. 25, 26?  
It is not the part of a wise Legislator (saith a learned Man of the Church of England) to recede from his own Laws, much less to destroy them by acting contrary to them. It must be a fault then, in you thus to represent the God of Justice; Is the Covenant of Grace set upon such a tickle point, as that the greatest part of Infants cannot possibly have any benefit by it? So you teach who affirm they cannot be saved by the Covenant of Grace, unless they be Believers, or the Seed of such. Why call you a Covenant made on such terms, a Covenant of Grace to Infants? Sure impossible Terms in a Covenant are not very gracious. You would condemn this in Men, you would not accept such terms of Man, especially when the nonobservance of such Terms took away the benefit of the Covenant; yet thus you make many believe, that God deals with the greatest part of Infants. But I shall return to your former Instances of God's Justice against Infants (as you would have it) to wit, the destruction of the Old World and Sodom.   

SECT. VI  
The taking away by Death the Infants in the Old World and Sodom, is neither an instance of Justice nor Mercy in the main to Infants, any more than the taking away thousands of Infants daily by death throughout the World. For when ever they die, they are taken away from the evil to come, and so it is always a Mercy; and so it was a Mercy to the Infants of the Old World, and the Innocents' in Sodom. But when ever they are taken away, we know it is for Sin, even that of Adam, and sometimes their death is hastened for the Sin of the Parents (as in the case of David's Child before mentioned, as well as the Old World, etc.) and thus their being taken away is always a Judgement. And the Judgement lieth much in this, that men's Posterity is hereby either quite cut off, or greatly weakened; and thus the Old World and Sodom were punished, in that they were deprived of all Succession.  
And though it be true (as you urge) That if these Infants in the Old World and Sodom had lived to Age, many of them might have been Damned for wickedness. Yet to balance that, it is as true, that a far greater Multitude in a few Generations, both of Infants and others, which might have proceeded from them, might have been saved; so that though we have no ground to doubt of the Salvation of the dying Infants in the Old World, and Sodom, yet we may see a most just Judgement of the Lord executed in both.  
Of the same consideration is your Instance of Countries and Cities Destroyed and Depopulated by Tyrannical Princes, Pag. 14. For what it the French King (as you writ) should destroy all the Infants of the Pagans, with the Adult, it neither follows that here is not a Judgement from God in all this, neither yet that God hath no Mercy for those Infants. But pray consider, whilst we all condemn such a Tyrant, as should so barbarously Murder so many Innocents', we may by no means say, or think, that a Gracious God, will now, when the Tyrant hath murdered them, take and cast them into Hell-fire; for he is a God that delights in Mercy. But here you cry out, Had the World your Light and Knowledge, they ought not to be sorry for the spoiling of their Countries, but rejoice that all their little Ones are saved.  
But this is a non-sequiter: For no Man may do Evil that Good may come: and let us not murmur against God, who when Men have done their worst, he knows how to prevent that which might be far worse than the worst they can do to Infants: And though I may be satisfied that my dead Child, or Friend, is gone to Heaven, yet I may lawfully be sorry for his Death.   

SECT. VII.  
J. B. Pag. 15. And what shall we make of Ephes. 2. 3. & ver. 12. And were by Nature Children of Wrath, even as others. That at that time you were without Christ,— without Hope. If there be no ground to doubt the Salvation of their Infants, is there not some hope?  
Answ. I grant that all Adam's Posterity, with himself, were Children of Wrath; and take that Wrath in as large a sense as you please, it hurts not my Cause at all, seeing it is evident that Christ abolished that Wrath and Death, and brought Life and Immortality to light by the Gospel, which he preached to whole Adam, Gen. 3. 15. and then took whole Adam into his Grace and Favour; so that till they, or any of them become the Serpent's seed, they stand in a state of Favour and Grace, which shall deliver them from Wrath and Death. And it is most certain no Infant is the Serpent's seed, it being out of his power to beget them to be his Offspring, seeing they are out of the reach of his Temptations during Infancy.  
Howbeit, this place Ephes. 2. is best interpreted, of the Adult, or grown Persons: For those of whom it is said, They were without Hope, etc. it is said, they were dead in Trespasses and Sins, and walked according to the course of this World, according to the Prince of the power of the Air, which now worketh in the hearts of the Children of Disobedience; such as had their Conversation in the lusts of their Flesh, fulfilling the desires of the Flesh and of the Mind, and (SO) were by Nature the Children of Wrath. But what is all this to the innocent Babes of the Gentiles, they were not thus the Children of Wrath, No, nor out of the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam, having never abused the Grace of that Covenant, so that here was Hope (or ground of Hope) concerning the dying Infants of the Gentiles, whether their Parents understood it or not, but no hope concerning themselves, considered in their wicked Courses.  
Neither could the Hope of these Gentiles when they believed concerning their Infants, stand upon the same grounds, on which their own Hopes was founded; seeing, these were saved through Faith, and built up an Habitation of God through the Spirit. Only this is very true, They now understood the riches of God's Grace to Mankind, and that God had pity for them when they were dead in Trespasses and Sins, and therefore they could not rationally doubt of his good will towards their dying Infants; for still his unwillingness to destroy the actual Sinner, is argument enough that he will never destroy the innocent Child eternally.  
What hope there is of all Infants entering into Heaven (however it may be hid from the Pagans) is evident enough from our Saviour's Speech, Except ye be converted, and become as little Children, ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Now suppose I take the Infant of a Jew or Pagan for my pattern, and labour that my Conversion may answer to such a precedent in point of Innocency, Humility and Simplicity, will not this as well accord with the intent of our Saviour's Words, as if I took the Child of a Christian for my pattern? Certes it would; and indeed our Saviour here speaks as much for our comfort concerning all little children's capacity to enter into Heaven, as for any one of them. As also when the Apostle exhorts us as touching Malice, to be as Children, does he not hereby justify the whole in that state of Childhood to be devoid of that evil? And why even of ourselves do we not judge what is right? Can any Man from the beginning to this Day, bring the least charge against an Infant, much less against one Infant more than another? unless God by Miracle shows some special Power upon them, no difference can be seen in them in point of Innocency.   

SECT. VIII.  
J. B. But have you not forgotten that you told us, you do not doubt but the Promises made to the Seed of the Righteous, and the Promises of showing Mercy to the Children of them that love God, etc. remain unrevoked?  
Answ. I have not forgotten that, but do still believe that there are many more Blessings pertaining to the Seed of the Righteous (according to the Texts by you alleged) than to others. And that they may be the better considered, I will set that down in Words, which you writ in Figures. Psal. 102. 28. The Children of thy Servants shall continue, and their Seed shall be established before thee. This had doubtless been the Portion of the Sons of God in the days of Noah, had they not sinned with the rest of Mankind. Psal. 103. 17. But the Mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting to them that fear him, and his Righteousness to children's Children, to them that keep his Covenant, and remember his Commandments to do them. Prov 20. 7. The Just walketh in his Integrity, his Children are blessed after him.  
Now what do these places prove? Surely nothing less, than that no Infants but the Infants of Believers shall be saved, and if not, how do these places suit your case? They prove indeed that God will bless the Posterity of his faithful Servants, if they keep his Covenant, and remember to do his Commandments; and I think David well expounds this place in Psal. 37. 25. I have been Young, and now am Old; yet did I never see the Righteous forsaken, nor their Seed begging their Bread.  
And yet I grant (though you prove it not) that there are many other advantages (even in Infancy) attends the Seed of the Righteous, they being a Seed of many Prayers, and devoted to God from the Womb, as far as their pious Parents has authority to do it (which I have more fully set down in my Book of Primitive Christianity, L. 2. P. 5, 6.) whiles God knows others are destitute of these Blessings, being Crossed and Exorcised, etc. among the Papists, and offered to Molech among the Jews; and the like among the Heathens. And yet for all this I can see no ground to think that the Righteous God will punish with Hell Torments those dying Infants, for the wrong which their Parents have done them. It being to me inconceivable, how it can stand with his glorious Attributes, either of Mercy or Justice, both which must have effect upon these Infants. His Justice hath effect upon them; that is evident, in their Death, Sickness, and Diseases (and the like befalls our Infants); now either his Mercy must have effect upon them in the next World, or not at all, and if not in that World, how then shall that saying hold true, His tender Mercies are over all his Works?   

SECT. IX.  
J. B. You would not have the blessing of Abraham (as it concerns Eternal Life) to reach to the Infants of the Gentiles which believe not, because Gal. 3. 14. it's said to come upon the Gentiles by Faith.  
Answ. I told you that the Blessing, in respect of Eternal Life, was not peculiar to Abraham and his Seed, but was made as well to Adam and his Seed, and so common to Mankind, and may well be called the Common Salvation, being derived from Christ, promised Gen. 3. 15. (before Abraham was) who is therefore the Saviour of all Men. Indeed Abraham, and so all Believers, have some things in special, and which are peculiar to them, as a People engaged in the duties of Religion, 
* See and consider Rom. 3. 1, 2.  whilst the Unbeliever is under the sentence of Wrath, because he neglects so great Salvation, Heb. 2. 2, 3, 4. But all this injures not dying Infants who neglect not this Salvation, and so forfeit not their right to that common Salvation obtained by Christ for Mankind.  
In Gal. 3. 14. the Apostle speaks of the Promise of the Spirit, which as it concerns the Church under the establishment of the second Covenant, concerns not Infants, it being understood of a greater measure of Wisdom, and Power, to walk in the Paths of Righteousness, than was ordinary under the former Testament, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 2, 3, 5, 7. Gal. 5. 25.  
Nor can you (with any show of Reason) say that I make the Salvation of Infants run in a Fleshly Line, when I derive it only from the Freegrace of God manifested in the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World, to take away the Sin of the World. Nor do I consider Adam as in a state of Nature, but as under a Covenant of Grace, from whom the second Adam must in time proceed as touching the Flesh, and therefore his Descent is reckoned from him, Luke 3. 23. to the end. In this second Adam, the Repairer of Mankind, do I place the Salvation of all Men; and of the Infant Race, I say, seeing they never sinned against the second Covenant, nor can any other sin them out of the Mercy of God; their title to that Grace being not tied to Man's Will, it follows that they shall not be hurt of the second Death: Show the contrary if you can.  
To what you say about God▪ s putting the Salvation of Infants out of his own Hand. I say, That though he put the Salvation of no Creature out of his own Hand, according to my opinion, yet when he stretcheth forth his Hand to Gain-sayers, as Rom. 10. and gives them the Word of Life, and they put it from them, Acts 13. 46. then Men may truly be said to have a Prize in their Hand, and to put it from them, even the Salvation of their Souls. And then I pray you consider, that if their putting Salvation from them be equally, or really a putting it from their Infants (as that must be your opinion, or else we differ not) than I say, according to your opinion, God suffers Men to damn poor Infants whom he would save, seeing (according to your Doctrine) had their Parents believed, their Infants had been in the Covenant of Grace, but now for their Father's Sin (for what you say of their own Sin contracted is but a Fable) they are left by you in the Kingdom of the Devil, and that among the Devil and his Angels for ever. And here it is that I oppose you, as greatly erring from the Truth, and this Error was that which first brought in your Pedo-baptism; as may be seen in the Decree made by the African Council, 
† The words of the Council are these, All that affirm young Children receive Eternal Life, albeit they be not by Baptism renewed, they are accursed, etc.  where Augustine was present and Precedent. Wherefore, remove but this Error, and the other will presently vanish.   

SECT. X.  
The Sum of this Controversy.  
I will finish this Discourse by setting down certain Propositions, which contain the whole Controversy; and which I hope will carry so much Light and Evidence in them, as may tend much to the satisfaction of the Reader. The thing to be cleared is this, viz.  
That no dying Infants are Damned, or all dying Infants are Saved. Which will thus be made good.  

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

2. No Man can damn Infants.  
This is evident; because if any Man have power to damn Infants, every Man hath the same, for it cannot be proved the peculiar power (whether good or bad) of any Man. And if any will say, that every Man hath power to damn his Children, he speaks presumptuously; there is nothing in the Word of God to countenance such a Doctrine: for the contrary is plain, Jer. 31. 30. Every one shall die for his own iniquity. This is meant (or is most true) of Eternal Death, because we all die the first Death for the Sin of another, to wit, Adam; and though this saying be true of the Adult, yet it is the more to our purpose, because if God be so gracious to actual Sinners as not to damn them for the Sin of another, there is all the ground imaginable to believe that he will be as gracious to Infants.   

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

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

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

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

7. All dying Infants are written in the Book of Life from the Foundation of the World, therefore no dying Infants are Damned.  
The Omniscient God knew as well the Date of all men's Lives, as that they should be born or live at all, and therefore did he know who would die in Infancy, as well as who would live to years of Knowledge. Admitting then their opinion to be true, That hold a certain number ordained to Life from the Foundation of the World, yet we doubt not but to make good this Proposition, and that by the Text, Rev. 20. 12. as expounded by themselves. For by the Books, out of which the Damned are judged, is understood the Actions of Men, even the most secret, which shall then be laid open. Now these Books cannot concern Infants, they having done neither good nor evil. Here is therefore another Book opened, which (say they) represents the everlasting Election to Life and Glory in Christ. In this Book must all dying Infants either be found written, or else be Judged without Book. The Book of Conscience will not accuse them, therefore the Lamb's Book of Life must needs acquit them.   

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

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

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

THE QUERIST EXAMINED.  
The Second Part.  
WHEREIN More than Sixty Queries, taken out of the Works of Mr. R. Baxter, by J. B. (the Author of Fifty former Queries) are Refuted, BY A proportionable Number of Antiqueries.  
SHOWING The Insufficiency of the Plea for Infant-Baptism urged by Mr. B. and Mr. J. B. from their visible Church-Membership.  
WHICH Being granted (so far, and in such a sense) as Truth or Reason will Warrant, is against, and no way for the Baptising of Infants.  
By THOMAS GRANTHAM.  
Printed in the Year, 1679.   

DIVISION I.  
About the silence of the Scripture concerning Infant-Baptism.  
IT is certain, That to multiply Questions is the ready way to darken Counsel, and to entangle the understanding of the weak or unwary Reader. Yet thus hath Mr. J. B. been pleased to encumber the Doctrine of Baptism with more than an hundred Queries; which being set down in their exact Number, would be more than five hundred Queries. By which frivolous way of Writing, it were easy to involve the Christian Profession in endless Controversies.  
Howbeit, as I have formerly redargued the first Book of his Queries, so (lest he should suppose these to be unanswerable) I think it may do some service to the Truth, to show briefly the vanity of his second Book also.  
It would make my work too bulky to set down his Queries at large, yet I shall endeavour partly by what I shall present of his Queries, and partly by the purport of my Anti-queries, to give a true understanding of the import of all his Demands. And first we shall take notice of his Preparatory Questions, which he grounds upon the silence of the Scriptures in the case of Infant-Baptism. The first is this.  
J. B. 1. Is not the Scripture more sparing in such cases as these, 1. In speaking of those, to whom it speaks not, as concerning the Heathen, and concerning Infants? etc.  
T. G. 1. When Mr. Baxter (and you from him) have born the World in hand, that you would offer plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism; Is it not a strange way to make this good, by telling us the Scripture is more silent in these Cases than in others? Or is not one plain proof in any Case enough to forbid any to say, the Scripture is more silent in that than other Cases, seeing more silent, must import not speaking at all, or else very darkly. And indeed, Mr. Baxter does elsewhere grant, That many Papists and Prelatists (who are all for Infant Baptism) have maintained that it is not determined in Scripture. And how then shall he (being inferior to so many) bring any plain Scripture for it? 2. Is not the Scripture plain enough, Gen. 3. 15. that the Covenant of God's Grace and Mercy to Sinners, concerns all Mankind (as they are fallen in Adam?) And how then can it be silent concerning Infants, in any thing needful to their Salvation, seeing Christ now by the Grace of God hath tasted Death for every Man? Heb. 2. 9  
J. B. 2. In lesser points of Faith? 3. In points not then questioned? 4. Does not the New Testament speak more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the Old? And is not this the very case here? etc.  
T. G. 1. Who that is truly wise would query this? Is any Persons Church-Membership and Baptism to be reckoned among the lesser points of Faith? Or, is it not of very great moment (rather) for us rightly to understand who ought to be incorporated into the Church of Christ, which is his Body? If there was no question in the Scripture-Times about your Infant Church-Membership and Baptism, was it not because there was none then that held with your Opinion in that Case? And whether it be not Anti-evangelical to make the Age of any Person the rule of his admission to the Christian-Church-Membership and Baptism, whiles in the Law the Eighth Day was a time prefixed? But is not the time of the New Birth (at what Age soever) the time of Incorporating Persons into the Christian Church? Seeing it is expressly said, If any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature, 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. And whether Pedo-Baptists must not grant this, seeing they are forced to say of the Infants which they sprinkle, This Child is Regenerate, and Born again though they can never prove this?  
J. B. 2. Will the difficulty of a Point, that is not so clear as we would have it, prove that it is not a truth? The Apostle Peter tells us, many things in Paul ▪ s Epistles are hard to be understood, are they not Truths for all this? etc.  
T. G. Whether it be not idle in you to compare Church-Membership and Baptism, with the hard things in Paul's Epistles, seeing what is needful to mere Church-Membership and Baptism are easy things, even that which every Babe in Christ should know, and which three thousand learned in one Day, by one Sermon. Acts 2. 40, 41. Then they which gladly received his Word, were Baptised, and the SAME DAY was added unto them about three thousand Souls. And whether the whole carriage of this place do not show your Vanity, in putting your Church-Membership before Baptism, sigh here (as well as elsewhere) this Church-Membership evidently follows Baptism?  
And whether you do not here also plainly enough tell us, that your case is very difficult, and hard to be understood? and indeed you may rightly place it among things unintelligible. For as one of your Way going to a Dispute, ('tis said) to hear Infant baptism proved by Scripture, told his Companion, He was going to hear a Miracle.  
J. B. 3. If never so clear Evidence be produced, will not Truth still be dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it? And is not this the case of many Godly, that are but Children in knowledge?  
T. G. Whether this be not an excellent way to query Men out of their Wits? And if that which hath never so clear Evidence, may still be dark to the Godly, etc. How can you blame Men for not seeing that for which you can bring no clear Evidence? But for all this, whether every weak (if a Godly) Man, may not as easily understand the Mind of God about Church-Membership and Baptism, as to know that Jesus is his Saviour (unless your 100, or rather 500 Queries have blinded his Eyes)? And what one Point, hath been pestered with such a cloud of Questions, as you have invented about this? And whether you and Mr. Baxter cannot invent as many more, and so make good the Proverb, Plura potest interrogare asinus, quam respondere Aristoteles.  
J. B. 4. When the case is so difficult that we cannot attain to clearness and certainty, must not we follow the most probable way? etc.  
T. G. Whether you are not upon a dangerous Point, to suggest that the case of Church-Membership and Baptism, is to be judged of by Probabilities and not Certainties? And if you will needs have our way of Baptism to be more difficult than yours, who can know it? Seeing there is thus much said by a learned Man of the Church of England against your Way, viz. That there is 
Dr. Ba●low.  neither Precept nor Precedent for Infant-Baptism in Scripture.— That there is nothing in Dr. Hammond, or Mr. Baxter 's Discourses about Infant-Baptism, that looks like an Argument. And whether it will not be hard for any Body to say more for Pedo-baptism, and against our way of Baptising Believers, than they have done? And yet whether it be not safe for us to see you offer more than your Probabilities, before we part with our Baptising Believers, for your sprinkling of Infants?  
J. B. 5. And is it not a spirit of Rashness, and Headiness, that runs Men presently upon NEW untried Ways, upon every doubting about the Old? etc.  
T. G. Whether the way of Baptising Persons upon personal profession of Faith by Immersion, be not the old way of Baptising, and granted to be so by the Learned of your own Church? for example, Ludovicus Vives, Grotius, and Diodate. And then, whether you are not the rash and heady, who run so eagerly after the new mode of Infant-sprinkling? And are not thousands involved in your new Way, before they do or can try it? And on the contrary, whether any can rationally be supposed to close with our Way, before they have tried it? Seeing we put all Men upon it, and have no Honours, Profits, or Pleasures in this World (as you have) to engage them to our Way, 'tis the evidence of our Cause that doth it.  
J. B. 6. Is the overthrow of a Man's former weak Grounds, the overthrow of the Truth which he held? etc.  
T. G. Is not the overthrow of your former weak Grounds for Infant-Baptism, the overthrow of the Cause itself, till you or some body else bring Grounds of sufficient strength to support it?  
J. B. 7. Is not one sound Argument enough to prove any thing true? What if all the Text's that are brought, were put by, save one, is not that enough?  
T. G. Have not we desired you to produce but one sound Argument, and one clear Text to prove Infant-Baptism true, with promise that shall suffice? But in stead of this, have you not sent us hundreds of false Grounds, and many Texts abused in these and your former Queries?  
J. B. 8. Are not evident Consequences, drawn by Reasen from Scripture, as true Proof, as the very express word of the Text?— Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant Baptism as Christ brought for the Resurrection? Mat. 22. 31, 32, etc.  
T. G. Should not the Practice of Christ and his Apostles, outvie such Consequences (inferred by the most Learned) when the said Consequences fight against plain Scripture Presidents? as Acts 2. 38. to 41. Acts 8. 12. Gal. 3. 26, 27. But who could ever prove that all Church-Members (as She contains all the saved, whether Jews or Heathens) must be Baptised? Might it not more strongly be pleaded, that all Church-Members must be admitted by Faith, from Gal. 3. 26. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus? Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God, must FIRST believe that God is? And how shall all Infants believe on him of whom they have not heard, Rom. 10? And who taught you to make Baptism more necessary to Church-Membership than Faith? But why should your Consequences be made of equal Authority with Christ's? For he could not be deceived, but you may? And why may not our Consequences be as valuable as yours? specially seeing ours agrees with Christ's own Practice, John 4. 1. as we know yours do not?  
J. B. 9 Should not the former and present Customs of the holiest Saints and Churches be of great weight to humble and moderate Christians, in Cases controverted and beyond their reach?  
T. G. Should not the undeniable Custom of the first Churches, immediately governed by Christ and his Apostles, be of more weight with humble and moderate Christians, than the Custom of any since their times? And whether your Conscience do not tell you we follow the Custom of the first Churches? Also whether there hath not very holy Men in many Ages since Christ opposed Infant-Baptism, as well as in these latter Times? Nay, is not the first clear mention of it gathered from them that opposed it? Such were Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen, acknowledged by Mr. Baxter, to be for the delay of Baptism to Children, till they could understand it. And though it is alleged that Nazianzen was not against it in danger of Death, yet whether this be not rather against than for Infant-Baptism, seeing they might as safely die without it, as live without it? For did it in his judgement more please God, that Infants should live unbaptised? How then can their dying so be displeasing to him? Were not the Children among the Jews as much accepted who lived seven days Uncircumcised, and died before the eighth day, as if they had lived till the eighth day and then have been Circumcised? And may we not hence conclude, that seeing God hath not made the Age of any Person a Rule in the case of Baptism, as he did in the case of Circumcision, but hath made it proper to the time of the New Birth, at what time soever it shall happen; that Nazianzen his supposed allowance of Infant-Baptism in danger of Death was groundless? But why do you arrogate the greatest Holiness to your Parts, which agree with you in the case of Infant-Baptism? Why holiest Saints? Why holiest Churches? Though I wish you more holy than you are, and honour what Christian Virtues I see in any of your Party, yet let me faithfully tell you, that your Churches by means of your Pedo baptism, are become the unholiest (generally) of all the Christian Churches in the World. And how can it be otherwise? When by this means you take in (not only those that 〈◊〉 God and work Righteousness in every Nation, but) the whole Nations themselves, the greatest part whereof, God knows, are very far from Holiness.  
J. B. 10. Is this Controversy in itself considered, of so great moment, as some would make it?— Why then was it not in the Creed? Doth not the Apostle speak of Baptism as a small part of his Work in comparison of Preaching, & c? 1 Cor. 1. 14. 17, etc. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not (not he that is not Baptised) shall be damned, etc.  
T. G. Whether you Pedo-baptists do not make this Controversy of greater moment than any others, whilst the greatest number of you (to wit, the Papists and many Prelatists) do teach that none (no not Infants) can be saved without Baptism; or desire of Baptism? And whether you say any less, 
Bishop Gunning.  Query 17. when you tell us, Infants are not so much as seemingly in a state of Salvation, without your Church-Membership and Baptism? And do you not then make it more Fundamental and absolutely Necessary than the Baptists do? who only say, not the want, but the contempt of Baptism damneth? And what though baptism be not mentioned in the Creed, which you call the Apostles Creed, (though you never be able to make that saying good, according to the exactness of speech) yet seeing Baptism is mentioned in that Summary of Christian Doctrine, Heb. 6. 1, 2. which may more certainly be called the Apostles Creed than that by you so named, doth it not thence follow that Baptism is necessary to the beginning of a Christian Man? Or will you say that any Man can be admitted into the Christian Profession, to partake of the Lord's Table without Baptism? And what need was there to say, Mark 16. 16. He that is not Baptised shall be damned? When it's to be supposed he that believeth not, will not desire to be Baptised? Luke 7. Neither indeed ought he to be Baptised because he believeth not, Acts 8. And if all Christ's Commands great and small are to be obeyed (as you grant) then why not this, Acts 2. 38 REPENT AND BE BAPTISED EVERY ONE OF YOU. And though it be true that Paul esteemed (and that rightly▪ Preaching to be a greater work than Baptising: Yet when 〈◊〉 he hinder any for being Baptised with the Baptism of Repentance as you do? Or where did he show any zeal at all for Pedobaptism as you do? And are you not then deluded to spend so much time, in defending your own Tradition? And with what credit can you blame others (whom you constrain) for spending time to break the Snares which you have laid in the way of Sinners, to cause them to continue in Error.  
J. B. 11. Though the point of Infant-Baptism be comparatively of less mement; yet whether the grounds on which it stands, and which are usually denied with it, be not of great moment?  
T. G. Whether this be not like a Contradiction? For seeing every Ordinance receives, from the grounds on which it stands, it's very being, and value; How can the Ordinance be of small moment, when the grounds on which it stands are of great moment? And how can Infant-Baptism stand upon grounds of great moment, when it is not grounded upon Scripture, nor determined by Scripture, as is confessed by many Pedo-baptists, both Papists and Prelatists?  

DIVISION. II.  
Concerning the Commission, Matth. 28. 19  
Having done with your Preparatory Queries, I come now to try your Main Question, and the Queries which attend upon it. Your Query is thus stated by you:  
J. B. Whether some Infants ought not to be Baptised?  
T. G. Do we not always tell you of Infants in general, that they ought not to be Baptised? So that you had better ask thus, Whether some Infants ought to be Baptised? For should you be put to show, That some Infants ought to be Baptised, and that other some ought not, (as Mr. Crage was pleased to Fable it out at Abergavenny) it would prove too hard a Task, and never be done by plain Scripture proof. But I suppose I understand your Question, I shall therefore follow you.  
J. B. 1. Ought not all Christ's Disciples ordinarily to be Baptised? (Matth. 28 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) May not the word Disciple be taken in a larger sense Relatively— for one that belongs to Christ, as well as in a narrower sense for those who are actually Learners.  
T. G. Here you seem to grant, That some of Christ's Disciples ought not to be Baptised (i. e. their case being more than ordinary) and then I would know why Infants may not be excused, sigh it must be an extraordinary thing, if any Infant be Christ's Disciple? For if Infants be Disciples, they are either made so by God or Man; that God does make some, or all, or any Infants at all, Christ's Disciples, no Man can demonstrate. And I demand whether ever Mr. Baxter, or yourself, did make an Infant Christ's Disciple according to the import of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? And if your Consciences shall tell you that you never did, or could make an Infant Christ's Disciple, how can you suffer yourselves to be deluded with this fancy of a Relative Discipleship? i. e. for one that belongs to Christ; For why may not all Infants belong to Christ, as well as those which you sprinkle? And then why do you not call all Infant's Disciples? Is not Christ the Master and King of all Infants, whether Men will vouchsafe to devote them to him or no? How dreadfully do you lessen his Authority, or Sovereignty?  
J. B. Doth not the Holy Ghost call them Disciples? Acts 15. 10. Is it not evident that those on whose Necks the false Teachers would have put the Yoke were Disciples? If you say not all but some of them,— then will it not follow that it is but some only whose Circumcision the Synod doth conclude against?  
T. G. Does not the Holy Ghost sufficiently expound Acts 15. 10. not to intent Infants? Whilst in Verse 19 he notes them to be such as from among the Gentiles were turned to God, and are not all that are called Disciples, Ver. 10. called Brethren, Ver. 23. and as such are written unto by the Assembly? And was not their Epistle read to all the multitude of the Disciples? Ver. 30. and did not all the Disciples rejoice for the Consolation? Ver. 31. And is it not ridiculous to say the Holy Ghost intends Infants? Ver. 10. and yet excludes them in the Appellation [Disciples] in all the other places? And is it not grossly fallacious, to say, That because the false Apostles would have put the yoke of Circumcision upon the Necks of the Disciples, that therefore all were Disciples, whom they would have Circumcised? Is there any more truth in it than in this? Austin would have Infants brought to the Lord's Table, therefore all were Infants whom Austin would have brought to the Lord's Table? Or is it not clear from Ver. 1. that the Discourse, Acts 15. does only concern the Brethren? Except ye be Circumcised— ye cannot be saved; this they are said to teach the Brethren, and thereby to subvert their Souls. And can you think the false Apostles could subvert the Souls of Infants? And is it not a sad thing that you should thus grope for the Wall at Noon? and deceive yourselves and others with mere Fallacies and Ridiculosities. And why was not the Decree, Acts 15. a sufficient repeal of Circumcision, in respect of Infants, seeing the Disciples themselves were discharged, or freed from that Yoke? and than whether your Absurdity concern any Body so much as yourself?  
J. B. 2. If no Infants are Disciples, what is the cause? Is it because they are not capable? Or is it because God will not show such a Mercy? Can you find a third cause?— If Infants are capable of being Servants of God, how can they be thought incapable of being Disciples, Leu. 25. 41, 42, etc.  
T. G. Is not Instruction the cause of Discipleship, as truly as Teaching is the cause of Learning? And what instruction or teaching hath God appointed for Infants? and if none (as I am sure you can assign none) than what cause have they to learn? And if no cause to learn, than what cause can they have to be Disciples? And therefore what cause have you (a Learned Man) to query so unlearnedly? And should I follow you in your Fancies, I might also demand, what is the cause that Infants are not Repentant (seeing they are Sinners) is it because God will not show them such a Mercy? Togrant them repentance unto Life, what is the cause they have not Faith? Is it because God will not show them such a Mercy, as to purify their Hearts by Faith? What is the cause they are not brought to the Lord's Table? Is it because God will not show them such a Mercy, as to partake of the Body and Blood of their Redeemer? Especially seeing it is said, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. What? Will God deny Life through Christ to Infants? Now if Infants want no Mercy from God though they be denied all these Mercies, what reason is there for you to cry so loud against God because they are not Disciples? And what though Infants should be called God's Servants, does it follow they must needs be Christ's Disciples, according to Matth. 28. 19? Why then the Sun, Moon, and Stars, are Christ's Disciples too, for they are called God's Servants, Psal. 119. 90, 91. Rub your Eyes from the mist they have attracted by poring upon Mr. Baxters' Fables, and know, that God will show all the Mercy to Infants which they have need of (as is showed before) though he give them not all the Mercies which he gives to some, and particularly this mercy of Discipleship, which they have no need of during Infancy, sigh they cannot discern between the right Hand and the left.  
But you query still, Whether the Infants of the Gentiles were so God▪ s Servants, as the Infants of the Jews were? And do you not here fairly grant that all Infants are God's Servants, though not SO as the Jews Infants were? But you will not say that all Infants are Christ's Disciples: And then have you not confuted your own Fancy, seeing its plain from your own words that the Title of Servants does not necessarily infer the Title of Disciples? And why may not God set more by one Servant (and so by one Infant) than by another, and yet love them all sufficiently? and may not this satisfy your demand why God should should grant a Year of Jubilee to the Jews and their Infants, when he granted not that Mercy to others? Else what will become of all Christians and their Infants? for pray, Sir, when had they such a Jubilee, as the Jews were allowed once in Fifty Years? And yet I hope we have no cause to murmur against God, as if he were not Merciful enough both to us and to our Infants.  
J. B. 3. Are not Infants capable of being Subjects of Christ's Kingdom? and is not Christ's Church his Kingdom, and his School?— Are not all Subjects of Christ in his Visible Kingdom (or Church) Christians? And are not Disciples and Christians all one?— Acts 11. 26, etc.  
T. G. What if we grant that Infants are Subjects of Christ's Visible Kingdom, in respect of his Purchase, common Protection, the Designation of them to his Service (on the part of true Christians) and in respect of the Blessing of Heaven itself? Yet how doth it follow hereupon that they are capable of all the Privileges of his Visible Kingdom? Much less of the Duties of his Subjects? And do you not your own selves exclude them during Infancy, from all Privileges and Duties of Religion▪ (as much as we do) except your supposed Baptism? And where do you find that any Infants are called Christians? Certes, the Text, Acts 11. 26. says no such thing: I see no ground to call any Infant by the name of its Parent's Religion, for then the Child of a Papist must be called a Papist, the Infant of a Presbyterian, must be a Presbyterian; the Infant of a Quaker, a Quaker, etc. But is not that saying of Tertullian more rational, We are not born (saith he) but made Christians?  
I B. 4. Whether were not some Infants once to be admitted Members of the Visible Church, by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God not yet Repealed.  
T. G. Whether Infants once admission to particular Ordinances in the Church, be part of the Moral or Ceremonial Law? How could it be a part of the Moral Law, seeing it had no being in the World till Abraham's time? Was not the Moral Law observed by the Faithful in all Ages? When yet there was no such admission of Infants to Ordinances in the Church? Seeing then this Admission must be a part of the Ceremonial Law, was it not for the time being the merciful Gift of God, and was not the whole Ceremonial Law the same? And yet whether the taking away of the whole Ceremonial Law was not a Mercy, and consequently that Admission of Infants by that Law, done away in Mercy also? And seeing Infants could then but belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, with that painful admission by Circumcision, is it not a greater Mercy for them to be declared by Christ to be the Children of God, and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven without it? Matth. 18. 10. And is not this spoken of little ones indefinitely, seeing else it will follow Men may despise some of them? but does not our Saviour include them all in this speech, That which was lost? How then can you exclude any of them, when he saith, He came to seek and to save that which was lost?  
J. B. 5. Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord, that he might establish them to be a People to himself?— Deut. 29. 1●, 11, 12. 13. And were not Infants engaged by the Seal of the Covenant, Circumcision? etc.  
T. G. Whether this Covenant, Deut. 29. was not made for many before they were born? How then could it be a Covenant for Admission of them to Visible Church-Membership? Or dare you say that Infants were by this Covenant obliged to any Act of Obedience in Infancy? And how then does it suit your Case? Again, Do you think it would be lawful, by this, or any other Law, for Christians to enter into a Covenant, Oath, and a Curse (as the Israelites did) that our Children should be of our Religion? Or are your Infants bound by your Solemn League and Covenant, to be for the Presbyterian way of Religion? And what ground have we to believe that God will establish our Children for his People, as he did promise to the Children of Israel? i. e. To be a glorious Nation above all the Nations of the Earth. Can you prove that such Promises are made to the Christian Church militant? Or doth not Mr. Baxter himself sometimes say all that need be said, or can be rightly said on these words, Ero Deus tui & seminis? It sufficeth (saith he) that God will be to them a God of Mercy, 
Mr. B. Friend Accom. p. 361.  and do for them all that is necessary, to put them in statum salutis, pro conditione parvulorum. And we demand whether God did not thus much for all Infants in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace, which he confesses, is not Vain, nor Repealed by God. Did he not do all that was necessary (to put them into a state of Salvation) for the condition of little ones?  
If Infants were engaged by Circumcision (as you here observe) than they were not Visible Church-Members without it. And then doth it not plainly follow, that Circumcision being Repealed, this their Visible Church-Membership is Repealed also? Or will you say they remained in Visible Church-Membership without an Ordinance? and so destroy your Masterpiece, in one Member of it? And let that Typical Membership be accounted (as it was) a merciful Gift, yet when the Antitype made that Type null, it was a great mercy that it ceased; nor shall we fail of proof in this case, 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. cum multis aliis.  
J. B. 6. Dare any of you say that God hath Repealed Infants Church-Membership to their hurt in Justice?— Or can you say it is in Mercy for their good? How can it be a Mercy to take away a Mercy, except it be to give a greater Mercy in stead of it? etc.  
T. G. Though we might say much of the Justice of God in Repealing the Covenant of Circumcision, and therewith the Infant Church-Membership once allowed in the Jewish Church, yet how dare you say that this was to the hurt of any Person, whether Infant or any other? But we will abide by this, that God made this Repeal in Mercy. And how should you not see, that to be set at Liberty from the Yoke of the Law, and from Circumcision, which made them Debtors to the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. was all done in mercy? And was it not needful to abrogate the first, or old Covenant, that he might establish the new or second Covenant? In which though we have no particular order to admit Infants to the Duties of this Covenant, yet we are sufficiently recompensed, in the assurance given us by Christ concerning Infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven, and his blessing them, without Baptising them; that so, they are as happy whilst Infants, as we can desire they should be: And is not this a greater Mercy than the Old Covenant did give to any Infant by Circumcision? As for the Capacity of those who are concerned in the Duties of the Second Covenant, is it not expressly thus: That the Law of Christ should be put in their Hearts, and written in their Minds, Heb. 8. And, So God to be their God, and they to be his People, as knowing him, from the least of them to the greatest? And whether in these respects any Infant can from Truth or Reason, be said to be in the New Covenant? And how then are they to be admitted Members of this Visible Company or Church, seeing they know not God? And yet is it not very evident, that the Grace of the New Covenant extends to them, from our Saviour's Testimony, that of such is the Kingdom of God?  
Again, Was not Infants partaking of the Passover, and other Sacrifices and Rites of the Law, as great Mercies as their being circumcised? And yet what Mercies of this kind was given them in the taking away of these? and yet were they not all taken away in Mercy? And whilst you deceitfully lay the stress of the word Mercy, upon your Sprinkling of Infants, do you not invalidate the substance of those Types, which being come, for the Salvation of Infants (as well as others) is their sufficient Passover, though they cannot celebrate the memorial of it in Bread and Wine, as the Adult ought; and do? And is not the true Jubilee which came by Christ, a sufficient Gain in stead of the Jewish Jubilee, both to the Adult and to Infants, though neither the one nor the other hath any Jubilee in the nature of an Ordinance in stead thereof? Especially not Infants, seeing they know not the sound of the Gospel.  
J. B. 7. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate (meaning to be without hope) but Church-Members? etc.  
T. G. Will Ephes. 2. 12. prove that no Infants among the Gentiles were saved? Does not that Scripture, Rom. 2. 14, 15, 26, 27. as clearly prove that the Gentiles which had not the Law, and yet did by Nature fulfil the Righteousness of the Law, shall be as much excused in the Day of Judgement as the Jews who kept the Law? And do you not here espouse that Doctrine, Out of the Church is no Salvation? Not considering that the Universal Body of Christ may comprehend many that had never the opportunity to be incorporated into the Visible Company of such as worship God in the use of Legal, or Gospel Institutions. And will you thus damn all Infants in the World but those that are Sprinkled, or Crossed by the Pedo-baptists? And will not the Text, Acts 2. 47. alleged by you, if compared with Acts 5. 14. make against you? Seeing those that were added to the Church, were not Infants, but Men and Women?  
J. B. 8. If it be no benefit to the Catholic Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven, nor hurt to the Church to see them there, why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth? etc.  
T. G. If I might follow your Fancy, I might ask you what hurt it will be to the Church, to see an Infant of a poor Indian in Heaven? And why then do not you admit them here on Earth? But is it not childish in you to suppose that any shall be Infants when in Heaven? Seeing, according to Austin, they are called Infants A non fando, because they cannot speak; may we not more rationally believe that what is lost of stature, and knowledge by the Sin of Adam, shall be restored by the Righteousness of Christ? And are not Infants as frequently seen in the Assemblies of the Baptists, as in yours? And do we not devote them to God in our Prayers as well as you? And what do your Infants partake of (except your Tradition of Sprinkling them) which ours do not as fully enjoy? And is it not as great a benefit to the Church to delay the Baptism of their little ones, as to delay their coming to the Lord's Table? If your delay make them more fit for the one, does not ours make them more fit for the other? If ours die without the one, do not yours die without the other? What cause then of your murmuring? For who casts Infants out of the Church? Is not this a Barbarism? For if they be in, we do all we are allowed of God to keep them there, by timely Instruction, and by imploring God's Blessing for them, and you do no more, only you Cross, or Sprinkle them? This is your all, on this you build your hope for your dying Infants. This your Tradition is therefore your Idol. This is that small parcel of bad Wool, about which you make this hideous Cry, as if God had no Mercy for poor Infants unless this be done; Why are you so Imprudent?   

DIVISION III.  
Concerning Rom. 11. 17.  
J. B. 1. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church? Therefore the rest remained in, the Gift was not Repealed. Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members? etc.  
T. G. Here you seem to hold that the Church in her Legal state, and in her Evangelical state were both one, in such a sense, as that he that by Faith was added to the Christian Church, was not broken off from the Jewish Church. Hence I Query,  
Does not Paul plainly show, Rom. 7. 1. to 8. That the Christian Church was freed from the Law of her former Husband? When therefore she ceased to be a Wife, upon the account of the Law, did she not then cease to be a Church on that account, that she might now be married to another, even to Christ, and so bring forth Fruit unto God? Why then should these words [some were broken off] be understood, to suppose that some yet did stand by God's Appointment in the former Church? Or, is it not evident, that men's eagerness to stand in the Old Church (which now was ceased de jure) was the cause why they were rejected? Again, Is it not said of the believing Gentiles, That they were grafted in among the Branches (to wit, the Jews)? sure this is not meant of the Jews, that stood in the House of Moses, or the Old Church-state; but of the Church or House which was builded by Christ: for Old things were passed away, all things became New.  
Wherefore now consider, seeing the believing Jews themselves did not stand by virtue of their Old Church-Membership, that being now Repealed, Matth. 3. 9 Rom. 7. 4, 5, 6. whether it be rational to imagine that the Infant Church-Membership (which was of the same Law) should yet remain? And wherefore do you so boldly say, the believing Parents do remain in the same Church?  
But further, Is it safe by the good Olive, Rom. 11. to understand the Jewish Church? Was not Paul willingly broke off from that Church, Phil. 3. that he might be in Christ? Is it not more safe to understand the place, of Abraham not as a Natural Father, for so the Gentiles could no more be grafted into him than into the Jewish Church; But as a Spiritual Father, into whom as such the Faithful were grafted, or rather into his Seed, in whom all Nations should be blessed, even Christ, the true Vine? and the Faithful, both Jew and Gentile, are the Branches united to him.  
J. B. 2. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off, but for unbelief?  
T. G. And is there any thing more clears the Point, that this breaking off was not from the Jewish Church? for their unbelief caused them to stand in that Church? And seeing these two things are both evident, that the breaking off here meant, was by unbelief, and the standing here meant, is by Faith; is it not thence very evident that the poor Infants are not concerned, either in this kind of breaking off, or this kind of standing in the Olive Tree? Alas, poor Souls, what have they done? Have not Infants a more sure interest in Christ, than to be jetted into, or out of him, by the Faith or Unbelief of Parents? What wise Man will think so? And what need have we, or any Body else, to talk of the Invisible Church, it being a thing unknown to Man? And suppose this Olive Tree be meant of the Visible Church Christian, walking in all the Commands and Ordinances of Christ blameless; yet seeing no Natural Branches (as such) do stand in this Olive Tree, but must be grafted in by Faith, before they can stand there; Is it not evident, even hence, that no Infant, merely as the Seed of a Believer, is concerned in the Duties of this Church, seeing the very Natural Branches of Abraham himself, have not that privilege on that account?  
J. B. 3. If it be into their own Olive Tree (which they were broke off from, and of which they were Natural Branches) that the Jews shall be engrafted at their recovery (as Rom. 11. 24.) then how is God's Ordinance for Infant Church-Membership Repealed, etc. — though they be not restored to the Mosaical Law, or Covenant of Peculiarity, but taken into the Catholic Church?  
T. G. Though it be never so true that the Jews upon their return shall be grafted into their own Olive, viz. Abraham, as a Spiritual Father, and into Christ the Promised Seed, in whom all Nations are blessed; yet do you not here fairly grant that they shall not be grafted into the Covenant of Peculiarity, or Mosaical Law? And then whether their bringing Infants to the Mysteries of Religion (which was one main thing which was peculiar to the Jewish state) is not consequently granted by you to be now Repealed, unless you can prove that the Catholic Church hath Command from Christ to bring their Infants to the Mysteries of Religion? And who (exyour selves) did ever exclude the Jews Infants from the Catholic Church, viz. the Assembly that are written in Heaven? But how will you prove that the Infants of the Jews, or any dying Infants, are cast out of that Church? Or, are not all those of the Catholic Church, who are of the Kingdom of God? And does not Christ state Infants there without excepting any?  
J. B. 4. Is it not the same Olive or Church, which the Jews were broken off from, that we Gentiles are grafted into, as Rom. 11. 17, 19, 24? And if theirs admitted Infants— must not ours admit of Infant-Members also? etc.  
T. G. Whether the Church was not the same Church in all Ages? and yet whether she did not differ in her external order by God's Appointment? and whether this difference was not in the case of Infants being brought to, or left unconcerned in the Rituals of Religion, as much as in any thing? And seeing you here say, She was taken down as to accidental Ceremonies▪ whether this will not justify us in not Baptising Infants, as well as you in not Communicating them, seeing God hath not commanded the one any more than the other?  
J. B. 5. Would not Christ have gathered Jerusalem? — And is it likely that he would have unchurched all their Infants, when he would have gathered to him whole Jerusalem, or the whole Nation? Matth. 25. 37, 38, 39  
T. G. Whether it be not evident we unchurch not Infants, in respect of their relation to Salvation by Christ, but only say they ought not to be brought to the Services of Gospel-Ordinances? And do not you yourself say the same that we do, except your pretended Baptism? And suppose Christ had gathered all Jerusalem, would not he have gathered them after the same manner? Would he not have gathered them by Preaching, by Repentance, and by Faith and Baptism, which were capable of these things? But how should their Infants be thus gathered? Can he not have gathered their Infants (in the send of this Text) without Preaching to them, without Faith or Repentance, required of them? And could, and would he not have gathered them without Baptism, as well as without these? And should not the Infants in Jerusalem and Judea have escaped the destruction which came upon them by the Romans, if the Adult had but received the Gospel? and can you think that though the Infants suffered in that Desolation of Jerusalem, that therefore they were damned with the unbelieving Jews? And if not, were they not still of the Catholic Church, though their Parents were rejected?  
J. B. 6. Can you suppose the believing Jews Children (and so the Parents in point of Comfort) to be in a worse condition since Christ than they were before? etc.  
T. G. Was not Enoch, Seth, and Noah (when Infants) as happy though not Circumcised, or brought to any Ritual in the Church, as Isaac, Jacob, etc. were in their Infancy, though Circumcised? And have we not as much ground to believe our Infants as happy (though not Baptised) as any Infant of the Faithful in the Old World? And did not Augustine think Infants as miserable if they died without the Lord's Supper, as you think them to be if they die without being Crossed or Sprinkled? And yet do not you believe he was deceived? And are we not as justifiable to believe that you are also deceived? Is it not as needful to feed upon Christ in the holy Supper, as to put on Christ in holy Baptism? Can you have comfort concerning your Infants in the want of the one, and must we have none concerning our Infants in the want of the other? And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. if Infants can have no benefit by it, but on the condition of their Parents works of bringing them into the Church by your Tradition, as you suggest in the latter part of this Query?  
J. B. 7. If the Church be not in a worse state now— will it not follow that our Children ougbt to be admitted Church-Members? etc.  
T. G. Whether this be not a false suggestion which keeps company with most of your Queries; viz. That all Infants which are not brought to some Rite or Ceremony, are put out of the Church? Were the Infants of six days old in Israel put out of the Church? Did not thousands of Infants die before they were admitted to Circumcision? And if they were in the Church before▪ it were lawful to Circumcise them, why may not ours be in the Church, as well as the Infants of six days old in Israel, before and until it be lawful to Baptise them? May we not do well to nurture and fit them for Baptism, as they nursed and fitted them for Circumcision? And what though our Work may require more Years than they theirs did Days; yet we making all the speed that God requires, are we not as excusable as they? And what though some of our Children die before they can be fitted for Baptism? Did not some of theirs die before they could be fitted for Circumcision? And why may not we have comfort in our disappointments by Death, as well as they when so disappointed? And suppose our Children refuse to be Baptised when they come to understanding, and will not be fitted for it by all that we can do? what comfort would it be to have had them Sprinkled in their Infancy, when now we find them reject Faith and Repentance, the most substantial parts of true Baptism?  
J. B. 9 If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church, are they not in a worse condition than the very Children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ?  
T. G. Do you not abuse the World to talk at this rate, as if either God, or we put Infants out of the Church, when the only Question is about their admission to such or such Duties of Religion? Wherein yet you do the same, in many cases (as I have showed) which we do in the case of Baptism. And if any have in the heats of Disputation, absolutely denied Infants to be of the Church, yet you know their sense is only to deny your way of making them Church-Members: Not but that they all assert Infants to be of the Body of Christ, of the number of the saved, and so of the Church. And I here assert they are of the Visible Church, because by the Word of God, declared to be accepted of God, to the Grace of Life through Christ. But we put no Infants out of the Church. For example, I have had many Children (for which I give thanks to God): as soon as he gives them to me, I do by Prayer to God devote, and hearty commit them to him; and by his Grace I do my best to teach them the Knowledge and Fear of God, as they grow up; and (I bless God with this success) that all that yet are capable, have been Baptised. And now wherein am I to be charged for putting my Children out of the Church? And if I be Innocent (as I know I am in this) than I hope the Churches of the same Faith are as excusable. And whether, if there were faithful Ministers of Christ in every Parish, it might not be a more likely way to bring Souls to true Christianity, to instruct the Children twice or thrice a Week (especially such Children whose Parents cannot instruct them) as soon as they could learn, and so to fit them for Baptism; than to run to the Minister with them to be Baptised in their Infancy, when God knows, neither the Infants, Priests, nor their Parents, know what they do?  
J. B. 9 Was not the Covenant, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. — a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Law which was Repealed? How then is it, or Infant's Church-Membership, grounded on it, Repealed? etc.  
T. G. Seeing this Covenant, Deut. 29. obliged the Israelites to the whole Law, and left them under the Curse of the Law if they kept it not as appears by reading Deut. 29. and 30th Chapters; will it not follow that all the parts of this Covenant was not of the Covenant of Grace? Indeed some things repeated, or expressed here, might pertain to the Covenant of Grace. But what then? Why Infants Church-Membership, say you, is grounded upon it. And I pray, who denies that by the Covenant of Grace Infants are Members of Christ, of his Body, or the Universal Church? But what then? must they therefore be brought to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, visibly professing the Worship of God, in all Ages, as much as in any Age? This indeed is your false Inference, and with this you delude yourself and others. And how long will it be, ere you make the Covenant, Deut. 29. and 30. agree with that which you quote out of Rom. 10. Heb. 10. in all Points? And if they differ in any thing, why may it not be in this, the one admitted Infants to Circumcision, and other Rites of the Law; the other only brings those that know the Lord by the word of Faith, being in their Heart and Mouth, to partake of Institutions of the Gospel?  
J. B. 10. If Infants then were entered— Members by that Circumcision, which was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith;— How comes that Church-Membership to be Repealed?  
T. G. Not to contend with you whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any that had not the Faith of Abraham (though plain Truth, and all good Reason seems to be full against you) yet to concess a little to see the most you can say, how do you prove that none were Church-Members before they were Circumcised? And how was Abraham admitted a Member of the Church by Circumcision? Was he not a Member of the Church before he was Circumcised? Was not Isaac a Member of the Church before he was eight Days old? Were they not Circumcised because God had taken them into a Church-Covenant, rather than to enter them into a Church-Covenant? And is it not therefore said, Gen. 17. 14. That such Men children as were not Circumcised, should be cut off from his People, because they had broken the Covenant? And is it not plain then that these Children were already in Covenant, and of the Church? else they could not be cut off. And yet whether any thing here threatened, concern the Eternal State of Infants? Shall we think that God would damn them to Hell, because their Parents neglected to Circumcise them? Or is it like a Covenant of Grace to make such a Ceremony so absolutely necessary to the Salvation of Infants? Now seeing Infants were not made Members of the Church (much less of Heaven) by Circumcision, what need we assert the Repeal of their Membership in the Church (as it contains the whole People of God) but the Repeal of Circumcision is evident, and there-withal they are freed from any Obligation to the Duties of Religion, unless it can be showed that God hath appointed the contrary, which never yet could be showed. Thus if we give you all the advantage imaginable, yet nothing accrues to your Cause from this instance of Circumcision, till you can show Authority from God to Baptise Infants, as plain as they had to Circumcise Infants: For does not one of your own Way tell us, That Circumcision is a fine Historical Argument 
Mr. Brooks.  to illustrate a Point well proved before; but is not this that wherein you always fail? i. e. to prove by plain Scripture what you promised?  
J. B. 11. If the Law of Infant Church-Membership, was no part of the Ceremonial, or merely Judicial Law, nor yet of the Law of Works, how can you say it is Repealed, seeing no other Laws are Repealed? etc.  
T. G. Whether these words [The Law of Infant Church-Membership] be a lawful Speech? And by what Law will you make it good? But (not to contend about words) if by Law, you mean the Covenant of Grace made with lapsed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. Then whether we do not assert it to be in force, more fully than you do? But if you mean any other Covenant save this, (for the often repetition of it makes it not another Covenant): then we say, it is your duty to assign or show that Law, or Covenant; and we will consider it, mean while take notice, That for the Repeal of that temporary Order once used to admit Infants to Ceremonies in Religion, is showed (and generally granted) to be repealed in the Repeal of Circumcision, and no Institution or Ceremony (since the Repeal) ordained for Infants; and this is the Point in question. Why then go you about to wheedle us with a noise of words, of a Law of Infant Church-Membership unrepealed? A Law, etc. unrepealed? And whether you or Mr. Baxter either, can in the sight of your own Consciences say, that you well understand what you say?  
And here I shall advertise the Reader, that as the remainder of the Queries we are to reckon with, are less specious than these we have examined, so let it be remembered, That we have granted, and do now once more assert, that by virtue of the Covenant of Grace made with fallen Adam, and all Mankind in him, Infants stand in a state of Grace, published (by God himself) to Man, so that they are visibly in a state of Salvation; nor will God break this Covenant, it is unalterable, for he is faithful. Infants do not transgress against it, therefore they stand in this Covenant. This Covenant was and is the Church-Covenant n●w confirmed by Christ, the faithful Witness of it: And by this Covenant Infants are Members of his Universal Church, his Body, that shall be saved. In the time of the Law when this Covenant was much Veiled, or hid under Shadows, Rom. 16. 25, 26. God was pleased to admit Infants to sundry of the Carnal Ordinances of the Law; but now the Mystery of the Gospel being displayed to all Nations, and the Worship of the Gospel being heightened to a very Spiritual Nature. God hath not engaged Infants in these Services, as he did in the time of the Law. Our Adversary thinks otherwise; this is our Difference: try seriously, and judge righteously.   

DIVISION. iv  
About Infant's visible Church-Membership.  
J. B. 1. Is it not clear that there is an Universal visible Church, and that every one that is a Member of a particular Church, is also a Member of the Universal? And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Universal, and that this Universal is not dissolved? Now must not he that will affirm, the whole species of Infants are cast out of the Universal visible Church, prove it well?  
T. G. Whether this Query be not grounded on mere Fancies? for though they that are Members of a particular Church, are Members of the Universal Church; yet dare you say, or think, that none are Members of the Universal, which are not also Members of a particular Church? Is not this the Dream with which you are Infatuated, to hold the Damnation of all Infants, yea, of all Persons who are not Members of some particular Church? And where do you find that Infants are cast out of the Universal Church, if they are not Baptised? is the Universal Church no larger than the Number of the Baptised? Can you think that the Uncircumcised Infant was cast out of the Universal Church? Suppose they were neglected till the 10th, 20th, or 40th day, etc. will you imagine them to be the Subjects of the Devil? What strange conceits have you of God? It's true, the Uncircumcised were cut off from the particular Society of the Jews, but did that Society constitute the Universal Church? Were none (what not an Infant in all the World) in a visible state of Salvation, except those in that Society? Methinks Rom. 2. well considered, should teach you to think otherwise. And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace, if Infants be so liable to be cast out of the Universal Church as you suggest? But why do you call the Universal Church Visible? Is not this a visible Mistake? And whether the latter part of this Query be pertinent, unless it be against yourself? For if the removal of Persons, whether Infants or others, out of a particular Church, be not found Argument that they are removed out of the Universal Church: then seeing the visible Professors of the Truth in this World, are but a part (and perhaps no very great part) of the Universal Church, may not Infants remain in the Universal Church, though not incorporated, or imbedied with any particular Church practising the Ordinances of God?  
J. B. 2. Is not that false Doctrine which makes the Children of the Faithful to be in as bad, or a worse condition than the Curse, Deut. 28. 32, 41. doth make the Children of Covenant-breakers to be in? etc.  
T. G. Is not this an injurious surmise? As if none were blessed in the Fruit of their Body but you, whose Infants are Crossed or Sprinkled? But who puts Infants out of the whole Visible Church? Do we not maintain the Church-Membership of Infants as far as Scripture will bear it? First, By the Covenant of Grace made with all Mankind, and now confirmed by Christ by whom they are blessed, and pronounced to be of the Kingdom of God. 2. According to the Law or Covenant of Circumcision▪ during the term of the Law, till Faith came, or till the time of Reformation.  
J. B. 3. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the Visible Church of Christ, leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil? etc.  
T. G. Is not this a Diabolical surmise? Are any Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil? Are your Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till you Sprinkle them? Did not Christ declare them to be of the Kingdom of God, when yet not one Infant that we read of was Baptised? And what if your Crossing or Sprinkling prove no true Baptism, will it not follow from this your injurious Doctrine, that all your Infants are of the Kingdom of the Devil? Are any of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till they submit to his Delusions? and can you charge Infants with this? Be ashamed, O ye Presbyterians! of this.  
J. B. 4. And will you leave us no sound grounded hope of the Justification, or Salvation, of any dying Infants in the World? etc.  
T. G. Is not this Query a mere foolish outcry? How plainly do you here damn all Infants that are not Sprinkled? Is not this the only cause of all this Clamour? What Doctrine can be more mischievous than this?  
J. B. 5. What a full plain Text is that, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the Children of Believers holy in state? then ought they not to be admitted visible Church-Members?  
T. G. How fully and plainly does Heb. 13. 2. explain this place, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Is not Marriage honourable among all Men, and the Marriagebed undefiled? And is not that which is undefiled holy in state? And is not the unbeliever sanctified in this state, 1 Cor. 7. 14? Ye who but Men willing to be deceived, will say they ought therefore to be Baptised? And are not the Children therefore said to be holy, because the Unbeliever is sanctified to, or by the Believer? And how then can that Holiness be any other than Matrimonial? And does not Erasmus in his Paraphrase, give this very exposition on this Text? And does not Austin tell you, That whatsoever this Holiness is, 1 Cor. 7. 14. yet it is not of power to make Christians, or remit Sins? And why do you grudge that all Infants, procreated according to God's Ordinance, should be holy? See Malachi 2. 15. Doth not Diodate on the Text say plainly, That God's chief end in this proceeding, [to wit, in ordaining Marriage] was, that the Posterity might be Sanctified, being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment, whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunctions.  
J. B. 6. When it is said, Mark 10. 14. Of such is the Kingdom of God, Whether this be not more, than they may be visible Church-Members? etc.  
T. G. Whether we do not readily consent to all that is said Mark 10. 14. concerning Infants? do we not grant they are visibly stated in a gracious Right to the Kingdom of God? And if this be more than to say, Let them come to Baptism; Is it not more also than to say, Let them come to the Lord's Table? And is it not very considerable, that though three Evangelists mention these Infants, yet none of them so much as hints that they were Baptised? And whethese words, suffer them to come to me, will not be a better plea for us in the Day of Judgement, in devoting our Infants to God by Prayer in the Name of Christ, than for you, in going so much beyond the Text, as to Cross or Sprinkle them, without the least ground from this, or any place of Scripture? And whether this your presumption, be not the real cause of our differences in Religion?   

DIVISION V.  
About the Texts objected against the Pedo-baptists.  
J. B. 1. If these Texts, Rom. 9 8.— Ephes. 2. 3. be objected. To the first Text: What is it the Apostle mainly drives at, but that Men are not therefore saved because they are Abraham's carnal Seed?— And to Ephes. 2. 3. What though we are by Nature Children of Wrath, doth it follow that we may not be otherwise by Grace? etc.  
T. G. Seeing you here grant that Men (but you must mean Infants also) are not saved because they are Abraham's Natural Seed, and that you dispute not the certainty of their Salvation, but only their Church-Membership; Have you not merely trifled all this while? Seeing now here is no sound ground it seems from their Church-Membership to prove them saved? And seeing none, as they are Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh, are either saved, or Members of the Church, so as to partake of Ordinances, is it not strange that you should prefer your Carnal Seed before his?  
But how are Infants Children of Wrath in the sense of Ephes. 2. 3. otherwise than with respect to that Condemnation which came by Adam? And is not that made void by Christ, Rom. 5? We readily therefore consent, that Infants are otherwise by Grace.  
J. B. 2. If you object that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism: To this, though Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism,— yet are they not capable of the principal ends? May it not be a Listing Sign? etc.  
T. G. Here you grant that Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism, nor can you prove them capable of all the benefits which you assign: For how are Infants capable of receiving Baptism as a Listing Sign? Ought there not to be a free consent on the part of him that is Listed? Or do you not rather press poor Infants (against their will, as appears by their resisting you what they can) then truly List them? Or how do they engage to be God's People, or take Christ to be their Lord (as you feign)? are not these mere Flourishes, and confuted by all Experience? And do not you confute yourself, when you tell us here that they understand none of these things? And what benefit of Baptism are Infants capable of, more than they are capable of the benefits of the Lord's Table? If Remission of Sin be held forth in the one, is it not held forth in the other? And will you narrow up Remission of Sin to your way of Baptism? And must we still be ordered by Bonds and Leases to transact Gospel Mysteries? Do you think to prevail by these Fancies?  
J. B. 3. And may it not be Operative by its signification as soon as the Child comes to the use of Reason? And in the mean time, as his Interest is, upon the condition of the Parents Faith,— so may not the Parent have the actual comfort of it,— as of a Lease that assureth an Estate to his Child? etc.  
T. G. It seems then Baptism operates not by its signification, till the Child comes to Reason, and you will not say it operates by the Work wrought? Why then cannot you let the Child stay till he have the use of Reason? And is it not absurd in you to say, that your Sprinkling assures the Parent of Heaven for his Infant, as a Lease assures him of an Estate? And why then did you tell us it was not the certainty of Salvation which you disputed for? What strange comfort do you give Parents concerning their Infants? Would any Parent value such a Lease as only names his Child, but gives no certain right to the Inheritance? Nay, for aught he knows, the Estate is more certain to one that is not named in the Lease (for that's the true Import of your holding some dying Infants are damned): but what a wretched Interest do you give the Child, whilst it rests upon the condition of the Father's Faith? Poor Child! if thy Father's Faith be false (as many are corrupt in that case) or if he fall from the Faith (as many do) what is then become of thy Interest? May not you, as Augustine, before you be truly called, Durus Pater Infantium?  
You suggest as if the Child's Baptism will operate as soon as it comes to the use of Reason; but that is false by all Experience: he must have better means than your Sprinkling, or he shall never be a Christian. You urge the Sinlessness of Christ. But suppose your Infants were as Sinless as he, would that entitle them to Baptism? I dare say you would hold it an Argument to the contrary. And what though Christ was not buried with Christ in Baptism? Yet is that a Warrant for you to Baptise those that cannot be buried with Christ in Baptism? And whether would your Fancies lead us at last, should we admit your Argumentation in other Cases?  
J. B. 4. If you object, How can an Infant covenant with God, or be engaged by this Sign?— To this, if only the Aged are capable of Engagement, may you not thence conclude that no Infant was ever circumcised? But may not that be the Child's action Morally, or in a Law-sence, which is only the Father's action Physically? As when a Man puts his Child's name into a Lease? etc.  
T. G. Whether you do not here grant the circumcised Child did not covenant with God properly but in a Law-sence? And do we not grant this because there was a Law for it? There was also once a Law for the Circumcision of Trees, Leu. 19 23. [Take away his foreskin, which is his Fruit. Ital. Transl.] Now show us your Law for your Mode of admitting Members, viz. Sprinkling of Infants, and we will dispute no farther. And would you not count us very unwise, if we should Baptise our Trees, because the Jews did Circumcise theirs? And then why may not we count you as unwise to Baptise Infants, because the Jews did Circumcise Infants? But what Book of God taught you this fine distinction, viz. That my Baptism must be another's act Physically, and mine Morally? And let this Fancy run, and what Ordinance can you deny an Infant which his Father may perform Physically? i. e. As he may put his Child's name into a Lease, which is the thing you refer us to, to understand your distinction by.  
J. B. 5. Another common Objection is, If Infants must be Baptised, why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper? To which, may not the very external nature of the Sacraments satisfy you? etc.  
T. G. Why do you not see your Error? Does not Dr. Taylor tell you, The Wit of Man is not able to show (in this case) a difference in these Ordinances? And are not little Children as capable to receive a small quantity of Bread and Wine, as to be Baptised? And did not Men admit them to both for five or six hundred Years together? Does not the Apostle say of the whole Church who were engaged in the Christian Worship, We are one Body and one Bread, even as we all partakers of that one Bread? 1 Cor. 10. And might not any Man argue as strongly from hence for Infant Communion, as you from any other Text for Infant Baptism? And does not God's requiring Repentance of every one that is to be Baptised, Acts 2. 37, 38. restrain Baptism to such, as 1 Cor. 11. restrains the Supper to such as examine themselves? And does not your Instance of a Burgess-Infant make against you, whilst you confess he is not born to Trade on his Infancy? Why then should Infants Trade in the Mysteries of the Gospel, though born to the Grace of Life, held forth to Mankind in the Gospel?  
J. B. 6. It bathe been objected, That if it be the will of God that Infants should be Baptised, it is strange that he hath left it so dark? To which, will you not grant that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism? etc.  
T. G. Dare you say that all that are under the benefit of the Covenant of Grace must be Baptised? And yet are not all such of the Universal Church? Are none of the Infants of the Jews of the Kingdom of God; and yet you will say they must be Baptised? Is it not as plain that all Church-Members must eat and drink at the Lord's Table, as that they are all to be Baptised? Does not Christ say, Drink ye all this? Does not Paul say, We being many, are one Body,— for we are all partakers of that Bread? Let Infants than be never so truly of the Church, as she contains the whole Body of Christ, yet are they not of that Body which are bound to put on Christ in Baptism, and to continue steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, in breaking of Bread and Prayers. And whether the remainder of this Query hath not been considered before?  
J. B. 7. Another Objection is, The evil consequences of Infant-Baptism, as gross Ignorance much occasioned by it. To which, 1. Is not the Lord Jesus himself the occasion of the ruin and damnation of Multitudes? Luke 2. 34. 2. Can you show what there is in the nature of the thing that should be hurtful to any? etc.  
T. G. Is not that of very evil Consequence, that naturally tends, to deprive all Men of the sacerd Ordinance of God, the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sin? Can you devise any way so natural, to fill the Church with Unregenerated Persons? And is not this a great evil, when God hath ordained the New Birth, as necessary to Membership in his Gospel-Church? Do you not evidently turn things upside down? And contradict our Saviour, John 3. 3, 5. and his Apostle, Gal. 3. 26. And is not this evil? Is it not evil to speak a word in the Name of the Lord which he never commanded? How dare you then say, you Baptise an Infant in the Name of the Lord, when you cannot but know you speak falsely in his Name; and can show no Authority from Heaven for Baptising Infants, if you did the thing indeed? Suppose any should bring Infants to the Lord's Table, what evil can you show us in the nature of the thing, that we cannot as well show you in the nature of your Crossing or Sprinkling? And how dare you crack it up to be more solemn, than our way of Baptising Repenting Believers? Do we deny any to be present when we Baptise, that are fit to be present? And why do you count the Footsteps of Christ and his Flock immodest, in comparison of your own Tradition? But more of your Immodesty anon.  
J. B. If God would have Infants to be Church-Members, and so entered by Baptism, are not all these Objections against God, and a Carping at his Way?  
T. G. Whether this be not an idle Query? And seeing it does not appear that it is the Will of God that Infants should be admitted to the Church professing the Gospel, by Baptism; are not you evidently the Men that carp at the People of God, and complain because Men will not lay aside the Command of God, and observe your Fancies and Traditions?   

DIVISION VI.  
About deferring or delaying Infant-Baptism.  
J. B. 1. Where do you find one word of Precept or Example in all the Bible, for the deferring the Baptism of any Child of a Christian till years of Discretion? Should you not bring some Scripture for your Way? etc.  
T. G. Whether it be not vain in you to talk of our delaying Baptism, when we take the first tender of any Person (unless we have just cause to the contrary) to dispense that sacred Ordinance? Does not DELAY suppose a present capacity and obligation for Duty, and then to put it off? But what Scripture have you to Baptise Members of the Church, and then to delay their other Duties and Privileges for 15 or 16 Years? And what Precept or Example have you to Baptise Persons when they are asleep? (As your Infants often are when you Sprinkle them) And who taught you to Baptise Persons per force, whether they will or no? As that is your common practice: As is confessed, when we are told by Austin, That Infants do strive against Baptism with great Crying.  
J. B. 2. Is not your Way inconsistent with obedience to the Rule? Is it not Christ's Rule that Persons shall be Baptised without delay when they are first made Disciples? Doth not this appear, Mat. 28. 19, 20. — How can you Baptise (any) when they are first made Disciples▪ unless it be in their Infancy? etc.  
T. G. Why do you not come forth, and make some one Infant (at least) a Disciple, according to Mat. 28. 19? Would not such a thing, done by you, do more to decide this Controversy, than a thousand Queries? I require you to come to the Test here, or else may we not justly count you vain Talkers, and especially you of the Presbyterians; who whilst you boast more of making Infants Disciples than other Pedo-baptists, yet you do no more than they, that is just nothing? And why do you suggest that we cannot tell when a Person is first made a Disciple? Did the Apostles know this or not? And why may not others know this as well as they? Seeing they judged not in this case by immediate Revelation, but by Persons gladly receiving their Doctrine, Acts 2. 40, 41. And how can you tell when an Infant is first made a Disciple? Are you not ashamed to pretend to know with ease, what is not to be known at all, that so you might make all Men ignorant of that they ought to know?  
J. B. 3. Would not this Practice of yours necessarily fill the Church with perpetual Contentions, as being about a Matter that cannot be determined by any known Rule? etc.  
T. G. May I not be confident, that it is hard for any Man to query more indiscreetly than he that form this Query? But, Sir, we are sure your Practice hath filled the World with Contention, both in former and latter Ages: your Bishops could not agree on what Day to Baptise Infants, you cannot tell us the Day. He that should not be Baptised, till you Ministers agree this Point, by one Voice, should he ever be Baptised? As for us, we have a known Rule to walk by, and that is, to Baptise them the same day they are Converted, if they reject it not. Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the Word were Baptised; and the same day was added unto them about three thousand Souls. Yet it may be thought that the noble Bereans were longer about it, because they searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether things were so. Yet who (but such as feed on Fancies) would imagine the time when they were to be Baptised, could not be determined by any known Rule? And why? Forsooth, because they came gradually to the knowledge of the Truth, spectatum admissi, etc.  
J. B. 4. When you pretend to ground your practice on Mat. 28. 19, 20. — would not your Doctrine turn Baptism (for most part) out of the Churches of the Saints? For according to you, only they that are made Disciples by Ministerial Teaching, directly should be Baptised, etc.  
T. G. Whether this your talk of directly, indirectly, and remotely discipling the Seed in the Parent, be not plain Barbarisms rather than the Simplicity of the Gospel? And that cunning Craftiness whereby you deceive your Admirers? And whether such your indirect do have not turned holy Baptism for the most part out of the World? But do you not err, to suggest that we would have none made Disciples, but by immediate Ministerial Instruction? Does not Mat. 28. 19, 20. show that Ministers are to teach those whom they have discipled, to observe the things which Christ commanded his Apostles? and is there not liberty sufficient here for every one to spread the knowledge of the Gospel as he is able, in his Family, or elsewhere, as God gives him opportunity? And is it not a great shame that you should thus forge an Opinion to be ours which we never owned, and then to quibble upon it as you do? I profess I am ashamed to read you in this, and many of these your imprudent Queries; which I cannot perceive to have any design but to throw stumbling Blocks in the way of Christians generally, and to make them question almost every thing.   

DIVISION VII.  
About the manner of Baptising.  
J. B. 1. Your ordinary practice of Baptising by Dipping over Head in cold Water (which you use as necessary) is it not a breach of the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill? etc.  
T. G. Is not this Query blasphemous? In that it reproacheth the Footsteps of God's Anointed? Was not Christ Baptised of John into Jordan? (So the Greek reads it) Was not that cold Water? seeing he was Baptised in the Winter season; for he was born about Midwinter, and Baptised when he began to be about thirty Years of Age, must it not then be about the same time of Winter? Is there any Form of Baptism necessary? Or hath God left that to you, to invent what Form you will? May we not better follow Christ▪ s Form than yours? Did not Christ know rightly how to be Baptised? Will not your Way admit of as many Forms of Baptism, as there are parts in a Man's Body? And should any urge the same part to be the fittest part to be Baptised, which was formerly Circumcised, might not a Man that would strain his Wits and Conscience, give as probable Arguments for that, as you do for the subject of Baptism, whilst you reason from Circumcision? Do you not boldly outface the Holy Ghost by your Sprinkling, John 3. where he tells us the Reason why John Baptised in Eanon, was, because there was much Water? And why went Philip and the Eunuch both down into the Water, if your Crossing and Sprinkling were a due Form of Baptising? Does not Diodate (and many of your Learned Men) tell us, that (Rom. 6. 4.) Baptism was a Dipping in Water; according to the ancient Ceremony? Were the ancient Christians Murderers? When will you blush at your desperate Vanities? Nay, do not you grant that Dipping was the use of the Church in Scripture-times, only you ask us whether it was constantly used? But if you lay inconstancy to their Charge, should you not prove it? Does your Instance of the Jailor prove it? Or do not you show that you read that place with blind Eyes? Else you will find they went out of his House even at Midnight, to celebrate holy Baptism; for is it not plainly said, That when he and all his were Baptised, that he brought them into his House, and set Meat before them? And yet, had they not been in his House before▪ to Preach to him and to all that were in his House? And can any place be more full against your childish Sprinkling? And whether Mr. Fisher▪ and Mr. Tombs hath not sufficiently answered your frivolous Quibbles about the quantity of Bread and Wine in the holy Table? And also your Quirk about warm Water to Baptise in? And seeing by the course of Providence Water is warm in the Summer, in comparison of what it is in Winter, how should it be a Sin to Baptise in warm Water? And that God which ordained Water for our nourishment as Men, allows us to use it warm or cold, as may be most healthful and convenient. And why should we think it unlawful to use it so in the Sacrament of Baptism if necessity require it, as in an extreme Frost perhaps it may? And so in respect of the weakness of the Subject, is here any change of the Ordinance? And will not Mat. 12. 7. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, better defend such an innocent Practice, than your absurd al●●●●●ion of the Ordinance?  
J. B. 2. Is it not a breach of the Seventh Commandment. Thou shalt not commit Adultery, to Dip Persons naked, or next to naked? etc.  
T. G. Is not this also a foolish and blasphemous Query? Is not the having one Garment on only next to naked? And yet may it not be decent enough to be Baptised in one Garment? But why do you so basely suggest that it is our practice to Baptise naked? Is not our constant Practice known to be otherwise? Are not both Men and Women attired in decent Garments among us when Baptised? Why do you thus ungraciously Scandalise an Innocent People? Will you not cease to pervert the right Ways of the Lord; And to make his Ordinance contemptible as your Fellows did, Mal. 1. 6. 7? Yea, this Reproach hath been by your means, O ye Priests; And let me entreat you to lay it to Heart. And are you not more perverse still in the remainder of your Query? As if the Dipping Persons clothed, would destroy our Argument for washing the whole Body? What is this? You grant Dipping was used in the Scripture-times, sure they were Dipped either with Clothes, or without them: And is it not said of them that their Hearts were sprinkled from an evil Conscience, and their Bodies washed with pure Water, Heb. 10. 22. Now what shall we say to your ungodly Query? It will not permit us to be Baptised by Dipping (as you grant it was used in Scripture-times) neither with Clothes nor without. So then, nothing but your Crossing or Sprinkling can please you. How true is the Proverb? Some Men are much in love with their own Fancies.  
J. B. 3. What fruit of these things? How many of you that instead of labouring after the winning of Souls from Sin to God, make it your main scope to propagate your Opinion? etc.  
T. G. Whether this Query be not Hypocritical? As if the business of your Hundreds of Queries did not speak you to be as fond of your Opinion as any other? Or as if the winning Souls from the Errors wherein you have entangled them, and by which you have hardened them against plain Truth, were not a winning Souls to God? And have not you compelled us to defend what we hold? And do you now blame us for spending time to unmask your Fallacies? For my own part, I could have been glad to have forborn this Labour: But what did you publish your Queries for? Was it that you might bear it high against the Truth, and that no Man should examine them? And is not your intolerable Calumnies against what we profess, and your immoderate stickling for Pedo-rantism, the cause of those Distractions (at least in part) which you would charge us with? As for Prayer in Families, if there be no sinful Impositions and Formalities, which of us are Enemies to Family Devotions? And are not you as straight in this as other Men? Would you have more Unity with us? This you pretend. But then cease your Heats for things really disputable, as Mr. Baxter confesses Infant-Baptism to be: Yea, saith he, I know it to be a very difficult Point,— 
Mr. B. Def. Prin. Lo. p. 7  and many Prelatists have maintained that it is not determined in Scripture. You may be sure therefore, you shall not hector us into your Opinion, by calling us Murderers and Adulterers, merely because of our Baptism. And who that is wise would take such courses for Union with Dissenting Christians? Sure this will keep us from your Communion.  
J. B. 4. Whether it be at all credible that Satan would be so charitable to Believers Infants, as to plead for their Privileges, or would be a Propagater of Christ's Kingdom? etc.  
T. G. Wretched Charity! Is this Charity to damn hundreds of Infants, that you may plead for one? Was not Augustine as Charitable in pleading for Infant's Communion, as you are in pleading for their Baptism? Were not the false Apostles (in their own Opinion) as Charitable as the best of you all for Infants, when they would have had them Circumcised? For say they, except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And say you less, except Infants be Baptised (as they were Circumcised under the Law) there is no sound ground of Hope concerning any dying Infant in the World? But in good earnest, whether we or you, be really and indeed the most charitable to Infants, let him that reads these Books impartially, judge? And how your practice of Pedo-baptism hath propagated Christ's Kingdom, may be sadly seen among the Papists, where yet Pedo-baptism is more common than with you? And how his Kingly Government is opposed by your withstanding his Counsel against yourselves, is too evident. Men have a knack to pretend Christ's Kingdom, when it is their own that they strive to set up: and 'twill be well if you do it ignorantly.  
J. B. 5. Whereas we tell Sinners of the heinous aggravation of their Sins, as committed after Baptism,— Whether you that make Infant-Baptism a Nullity, dare undertake to bear the burden of that Aggravation for them? etc.  
T. G. Whether you deceive them not in telling them they are Baptised, when they are not? Yet how dare you charge us for going about to extenuate any Sin, at any time, more than yourselves? And whether does not Mr. B. himself make Infant-Baptism a Nullity? When he saith to the Adult (notwithstanding their Infant-Baptism) They were never strictly nor comfortably in Covenant with Christ, till they freely consent; and (saith he) it was never a match till now. And then is not this the fit time to Seal the Covenant (as you speak); for he saith, their Infant-Covenant will not now serve. Saints Everlasting Rest, P. 178, 182.  
J. B. 6. Whether it should not lie heavy on tender Consciences, to add to God's Word, holding the Repeal of the Ordinance of Infant Church-Membership?— How doleful is it that any Christians should be so zealous to dispute their Children out of Christ's Church,— and whether they may not have as many thanks from Christ, as the Disciples had for keeping such from him?  
T. G. Whether this be not the great evil of Mr. B. to add to God's Word, telling the World he has given plain Scripture-proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism, when in truth there is not one word for their being admitted Church-Members by Baptism? And whether we do not sufficiently evince, that we dispute no Infant out of the Church of Christ, though we deny them to be admitted by Baptism? And wherein the Christian Man's Infants have a blessing in the timely Dedication of them to God (as far as the Christian hath allowance from Christ, to bring them to him) which others have not who are born of those that know not God, have we not likewise showed in our first Book, and now also in this? And whether (for all this Noise) Mr. B. does not make Infant Church-Membership a mere Trifle, unless they be sprinkled, when that's all the cause of the Cry, that they have no sound grounded hope concerning them; and that for this cause they are supposed to be left in the Kingdom of the Devil? And whether Christ will give Mr. Baxter more thanks for THUS disputing unbaptised Infants out of Heaven, than he gave to Austin for disputing Infants out of Life Eternal, because they were not Communicated with at the Lord's? Table. And whether it be not a good wish that Mr. Baxter may see his Mistake in the former, as 'tis supposed (by some) that Austin saw his Mistake in the latter?   

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

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