The infants advocate against the cruel doctrine of those Presbyterians who hold, that the greatest part of dying infants shall be damned : in answer to a book of Mr. Giles Firmin's entituled, Scripture warrant, &c. / by Tho. Grantham.

THE Infants Advocate, AGAINST The cruel Doctrine of thoſe Presbyterians, who hold, That the greateſt part of Dying Infants ſhall be DAMNED. In Anſwer to a Book of Mr. GILES FIRMIN'S, entituled, Scripture Warrant, &c. By THO. GRANTHAM.

Exod. 32. 32, 33. Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their Sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy Book which thou haſt written. And the Lord ſaid unto Moſes, Whoſoever hath ſinned againſt me, him will I blot out of my Book. Matth. 18. 10, 11, 14. Take heed that ye deſpiſe not one of theſe little Ones; for I ſay unto you, that in Heaven their Angels do always behold the Face of my Father which is in Heaven. For the Son of Man came to ſeek, and to ſave that which is loſt—Even ſo it is not the Will of your Father which is in Heaven, that one of theſe little Ones ſhould periſh.

London, Printed by J. D. for the Author. 1688.

The PREFACE. Honeſt Reader;

I Could not have thought that a Man reputed wiſe, an old Profeſſor, and one who ſo bears himſelf upon his Father's Covenant (whom he will have to be a Son of Abraham, and ſo himſelf to be Abraham's Son alſo) could have given ſuch evident Proof of the contrary, as by his Book he has brought forth. Sure I am, I anſwered his two Queſtions in much Love and Faithfulneſs, according to my Ability, being thereunto deſired by ſome of his Neighbours: And I hope no Impartial Reader will cenſure me to be a Scoffer, as Mr. Firmin does: But truly I think he was pleaſed to throw that Dirt, that he might have ſome pretence to give ſcope to his ill Spirit, to exerciſe it ſelf that way.

I confeſs I uſe theſe words upon the occaſion of his talking ſo high of his Father's Covenant [that it would even make a well Man ſick, to ſee what pitiful work he makes of it.] And here I will give thee an account of it, and then judg of me as thou pleaſeſt.

Saith Mr. F. When I could not tell where to lay hold (meaning in his diſmal Temptations) my Parental Covenant and Infant Baptiſm was a ſupport to me. So that I bleſs God, 1. For Abraham's Covenant. 2. I bleſs God that I had Godly Parents. 3. I bleſs God my Parents were no Anabaptiſts, &c. Only a word, ſome may think you had Godly Parents, mine were not ſo: It may be I had a Godly Grandfather, or a Mother; Had you ſo? no doubt but you may improve the Covenant from him. The ſecond Commandment will help you—others may ſay, Baptized I am, but my Parents bad enough. Well, art awake? and art in earneſt for Chriſt and the ſaving Bleſſings come by him? you may improve your Covenant. A Woman putting a Queſtion, how ſhe might know whether ever ſhe had theſe Qualifications? Mr. F. tells us, that whilſt he was troubled about making out theſe Qualifications, there comes a Motion into my Mind, (ſaith he) What ſay you to your Father's Covenant? you know your Parents were Godly—will you ſtand to your Father's Covenant? Here my Qualification was the choice of my Father's God, who was mine before by an external Covenant: But now to have him my God, my Portion by an internal Covenant, and Efficacy, here I was pent up. Will you chuſe or refuſe him? &c.

Now whether this Diſcourſe will not almoſt make a well Man ſick (I mean a ſerious Chriſtian troubled) to hear a wiſe Man talk at this rate? And whether he does not lay his Foundation upon his Qualification? for by that, ſaith he, was the choice of my Father's God. And does he not alſo ſet up his Will as high as ever any did, in chuſing or refuſing God to be his God, his Portion by internal Covenant and Efficacy? Sure he doth.

Mr. F's great buſineſs is to abuſe and diſgrace me, by falſe and fooliſh Stories, which have been told him by others, which I paſs by as unworthy obſervation. And then he falls in with the Papiſts againſt me, in the caſe of abſtaining from, or eating Blood, juſtifying himſelf and them in the latter. Tho he confeſſes the believing Gentiles were forbidden to eat Blood by that Decree, Act. 15. 29. And when theſe Decrees were repealed; he cannot tell; and whilſt he makes us for obſerving them, ſuch as do not believe the Blood of Chriſt to be our Atonement; and that we hold ſome things to be unclean of themſelves; he condemns alſo the Primitive Chriſtians, who religiouſly abſtain'd from Blood for ſeveral hundred Years after Chriſt, and makes himſelf wiſer than the Apoſtles; for had they known ſuch to be the conſequence, they would not have made them, nor have deliver'd them to be kept as they did, Acts 16. 4.

We know that that which goes into the Man defiles not, and therefore Blood defiles not, but acting againſt God's Word defiled Evah, even by eating that which was good for Food; and ſo may Mr. F. defile himſelf, for he ſays he will eat Blood Puddings, S. A. by which he means, Sir Anabaptiſt: and indeed a ſcornful Spirit breaths in many Pages of his late Books.

He is pleaſed to throw Dirt upon me very freely, about an eſcape of the Pen or Preſs, I am not ſure which, and yet he being a Scholar, and acquainted with ſuch over-ſights, could not but diſcern, unleſs Malice blinded him, that it was an overſight. The Paſſage is about the time when Tranſubſtantiation came into the World, and the Book which he quarels has it thus: How rigidly do they impoſe the Decrees of the Trent-Councils: Where note, the word Councils being plural, he might eaſily have ſuppoſed Lateran, which was wanting; for thus it ſtands in the Catechiſm of the Papiſts (of which I give notice Pag. 55.) The Lateran and Trent Councils, and from thence I took the date of Tranſubſtantiation. Not but that I have read the ſame in other Authors. But here he brands me with groſs Ignorance, and I grant I am not ſo well read as himſelf, if that will pleaſe him. And my rejoycing is this, that in Simplicity and Godly Sincerity I wrote that Book which he deſpiſes; and I hope God will bleſs my Endeavours, in which I truſt, I have no other ſcope but his Glory and the good of all Men; heartily deſiring that all Truth were reſtored to its Primitive Purity and Simplicity.

As to his three firſt Chapters, I ſhall ſay little to them at preſent, being very well ſatisfied with my Anſwers to his two Queſtions, notwithſtanding all that he has ſaid to render them invalid. The chief thing which I deſign in this Reply is, to maintain (what in me is) the Mercy of God to all dying Infants, againſt Mr. F. and others, whoſe cruel Doctrine ſends them by Millions to Helliſh Torments, as appears by this Book of Mr. Firmin's, p. 8. If all dying Infants ſhall be ſaved; there will be Millions in Heaven (ſaith he) in whom the Spirit of God—had nothing to do in their Salvation. I ſay, to maintain the Salvation of all dying Infants againſt thoſe who would thus damn them, is eſpecially my preſent undertaking. And if Mr. F. be diſpoſed to urge me further, it is a Subject I am willing to debate with him, when and how he pleaſes, ſo that we may diſcourſe in Love▪ as becomes Chriſtians. And as to the Queſtions about Sacred Baptiſm, that Work may perhaps be undertaken in a particular Treatiſe by it ſelf. In the mean time, let it be conſidered, that it has been granted both by Papiſts and Proteſtants, (and thoſe of the more Learned ſort too) That there is no Scripture for Infant-Baptiſm. That the Scripture ſhews us no other way of baptizing, but by dipping. Yea, I lately asked a It was not the Bp of Norwich, for I never ſaw him, nor did I ever diſpute any Doctor out of the room, as Mr. F. hath both fooliſhly and falſly reported in Print, with no leſs than ſix other falſe and very frivolous Tales, in half a Page▪ Doctor of the Church of England very ſeriouſly, Whether he held Infant-Baptiſm to be of Divine Inſtitution? Who very freely gave me this Anſwer, No truly, I only look upon it as a Church-Rite. But then, whether the Church have ſuch Power, as to make Rites and Ceremonies in Religion, and particularly thus to alter the ſubject and manner of Baptiſm, as has confeſſedly been done by the Church of Rome, and in part by the Church of England, is the buſineſs for this preſent Age to take into their moſt ſerious Conſideration.

T. G.

The INFANTS ADVOCATE, againſt the cruel Doctrine of thoſe Presbyterians, who hold, That the greateſt part of Dying Infants are DAMNED.

Diviſion 1.

MR Giles Firmin was pleaſed to print two Queſtions, and deſires thoſe, whom he calls Anabaptiſts, to anſwer them; and at the requeſt of ſome of his Neighbours, I wrote a brief, and I hope, a modeſt Anſwer to them, not for Contention, but for Satisfaction to ſuch as deſire to know the truth in the matters thereby put to the Queſtion by Mr. F. who finds himſelf aggrieved, tho nothing is done but what he deſired; that is, his Queſtions anſwered: And tho he ſays they are not, yet that ſhall not provoke me to ſay much to him concerning them. But ſeeing by this occaſion we are unavoidably fallen upon the buſineſs of Infants-Salvation; Whether God Almighty ordained Baptiſm, or any other Rite to be neceſſary to their Salvation? or, Whether the greateſt, or any part of Dying Infants ſhall be damned in Helliſh Torments? A Queſtion of great weight and importance; I find my ſelf concern'd to proceed in oppoſing that cruel Doctrine, which would ſend Millions of dying Infants to Hell Torments.

It was the Judgment of Auſtin, and many others, that unleſs Infants were baptized, and received the Lord's Supper, they could not be ſaved: And Mr. Firmin ſeems to be of the ſame Mind with reſpect to their Baptiſm: and moreover, he holds that Infants muſt have Faith and Repentance, as neceſſary to their Salvation, or they muſt all periſh. I will ſet down his own words.

In Pag. 90. of his Plea, he ſpeaks thus: To return to Infants, They muſt be regenerate, and have Faith ſome way, elſe they muſt periſh. And in his Book entituled, Scripture warrant, &c. he ſpeaks thus, Pag. 76. They who are regenerate, have Faith and Repentance. But all Infants ſaved, are regenerated: Therefore all Infants ſaved, have Faith and Repentance. And in Pag. 21. he counts it an Error in me for ſuppoſing, If Iſaac had died before he was eight days old, he might have been ſaved. So (ſaith he) this Covenant (meaning the Covenant of Circumciſion) might have been ſpared. And in Pag. 40. The ſame (ſaith he) I may ſay for Baptiſm, being Chriſt's own Inſtitution, This is the Hand of the Spirit accompanying it, when and where he pleaſeth, ſhall be the means to convey Spiritual Bleſſings to the Hearts of ſome Infants, and prove to them the waſhing of Regeneration. So that, I think, I have done him no wrong in the account I have given of his Opinion. To all which I anſwer.

To intermit a little the buſineſs of Infants Faith and Repentance, we will conſider what he ſays of Circumciſion and Baptiſm.

He tells us, Pag. 39. That he cannot conceive how it can conſiſt with the Wiſdom, Holineſs, and Goodneſs of God, to inſtitute an Ordinance in his Church, for ſpiritual and ſaving Ends, and ſtrictly to command this Ordinance to be adminiſtred to ſuch Subjects as Children of eight days old—and he himſelf not work with his own Inſtitution, when and where he pleaſes, to the good and benefit of that Subject to whom it is adminiſtred, this Subject having need of the Spiritual Good, ſignified and ſealed thereby. It doth implicitly charge the Inſtitution with Vanity. To which I reply.

1. Conſidering what Mr. F. ſays of Iſaac dying before the eighth day, (which I noted before) his ſenſe is this; that from the time that Circumciſion was inſtituted, it makes that Covenant of Circumciſion a Vanity, to think any of Abraham's Seed (tho but Infants of eight days old) could be ſaved if not circumciſed: And then, I pray, what is like to become of all the World beſide, who had no Intereſt in the Covenant of Circumciſion? Muſt they not all periſh? We ſhall hear more of that anon.

2. And beſides this, tho he makes Circumciſion thus neceſſary to the Salvation of Infants, yet he does not believe that all Infants that were circumciſed were ſaved; for theſe words of his [when and where he pleaſes] carry this ſenſe in a Presbyterian Breaſt, that tho Circumciſion did by expreſs order belong to all the Males of Abraham's Seed, being eight days old, yet perhaps but few of many of them ſhould be ſaved: which I evidently ſhewed in my Anſwers to Mr. F's Queſtion, and to Mr. Petto.

Now here I do profeſs to believe, that Almighty God did not thus ordain Circumciſion to be abſolutely neceſſary; becauſe they, to wit, Infants, can neither underſtand his Will herein, nor deſire it, neither hinder it; it wholly depends on others to do it for them, and why then they ſhould periſh if it be not done, no reaſon can be ſhewed: but that which is the hardeſt thing of all, is, that if Iſaac had died before the eighth day, he ſhould not be ſaved, when yet it was not lawful to circumciſe him. What is this? Does God damn Infants for dying before they be eight days old? or for not having that done to them which by God's Law ought not to be done before the eighth day? This is the cruelſt Doctrine that can be. And I will ſhew how contrary it is to the Doctrine of Learned Proteſtants. One ſaith thus upon Gen. 17. 14. It is no good reading to ſay the uncircumciſed Man-Child, but [Zachar] the Male, &c. ſhall be Dr. Willit Hexap. in Gen. p. 196, &c. cut off; for the Infant of eight days old, mentioned ver. 12. is of purpoſe omitted here. Hence then it is inferred, that there was no ſuch abſolute neceſſity of Circumciſion, that Children wanting it ſhould be damned. Again, This place cannot be underſtood of Infants that are uncircumciſed, 1. That addition, the eighth day, is uſed only by the Septuagint, it is not in the Hebrew. 2. The words are, qui non circumciderit, he which ſhall not circumciſe. So readeth the Original, the Chaldee Paraphraſt, Junius, &c. which ſheweth that it muſt be underſtood of them that are Adulti, and not of Infants—. If Infants be not circumciſed it is the Parents fault—as may appear in the Example of Moſes, whom the Lord puniſhed, and not the Child for neglecting it.

3. Concerning Baptiſm, I do believe it to be a very ſolemn Ordinance, and alſo very uſeful in the Church of God; yet I do not find that it is the Hand of the Spirit to convey Grace to the Heart of any Infant, ſeeing what it conveys, it doth it by Faith and by its Figure; repreſenting the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, and ours with him, &c. of all which Infants know nothing, being ſprinkled, as I formerly ſhewed, very often when they are faſt aſleep; and if awake, they know nothing of the Myſtery of Baptiſm.

But Mr. F. brought three Scriptures to prove his Doctrine, we ſhall now conſider them; Epheſ. 5. 26. Chriſt loved his Church, and gave himſelf for it; that he might ſanctify and cleanſe it by the waſhing of Water, through the Word. I allow Baptiſmal Water to be here meant; but then we ſee it does not cleanſe but by or through the Word, nor doth the Word profit unleſs it be mixed with Faith in them that hear it; Heb. 4. 1, 2. The Church is purified in obeying the Truth through the Spirit; 1 Pet. 1. 22. And Baptiſm ſaves us, as it is the anſwer of a good Conſcience towards God, by the Reſurrection of Chriſt. And to this agree his other two Scriptures, Tit. 3. 11. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Now Infants being uncapable of being cleanſed by Baptiſm according to the ſenſe of theſe Scriptures, we may in no wiſe apply them to Infant-Baptiſm.

Diviſ. 2.

And becauſe it may be moſt convenient to treat of Regeneration in this place, we will here conſider Mr. F's Arguments to prove that Infants have Faith and Repentance. His firſt Argument is as followeth.

Arg. 1. If all, even adult Perſons, are paſſive in the work of Regeneration, then Infants are capable of Regeneration. But the Antecedent is true.

Anſw. 1. Here we are told that grown Perſons are paſſive (that is, they do nothing at all) in the work of Regeneration; this is the meaning of his Antecedent. Now if this be true, as he ſays it is, then if they do nothing, they neither hear the Word, nor believe it, nor repent, nor hate nor turn from Sin; for theſe are at leaſt ſome of the parts of the work of Regeneration. Now I would fain know who is active in all this, if the Party regenerate be not? St. Paul tells us, With the Heart Man believeth unto Righteouſneſs, and with the Mouth Confeſſion is made unto Salvation, Rom. 10. 10. When Peter ſhewed the Jews their Sin, and preached Chriſt to them, they were pricked to the Heart: Now obſerve, they came to hear the Word, they gave Audience, they gave Credit to it, God bleſſed the Word with Power: Now they cry out, What ſhall we do? Peter exhort them to repent, &c. and they gladly receive his word, and had the waſhing of Regeneration the ſame day. Now let God have the Glory of this, and all Converſions, who is the firſt Mover in it, and the Efficient Cauſe of it; yet he is abſurd that will ſay, Man is as paſſive as an Infant that can neither hear, nor receive any Inſtruction at all. And therefore I deny his Antecedent, it is not true, the Adult are ſome way active in the work of Converſion; yea all that know the work, do know what wreſtling with Corruption is, and how unable they are to overcome in the Conflict with Satan and Fleſh, without Supernatural Strength, or Aid from Heaven, but yet They act, and wait for help in all their actings.

2. Men are commanded to hear, that their Souls may live, Iſa. 55. If they hear and obey not, they ſin againſt God, Rom. 10. 16, 17, 18. We grant that the Power Converting, is not of the Creature; We are not ſufficient of our ſelves to think any thing as of our ſelves. All our Faculties are given us of God. It's our duty to put theſe Faculties into Act; to hear, repent, and believe, is Man's Duty. It is not the Duty of Infants to hear, repent, believe, &c. therefore they are not regenerated this way. What you urge from the Shunamite's Son and Lazarus, being both dead, and ſo equally paſſive as to riſe from Death, is wholly impertinent, and being put into Argument, is falſe; for thus you muſt argue, if you ſay any thing, Infants dead are as capable to riſe as the Adult, being dead. Ergo, They are as capable of hearing, beleiving, and repenting as the Adult. The Conſequence is falſe; many Inſtances we have of the Adult, who hear, believe, and repent; but no Inſtance of one Infant ever regenerated this way.

3. As for your captious Demands about our being quickned, &c. you may well ſpare them, till you give better Evidence of your own Converſion; for your Books do evidently ſhew, that a jeering idle Spirit has dominion in you. Howbeit this we ſay; The Original Cauſe of our Converſion, is the Love of God: The meritorious Cauſe, is the Blood of Chriſt: The miniſterial Cauſe, is the Evidence of Truth, or the Word of Truth: The efficient Cauſe, is the Power of God's Grace, John 1. 12. The formal Cauſe, is believing and obeying the Truth through the Spirit: The final Cauſe, is God's Glory and our Salvation; to the obtaining of which all our Faculties of Hearing, Underſtanding, Will, and Affection, are given us of God to be put into Act. This is not required of Infants; and how they are ſanctified by the Spirit, God only knoweth.

4. But now, ſaith Mr. Firmin, I will not have him for my God, who cannot moſt omnipotently make me both will, and do what he will.

But I reply, Theſe are great ſwelling words of Vanity, and nothing to the purpoſe: We diſpute not what God can do; for he can, of a Stone in the Street, make a better Man than either of us. And we deny not, but God hath ſometimes, and may ſtill, if he pleaſe, convert ſome by miraculous Operations. But to ſay that all Converſions are miraculous, as Mr. F. does, is very falſe. Paul was converted miraculouſly, ſo was not Lydia. What I ſay upon Epheſ. 1. 19, 20. is miſtaken by you, for I extend it further than to the Reſurrection of the Body; for I expreſly ſay he has power to do whatſoever he pleaſes, and ſo to raiſe us up, &c. but if I was ſhort or obſcure, this is my meaning, The Faith of Chriſtians is agreeable to the power which God ſhewed in Chriſt when he raiſed him from the dead; and I think 1 Pet. 1. 3. doth very well explain Epheſ. 1. 19, 20. Bleſſed be the God and Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, which according to his abundant Mercy, hath begotten us again to a lively Hope, by the Reſurrection of Chriſt from the Dead.

Mr. Firmin argues thus; They who are regenerated, have Faith and Repentance: but all Infants ſaved, are regenerated: Therefore all Infants ſaved, have Faith and Repentance.

Anſw. 1. Here is a fault in your Logick, You bid me underſtand what that Fallacy Ignoratio Elenchi is, and here you are fallen into that Fallacy your ſelf. your Major ſhould have been univerſal, or elſe you conclude nothing rationally.

2. Therefore I deny the Major, and ſay, Some may be regenerated (I mean cleanſed from Sin, renewed by Chriſt, and made fit for Heaven) without Faith and Repenuance, namely, Infants; and ſure I am Mr. F. ſhall never be able to prove his Major, being taken univerſally; and if he like not to mend his Major, I reject his Argument, and retort it thus.

3. They that are regenerated, do continue in the Apoſtles Doctrine and Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. But all Infants ſaved are regenerated. Ergo, All Infants ſaved continue ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles Doctrine and Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. Now as this Argument is fallacious, ſo certainly is yours. Again,

4. You that make all Converſion miraculous, how can you tie Regeneration to Faith and Repentance, as it reſpects Infants? Do not you contradict your ſelf, Mr. Firmin, in this? May not God ſanctify Infants what way he pleaſeth, but muſt be limited to your Methods? Sir, what he doth in the Regeneration of Infants is a Secret, let it alone to him.

5. But let us hear Dr. Taylor, one of your own Mind as to Poedo-baptiſm, yet he ſaith, Let Infants be preſſed with all the Inconveniencies which are conſequent to Original Sin; yet it will not be laid to their Charge, ſo as to condemn them: Or if it could, yet the Mercy and abſolute Goodneſs of God will ſecure them, if he take them away before they can glorify him by a free Obedience—For as Infants without their own conſent—contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin, and are liable to all the Puniſhments which can with Juſtice deſcend upon his Poſterity, who are perſonally innocent: ſo Infants ſhall be reſtored—by the ſecond Adam, by the Redemption of Jeſus Chriſt, by his Righteouſneſs and Mercies, applied either immediately, or how, or when he pleaſes to appoint. And here Mr. F. may learn from Dr. Taylor, how Infants may be guilty of Sin, and yet Innocent; which he would make a Contradiction in me.

Mr. F. tells us his Major (laſt denied) is clear from our own Confeſſion, in that we ſay Faith and Repentance are the two parts of Regeneration: but he that grants this, extends it only to the Adult, of whom theſe are things required; and not to Infants, of whom they are not required; ſo that this is a meer Caption, unbecoming a grave Diſputant. But let us hear how he proves his Minor. They (ſaith he) who are born unclean, that are ſinful and corrupt by Nature, muſt be regenerated before they can be ſaved. But ſo are Infants born. Therefore, &c.

Anſw. It is not denied by us that Infants are born unclean, and we grant that before they come to Heaven they muſt be cleanſed, ſo that you might have ſpared this Argument. The thing you are to prove is, That Infants cannot be cleanſed without Faith and Repentance. But this you cunningly ſlide over, and you will find it to be an undertaking too hard for you, and I think you are the firſt Man that ever attempted it.

It is not your telling us again of your Seminal Faith that will do it, which, as you refer it to Infants, is a meer Chimera of your own Brain. But when you ſpeak of the Adult, you ſeem to ſpeak ſenſe in theſe words, When God regenerates an Adult Perſon, he doth firſt infuſe the Principles, Seeds, Habits of all the Graces of the Spirit. When the Sower went out to ſow, Mat 13. 3. it was but the Seeds of Faith and Repentance which he did ſow, which was firſt received, and theſe Seeds grew up, Mark▪ 4. 27.

Now, Sir, if you will ſtand to this, and theſe Texts to govern your Speech, we may very well come to agree. What then is the Seed here ſpoken of? Our Saviour tells us, it is the Word of God, which Men hear preached unto them; Is this the Seminal Faith and Repentance which you talk on? Then this Seminal Faith is not in Infants, for as they cannot hear the Word, ſo no Sower, or Preacher is ſent to them. And I ſuppoſe you would not baptize an Adult Perſon, tho he has heard the Word, unleſs you ſee ſome effect of it, at leaſt that the tender blade appear: for Perſons are not made Diſciples or Chriſtians by being baptized; but they are baptized becauſe they are made Diſciples, John 4. 1. Mat. 28. 19. Mathetuſate panta ta ethne Baptizantes autous. And Diſciples may be called Chriſtians, Acts 11. Now with what Conſcience then can you baptize an Infant, that never to your knowledg received this Seed at all?

But Mr. F. bids us twy-fallow and try-fallow our Ground, and ſow no ſeed, for according to your Doctrine (ſaith he) you may have a Crop without it. But by his favour this is not our caſe, but his own, for he ſows no Seed to Infants, and yet he will have a Crop of them; for he will have them baptized aſleep or awake by force. Now Baptiſm is an Act of Obedience ſpringing from the Word (the Seed) ſown; Acts 2. 38, 40. Act. 8. 12. Nay more, he exacts this Crop of Infants not only before he ſow any Seed, or before any be ſown by any other that he knows of, but alſo before he ſo much as Twy-fallow, or plow at all. And thus whilſt he thought to kick the Husbandman on the breech, he hath kick'd up his own Heels.

Mr. F. quotes 1 John 3. 9. It is the Seed which remains. Peter's Faith failed ſadly (ſaith he) as to the Act, but the Seed remained. This would lead us to another Queſtion [as it is his manner to confound his Diſcourſes with Diverſities] but I ſhall hold him to the Parable of the Sower, alledged by himſelf Mat. 13. And then I may tell him the Seed only remains in good and honeſt Hearts, but not in every place where it is ſown, nor in every place where it is received; remember the High-way, and the Stony and Thorny Ground.

Mr. F's Arg. 2. No unclean Perſon ſhall ſee God; Heb. 12. 14. But Infants by Nature are unclean. If the Scripture be believed, they muſt bear the Image in which they were created by God, that ever ſee the face of God.

Anſw. Should I retort this Argument, I might ſhew the infirmity of its form. But I ſhall take your Senſe. I ſuppoſe by the Major you mean no unclean or wicked Perſon, as ſuch, ſhall ſee God. And by the Minor you mean that Infants are born of ſinful Parents, polluted by Original Sin, and ſo under Condemnation; And therefore before they can come to Heaven they muſt be cleanſed from theſe Pollutions, &c. If this be your Senſe I agree with you. But then your Argument touches not the Queſtion, which is, Whether Infants are not made clean from their Pollutions, and freed from Condemnation, without having Faith and Repentance? I ſay they may, becauſe God requires not theſe things of Infants. But you argue further.

Mr. F. All the Members of the Kingdom of Heaven are holy: but Children are Members of the Kingdom of Heaven: Not by Birth, it is by Regeneration.

Anſw. Firſt, Here I think you have given your Cauſe its deaths blow. It ſeems now that the Infants of Believers are no more holy by their Birth of believing Parents than others; and whether they be regenerated you cannot tell, for you do not hold that all the Children of Believers are ſaved. What is now become of the Birth-priviledg ſo much gloried in by Mr. Baxter, and others? We have been told Infants are holy by Birth, if one Parent be but a Believer; and that Children of Believers are holy by Prerogative of Seed. But now you confeſs the Truth, and I grant Infants are not holy by Birth, let their Parents be never ſo Chriſtian. And I have already granted that Infants muſt be cleanſed from all Sin before they come to Heaven. But yet you touch not the Queſtion, Whether they cannot be cleanſed from Sin without they have Faith and Repentance; one would think you begin to be afraid of the Queſtion, and I am ſure you have cauſe ſo to be.

Arg. 3. Mr. F. tells us, If Adam had continued in Innocency, his Children had born the Image of God from the Birth: I never heard it denied. That which I infer hence is, that Children are capable of the Image of God, and receiving the Seeds of all Grace it was ſo then, why not now?

Anſw. What manner of the Image of God Infants ſhould have born, had Adam continued innocent, is unknown to Man; and 'tis but vain to concern our ſelves about that which cannot be known: but this we know, it ſhould not have ſtood in Faith and Repentance as now, becauſe in both theſe we confeſs our ſelves Sinners, and this is enough to ſhew the vanity of your Queſtion, if ſo then, why not now? But you proceed thus;

Mr. F. Shall the sin of one Perſon be ſo miſchievous, to deprive Adam and all his Poſterity of the Image of God, and bring the Seeds of all Corruption into their Nature, and ſhall the Grace of God be denyed to renew his Image in little Children, when and where he pleaſeth? Children being a great part of the World, ſhall the Spirit of God have nothing to do in their Hearts?

Anſw. I know no Man more faulty than Mr. F. in this matter; for he will not allow the Grace of God to have any thing to do with the greateſt part of Infants. I doubt not but God doth all things needful for them, to make them holy, by the Blood of Chriſt; his Grace and Spirit. But all this ſhall be done without Faith and Repentance; becauſe God does not require it of Infants; if he does, name your Text.

Mr. F. now tells us▪ Adam's Diſobedience far▪ exceeds the Obedience of Chriſt, which he compares in Juſtification, Rom. 5. 16, 17, 18. for his Diſobedience could defile all his Poſterity, but Chriſt's Obedience doth not cleanſe and regenerate one Child.

Anſw. Come St. Paul, thou haſt told us that ſuch as thou art by Letters when abſent, ſuch thou wilt be indeed when preſent, 2 Cor. 10. 11. Wherefore I ſhall give place to thee to anſwer for thy ſelf, by the very places which Mr. F. has quoted out of thy Epiſtle to the Romans, Chap. 5. 16, 17, 18. And not as it was by one that ſinned, ſo is the Gift: for the Judgment was of one to Condemnation; but the free-Gift is of many Offences to Juſtification. For if by the Offence of one, Death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the Gift of Righteouſneſs, ſhall reign in Life by one, Jeſus Chriſt. Th • refore as by the Offence of one, Judgment came upon All Men▪ to Condemnation; even ſo, by the Righteouſneſs of one, the free-Gift came upon All Men unto Juſtification of Life. And whereas Mr. F. boldly tells us, that Chriſt's Obedience doth not cleanſe and regenerate one Child. I ask him whoſe Obedience then does cleanſe Infants? Let St. Paul anſwer again, ver. 19. As by one Man's Diſobedience many were made Sinners: SO by the Obedience of one ſhall many be made Righteous. Bleſſed Paul, thou haſt anſwered to the Life. Mr. Firmin ſays, Chriſt's Obedience doth not cleanſe and regenerate one Child. Thou ſayſt, Chriſt's Obedience made many righteous; and they that are made righteous are clean and regenerated ſufficiently. Bleſſed Apoſtle! thou haſt turned the Wiſdom of the Wiſe into Fooliſhneſs. What follows in this Paragraph is anſwered before, and for his uncivil Expreſſions in the cloſe of it I ſhall paſs them by.

Mr. Firmin's Arg. 4. If all Children dying ſuch are juſtified and ſaved, then there will be Millions in Heaven, in whom the Spirit of God, as the third Perſon in the Bleſſed Trinity, had nothing to do in their Salvation.

Anſw. Firſt, I take notice that Mr. Firmin by this Argument would have Millions of Infants damned, becauſe in his Judgment the Spirit of God hath nothing to do with Millions of them in the buſineſs of Salvation. This, this is that wicked Doctrine which I oppoſe.

2. But how will he prove that the Spirit hath to do in the buſineſs of the Salvation of any of them, more than I ſhall prove he hath to do in the Salvation of all dying Infants? He would prove it by two things, (1.) Becauſe the diſtinct Subſiſtences have their diſtinct manner of working. (2.) Becauſe Regeneration is given to the Spirit. Now, ſuppoſe this be true, it does not prove that ſome Infants have the aſſiſtance of the Spirit, and ſome dying Infants have no aſſiſtance from him. Thus he beats▪ the Air, but proves not any thing at all relating to the Point in Queſtion.

3. But I will prove that all dying Infants have all that aſſiſtance of the Spirit (in the buſineſs of Salvation) which is any way needful for them. I do it thus:

All thoſe dying Infants, for whom Chriſt ſhed his precious Blood, have ſufficient aſſiſtance from the Spirit, in the buſineſs of their Salvation.

But Chriſt ſhed his precious Blood for all dying Infants: Ergo, All dying Infants have ſufficient aſſiſtance from the Spirit in the buſineſs of their Salvation.

The Major is evident, becauſe no dying Infant does reſiſt the Holy Ghost, and becauſe God is no Reſpecter of Perſons. The Minor is evident becauſe Chriſt died for all, taſted Death for every Man; he bought them that deny him, and bring upon themſelves ſwift Deſtruction: And ſeeing his tender Mercies are over all his Works, the holy Spirit is not wanting to further the Salvation of any dying Infant. Deut. 10. 17, 18. 1 Tim. 2. 6. Heb. 2. 9. 2 Pet. 2. 1. Pſal. 145. 9. Come Mr. Firmin, let me come near you; it may be you have had ſome Children that died in their Infancy as well as I. Shew me a reaſon now why my dying Infants might not have the application of Chriſt's Blood by the holy Spirit, as well as yours? As for the manner of the Spirit's operation herein, I ſuppoſe we know it both alike, that is, not at all. Nevertheleſs I do believe the Father, Son, and holy Spirit does what is needful in their reſpective operations, tho I know not in all Points how it is done in the caſe of dying Infants. It is enough that we have Chriſt's Teſtimony, that to them belongs the Kingdom, that is, to all in that ſtate, for he rejects not any one of them, neither in theſe words, nor in any other that proceeded from his ſacred Lips, nor from the Pens of the Writers of the Holy Scriptures; And then what is Mr. Firmin that he ſhould by this preſumptuous Argument ſend many Millions of them to Hell? becauſe in his conceit, the Holy Ghoſt has nothing to do with them in the buſineſs of their Salvation; the Spirit's Operations being limited by him herein to the Infants of Believers only; and if you look well to his Notions, there is not a few of them too, who have no help from the holy Spirit, for they being not all elect, muſt be damned for all their Baptiſm; and this is the kindneſs he has to write a Plea for Infants.

Diviſ. 3.

Wherein is conſidered, whether the Covenant of Grace was taken from the whole World, and appropriated only to Abraham and his Seed, from the time of the making the Covenant of Circumciſion, Gen. 17.

Mr. Firmin, p. 20.] Now I come to my Queſtion, and ſhall make it appear your Anſwer ſignifies nothing. You tell me of a Covenant of Grace made with the whole World in the promiſed Seed to Adam, &c. I tell you, while Adam, Noah, and Abraham lived under that Covenant made with the whole World, God was pleaſed to make a Covenant with Abraham, and with none other but Abraham, to be his God, and the God of his Seed, and ſealed this Covenant, by which Covenant and Seal, God did ſeparate and divide all Abraham's Seed from the World, living under the Covenant you ſpeak of.

Anſw. 1. It is evident, that either Mr. Firmin holds, That the Covenant made with Adam, Noah, and Abraham, before that mentioned Gen. 17. was not the Covenant of Grace; or elſe that Covenant, Gen. 17. was not the Covenant of Grace; or that the Covenant of Grace was now taken from all the World, and appropriated and reſtrained to Abraham and his Seed only. The latter is clearly his ſenſe, that God was now only the God of Abraham and his Seed in the Covenant of Grace, and of none other.

But this Doctrine is moſt falſe and abſurd, as I evidently ſhewed to Mr. Petto, to this effect. We ought to underſtand that Abraham and his Seed was not the only Perſons in the World, which were under the Covenant of Grace, at that time when God made with Abraham the Covenant of Circumciſion, Gen. 17. For (as Mr. Broughton obſerves) Sem lived 50 Years after the Covenant of Circumciſion was made with Abraham; and divers other holy Men lived long after the Covenant of Circumciſion was made; who were all true Worſhippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace: Melchiſedeck bleſſing Abraham, (from whence St. Paul infers, that he was greater than Abraham, Heb. 7. 7.) yet neither he, nor the reſt of the Patriarchs were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumciſion.

And as neither theſe, nor their Infants or Poſterity, were liable to any loſs of the Covenant of Grace, by their not being Circumciſed after the manner of Abraham; ſo neither Job, nor other Worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham, had no neceſſity at all to be concern'd in the Covenant of Circumciſion: From whence it muſt needs follow, That God did not intend the Sign of Circumciſion, as neceſſary to entitle Men to the Covenant of Grace, nor that none could be Saved who were not under the Covenant of Circumciſion. But certain it is, the Covenant of Circumciſion was appropriate to Abraham, and to his Seed, for very great Ends, reſpecting ſpecial Preſervation to the Family of Abraham, as being now the Family from whence Chriſt ſhould proceed according to the Fleſh: And with whom God would preſence himſelf in a Land of Promiſe, by a diſtinct way of Worſhip from all other Nations, who were then falling very faſt to Idolatry.

Again, Mr. F. telling us, That God made that Covenant of Circumciſion with Abraham, and none other. By this he has given a fatal Blow to his Cauſe, which he is ſo zealous to defend. Becauſe by this, it is evident, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. conſidered as it was peculiar to him and his Seed, and no other, no not of the Patriarchs then living, it was therefore (at leaſt ſo conſidered) not the Covenant of Grace. But it was only, ſo conſidered; the Covenant of Circumciſion, as it is alſo called, Acts 7. 8. without any ſuch adjunct as the Covenant of Grace; as if all that were not in that peculiar Covenant throughout the World, muſt be damn'd without Mercy. No, no, God had his tender Mercies for others, tho this Covenant was peculiar to Abraham.

God was no ſuch reſpecter of Perſons when he made the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. But in every Nation, from the beginning even to the end of the World, all that feared the Lord, and wrought Righteouſneſs, found acceptance with him. This old Truth, Peter himſelf (being tinctured with this Notion, that God had no Grace for any but Abraham's Seed) could not perceive, till God by Miracle did reveal it to him; no tho his Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19, 20. did oblige him to teach all Nations, and to preach the Goſpel to every Creature, yet till now he durſt not preach to the Gentiles, Acts 10.

And therefore it is the leſs ſtrange, that Mr. Firmin, and ſuch as he, who take themſelves to be Abraham's Seed, becauſe they are born according to the Fleſh of ſuch as they take to be Believers, ſhould be ſo cruelly dark in this glorious Truth, that God is no reſpecter of Perſons. Nor do I ſee any thing more liable to puff Men up with Pride, than this, that they were in the Covenant of Grace from their Infancy, becauſe their Parents were Believers, or at leaſt one of them, or their Grandfather, &c. was ſo; as Mr. F. words it.

This Opinion undid the Jews generally, and I doubt it has ſpoiled many of the Gentiles. Our bleſſed Saviour, John 8. has a long Diſputation to deliver the Jews from this their vain Confidence, which they built upon their being Abraham's Seed. And St. Paul bent his Stile againſt the ſame thing, Rom. 2. 26, 27, 28, 29. and Chap. 3. ver. 19. to the end. But the more they laboured to undeceive theſe deceived Jews▪ the more they were hated by them; and if we meet with the ſame meaſure, we muſt bear it. For indeed, ſcarce any ſo fierce againſt us, for extending the Grace of God to all Men, as being therein no reſpecter of Perſons, and yet ſhewing to Sinners the neceſſity of actual Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, as neceſſary to their Memberſhip in the Church Militant, by the Baptiſm of Repentance for Remiſſion of Sins; I ſay, none ſo fierce againſt us, as thoſe who boaſt they are Abraham's Seed, becauſe deſcended from Gentiles, who they ſuppoſe to be Believers. But let me have a care, I muſt now Anſwer for my ſelf, for Mr. Firmin demands of me, Page 21.

By what Scripture-Warrant do you reduce our Children, into the ſtate of the Children of Adam, or Noah, &c. ſince we are never called their Children, but only Abraham's, whoſe Seed differ from theirs by a ſpecial Covenant made with Them, and ſealed with Them. To which of them did God ſay, I will be the God of thy Seed, and I will ſeal it?

But I reply. Theſe ſeem to me to be great ſwelling words of Vanity, much worſe in a Gentile than in a Jew. And I would know what ſpecial Covenant hath God made with Mr. F. and his Seed, which he hath denied to Tho. Grantham and his Seed? But to the Queſtion.

1. I am far from denying Abraham's Fatherhood over the Faithful Chriſtians; but I deny that every Believer that hath an Infant, is the Father of the Faithful. And I deny many to have any right to that Title, who boaſt much of it, becauſe they do not the works of Abraham, but deſpiſe thoſe that worſhip God according to his Will. Thus did not Abraham: But thus does Mr. Firmin.

2. I find that Adam was the Son of God, Luke 3. Whether called ſo meerly for his Creation, or for that after the Promiſe, Gen. 3. 15. He walked with God, or for both, I will not diſpute. And I find that Chriſt's Deſcent is reckoned from Adam, and the Saviour of the World was firſt promiſed to him, and to proceed from him; and therein was the Covenant of Grace in the firſt place made with him, and in him with all Mankind who then were in him: Nor do I find that this gracious Covenant was ever repealed, but is in force to this day, as is granted by Mr. Baxter.

3. I find that Noah found Grace in the ſight of the Lord, being righteous before God. And I know that Mr. Baxter, and other Learned Chriſtians, acknowledg the Covenant made with Noah and his Generations, to be a Covenant of Grace, and of perpetual Duration, being indeed the renewal of the Covenant made with Adam. I find alſo, that Noah became Heir of the Righteouſneſs which is by Faith, and that his Faith did lead him to believe that which was as difficult to Senſe, as that Abraham ſhould have a Son, viz. That the whole World ſhould be Drowned: His Faith alſo was made perfect by Works, for, Whatſoever the Lord Commanded, that did Noah.

4. I find that all men from the time of the Flood, are the Generations of Noah, and that he was perfect in his Generation, a Juſt Man, and one that walketh with God; and as one of his Sons proved wicked, ſo did one of the Sons of Abraham. I do alſo find in Scripture, that we are all called the Sons of Adam; To you, O Men, I call, and my Voice is to the Sons of Adam, or Man, Prov. 8. 4. And as the Sons of Adam, God ſhews them what is Good, even to do Juſtly, to love Mercy, and to walk humbly with their God, Mich. 6.

Now from theſe Scripture-Warrants, I honour my Great Grandfather Adam, becauſe to him was committed the firſt Oracles of God, making known the Covenant of Grace: I honour my Grandfather Noah, becauſe he was Heir of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, and had the ſecond Edition of the Covenant of Grace, extended to all his Generations, till by Sin they eject themſelves. I likewiſe honour my Father Abraham, becauſe he had the third Edition of the Covenant of Grace, as a Bleſſing to all Nations, or to all the Families of the Earth, Gen. 12. And alſo for that God was pleaſed to chooſe his Poſterity, as the People from whom Men ſhould look for their Saviour, with reſpect to his Deſcent according to the Fleſh, and of this Covenant, as alſo of the Land of Promiſe was Circumciſion given as a Sign to his Poſterity, that they might not mix with other Nations, in Life or Religion; but to Abraham himſelf, as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, which he had near 30 Years before he was Circumciſed.

But for all this, I know that in Goſpel-times, unleſs we crucified the Fleſh with the Affections and Luſts, we cannot be Abraham's Seed, nor Heirs according to the Promiſe, Gal. 3. 29. And the Seal of our Sonſhip and Right to the Inheritance, is the Holy Spirit, Epheſ. 1. 13. Gal. 4. 6. Epheſ. 4. 30.

Mr. Firmin. Now ſuppoſe that were true which is the great buſineſs of your Pamphlet, to prove that all dying Infants are ſaved. That thereby you may take off the Odium which lies upon you for ſhutting the Children of Believers out of the Church, and denying them Baptiſm, they being under the Covenant of Grace made with Adam, (as you ſay) Tell me, Is this Covenant of God with Abraham's Seed in vain? Does the holy One make vain Covenants? As to his Seed, they were well enough before: If Iſaac die before the 8th day, he is ſaved, ſo that this Covenant might have been ſpared.

Anſwer. 1. I hav • ſaid enough to ſhew that Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. was not in vain; but I am ſure you here make a vain uſe of it. For had Iſaac died before he was Eight Days old, in your Judgment he had not been ſaved, and conſequently no Male Infants which died before they were Circumciſed were ſaved. This is that wretched Doctrine which I oppoſe. And ſeeing you make Baptiſm as neceſſary to Salvation as Circumciſion was, and call it the Seal of the Covenant; you either make Infants which die unbaptized, ſaved by an unſealed Covenant, (as you ſpeak) or elſe you damn all Infants which die unbaptized. No other ſenſe can be made of your ſtrange Queſtions, P. 73.

Your Queſtion is this. Are they all Juſtified and Saved? then it muſt be by a Covenant of Grace. And ſhall they be under the Covenant ſo, as to be in a juſtified and ſaved ſtate by it, and not have the Seal of the Covenant? As if the Covenant of Grace were of no uſe to poor Infants, without the Croſſing, Sprinkling, or (as you) Pouring a little Water on their Forehead, for which you have no Rule at all in the Word of God. I cannot but admire your great Blindneſs.

2. The Covenant of Circumciſion might not now be ſpared, becauſe God had now deſigned, to honour Abraham's Faith, and to make him and his Poſterity famous both for Multitude, Religion, and other Excellencies, but chiefly to point out all Nations from whence to look for a Saviour; which accordingly was foreknown and expected by many other Nations, by means of the Covenant made with Abraham. But you add:

If their Seed die while little ones, I hope they are not further from Salvation by this Covenant, nor Parents the leſs hope—two ſtrings to a Bow are good. But I anſwer:

1. You ſo ſtring your Bow of Salvation for Infants that you break it, and ſo kill more Infants than you ſave, yea, an Iſaac himſelf cannot eſcape you, but muſt periſh, if he die before the 8th day. Pray, Sir, what manner of Doctrine is this? is it in the power of Infants to live till the 8th day? And if God take them away before the 8th day, will God damn them becauſe they were not Circumciſed, when yet by his own Law they might not have it? Are theſe the comfortable Strings you give Parents to the Bow of Infants Salvation?

2. Hence it is evident that it is you, not I, that make Infants further off from Salvation by the Covenant of Circumciſion. For I ſay, (though all the Commands of God be good in their place and uſe) yet he never ordained any Rite, to be neceſſary to the ſalvation of poor Infants. But according to your Doctrine, if Infants died before the Covenant of Circumciſion was made, whether the firſt, ſecond, third, fourth, fifth, ſixth, or ſeventh day, their Salvation was never the more doubtful for that. But now the Caſe is very hard, for if Iſaac himſelf die before the 8th day he is loſt, according to your ſenſe of the Covenant. What follows, I have anſwer'd before.

Mr. Firmin. Yet again, as to that Notion wherein you ſo much glory, I have made five remarkable Demonſtrations, as you call them, to prove it; you muſt make three more Demonſtrations, or elſe theſe five will not do the Feat. 1. That God does ſave thoſe that are under that Covenant, without any Condition in it. Name that Text, I pray.

Anſw. 1. Here obſerve again, Mr. Firmin is in good Earneſt, that no Infants can be ſaved, unleſs they keep the Condition of the Covenant. And he makes Heart-Circumciſion, and the Circumciſion of the Fleſh, both neceſſary Conditions of the Covenant, for Infants Salvation in the time of the Law, or ever ſince Abraham's time. And Repentance, and Faith, and Baptiſm, the Condition in the Goſpel.

2. I am to demonſtrate the contrary, which with much eaſe (by God's Grace) I ſhall do. I ſay then, Almighty God made a Covenant of Grace with Adam in the Promiſed Seed, Gen. 15. in which Covenant ſtood the Salvation of all dying Infants; and yet no Condition was there to be annexed on the part of Infants; howbeit, Faith was neceſſary on Adam's part, or elſe he had ſinned in not believing the Promiſe In the Book of Wiſdom, we read, That Wiſdom preſerved the firſt Father of the World, and brought him out of his Offence, Chap. 10. 1. which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture, Luke 3. 38. becauſe Adam is called the Son of God. Dr. Willit. Hexap. in Gen. p. 56. . And its evident, Abel had Faith in this Promiſe by his offering a Lamb, a Figure of Chriſt the Lamb ſlain from the foundation of the World. See Diod. on Gen. 4.

To prove that God requires nothing of Duty, as a Condition of the Covenant on the part of Infants in order to Salvation, I will ſet down two Texts, Deut. 11. 1. to 10. Rom. 5. 14, 18. And I alſo give you this Argument: Circumciſion it ſelf was not appointed to be a Condition of the Covenant of Grace, neceſſary to the Salvation of ſo much as one Infant. Ergo, There was never any thing impoſed or required of Infants as a neceſſary Condition of the Covenant, for the Salvation of Infants.

The Conſequence I ſuppoſe will not be denied, becauſe nothing can be pretended with ſo much probability this way, as Circumciſion: And for the Major it is clear from the caſe of Moſes's Child, Exod. 4. 24, 25. where we find that God ſought not to kill the Child, becauſe it was not Circumciſed the 8th Day, but he ſought to kill Moſes; which ſhews the Child was not guilty of Sin in this Caſe. And that this Note may be the more acceptable, I ſhall make ſome Addition to the Teſtimonies formerly given, and here ſhew the Judgment of ſome Learned Writers in this Caſe. Cajetan (a Man no leſs Zealous for Infant-Baptiſm than Mr. Firmin, yet) writes thus: Conſentaneum eſt, &c. It is ſit that none ſhould be Puniſhed, but they which had committed the Fault: But Infants can commit no Fault, therefore the puniſhment here aſſigned doth belong to the Adult only, they only be rightfully Puniſhed, which only are juſtly blamed for the omiſſion of Circumciſion. And ſaith a Proteſtant Doctor upon this Sentence, Put Baptiſm (meaning of Infants) in the place of Circumciſion, and this Sentence is moſt true of the one, as well as of the other. Yea, the Ancients, quoted by the ſaid Doctor, tell us, Circumciſion did See Diodat. upon Gen. 17. 14. who is alſo clear in this Point. not profit the Soul, but was only a ſign of Grace: For Children when they underſtand not what is done to them, can reap no profit thereby to their Souls, Chryſ. Hom. 9. in Gen. And Irenaeus is alledged to ſay, Circumciſion was only given as a Sign to the People. The concluſion is, that as it is certain that Infants ſhall be cleanſed and renewed, before they come to Heaven; ſo God hath not tied this Mercy to any Ritual, or thing to be done by us, but by the Obedience of Chriſt, and his Free-Grace, ſanctifies them in a manner unknown to us.

Mr. Firmin. 2. You muſt demonſtrate (ſaith he) that by this Covenant he ſaves thoſe who have loſt the Image of God, and are corrupt by Nature, for Infant-Regeneration, and Heart-Circumciſion, is denied by you, and yours.

Anſw. This Demonſtration alſo will eaſily be made, or elſe I am ſure Mr. Firmin and my ſelf, ſhall not be Saved, for that we are as corrupt by Nature, and have loſt the Image of God as much as any Infant; nay, we are ſent to Infants to learn the Qualifications we want.

And as all have ſinned, and come ſhort of the Glory of God; ſo they are Juſtified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption which is in Chriſt Jeſus; Rom. 3. 23, 25. And tho Chriſt is ſet forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, for the Remiſſion of Sins that are paſt through the forbearance of God; yet this Faith is not required of Infants, becauſe they cannot believe on him of whom they have not heard, Rom. 10. And tho you reply, That this is ſpoken of the Adult, yet you are to know as it is the Adult only to whom the Goſpel is preached, ſo it is the Adult only who are required to believe. As for the Way of the Almighty in the buſineſs of Infants Regeneration, 'tis a thing not revealed; and therefore you do but vainly pretend to know it. And ſeeing it is ſaid, That we know not the Way of the Spirit, nor how the Bones do grow▪ in the Womb of her that is with Child. It is ſtrange that Mr. Firmin ſhould know after what manner the Hearts of Infants are Circumciſed, and how they are Regenerate. It is enough for us to know that they are redeemed by Chriſt, and ſaved by Grace; for in knowing this, we know our Gracious God will deny them no Supplies which is needful for them.

If this do not ſatisfie Mr. F. then let him give ſome account to the World now he is grown up, how the Spirit did work in the buſineſs of his Regeneration in his Infancy; and if he can give no account of his own Infant-Regeneration, then, I think, it will be hard for him to give it of the manner of the Regeneration of other Infants.

Mr. Firmin. 3. You muſt demonſtrate, that tho Infants have not actually ſinned againſt the Covenant of Grace, yet they have not unbelief and impenitency ſeminally, which are quite oppoſite to the Covenant of Grace.

Anſw. 1. I conceive nothing can be ſpoke more irrationally, nor unrighteouſly, than to ſuggeſt that poor Infants have Unbelief and Impenitency in them. And yet ſo 'tis, the ſeeds of thoſe Impieties at leaſt Mr. F. will have to be in them: And I demand of him, how he knows this? And how he can tell when theſe Sins againſt the Covenant of Grace, are purged from Infants? Seeing he has told us they are not holy by their Birth, I would know whether they be purged before their Birth, or after? But let us hear our Saviour's Judgment of little Children, which all will grant to be more worth than Mr. Firmin's.

He ſpeaks of ſome juſt Perſons which need no Repentance, whom he oppoſes to ſuch as have gone aſtray. I will not preſume, that this is only meant of Infants, to whom our Lord tells us the Kingdom of Heaven belongs; but I humbly conceive, as it is true of them, ſo it does include them, as being of that Number.

Again, He tells us, Except we be Converted and become as little Children, we cannot ſee the Kingdom of God. But if Infants be guilty of Ʋnbelief and Impenitency, in ſuch a degree, as theſe Sins in them are quite oppoſite to the Covenant of Grace, we ſhould have but little benefit by ſuch Converſion: And thus he reflects upon Chriſt in his Directions to his Followers, as if Chriſt gave not good Counſel herein.

St. Paul exhorts Chriſtians, as touching Malice, to be Children; in which Speech he is directly contrary to Mr. F. And St. Peter would have us like new-born Babes, i. e. to lay aſide all Malice, Guile, Hypocriſie, and evil Speaking. But if Unbelief and Impenitency be in them Seminally, theſe Impieties are there alſo; and then they are bad Preſidents, being as wicked as it is poſſible for them to be, in Mr. F's judgment.

However, Mr. F. is compelled to confeſs, Infants are not guilty of any Actual Sin againſt the Covenant of Grace. And then, who made you a Judg of their Hearts, Sir? Sure this is an Attempt too high for any Man.

But I muſt demonſtrate that Infants have not unbelief ſeminally. Well, I will plead their Cauſe as well as I can; and I Argue for them thus:

They who have no object of Faith propounded to them ſeminally, can have no unbelief ſeminally. But Infants have no object of Faith propounded to them ſeminally. Ergo, They can have no unbelief ſeminally.

If Mr. F. deny the Minor, I will hold him to his own Law, Affirmanti incumbit probatio. If he affirm that Infants have an object of Faith propounded to them ſeminally, let him prove it. As for the Major, our Saviour's words, John 15. 22. do eſtabliſh it; and indeed, This is the Condemnation, that Light is come—, and Men love Darkneſs. He that has no Light cannot be blamed, becauſe he cannot ſee. Our Lord charges not the ſin of Unbelief, till means to believe was rejected; And will he be more unkind to the Infant, than to the grown Perſon? Who can have ſo vile an opinion of the Almighty!

But I muſt demonſtrate alſo, that Infants have not Impenitency ſeminally, yea, ſuch Impenitency as is quite oppoſite to the Covenant of Grace.

Well, I reply, firſt, by way of Admiration, That ever ſuch wild Notions ſhould iſſue from a Learned Head, that ſo he might have ſome ſpecious pretence to damn poor Infants: But God hath ſaid, He will turn the Wiſdom of Wiſe Men backward, and make Diviners mad, Iſa. 44. 25.

2. Impenitency ſuppoſes the Party charged, firſt, to be guilty of ſome Sin committed, or deſired, or conceived. But nothing of this can be juſtly charged againſt Infants. Conſider them acquitted of Original Sin, by the Mercy of God in their Redeemer; Who ſhall lay any thing to their charge? What have they done?

Mr. Firmin. Do you ask what have they done? Did you never ſee Revenge, Wrath, Pride, Envy, Rebellion againſt, and Striking of Parents, acting in little Children?

Anſw. 1. Theſe are not Infants of Eight days old, &c. but ſuch who by the ill Example of their Tutors, quickly may learn theſe things. Otherwiſe, if the Child thinks it has cauſe to be Angry, and to make Defence, it does no more than you will vindicate in your own Cauſe. And why does not Charity make you think the beſt of Infants, ſeeing you ought to think no evil of the weak actions of grown Perſons? O, thou that canſt ſee ſuch Beams, as Revenge, Wrath, Pride, Rebellion, &c. in the Eyes of poor Infants! pluck theſe Beams out of thine own, which evidently are thy Diſtempers from the Books which thou haſt written, in which, not many Pages are free from Tincture of ſome of theſe Diſeaſes. But you add:

Bleſſed Auſtin obſerved a Sucking Child, that was not able to articulate one word, look with a Countenance even pale with Envy, upon his fellow-Suckling, which ſhared with him in the ſame Milk; which made the holy Man cry out, Ubi, Domine? Quando, Domine?

Reply, How did Auſtin know that the Child was pale with Envy? Suppoſe this good Man himſelf had ſat down to Dinner, and another ſnatch it all away from him, perhaps he would have look'd Pale alſo; for ſuch we muſt ſuppoſe the Child's caſe to be, when another takes the Breaſt, it thinks all is gone, for it yet underſtands not the Rules of Hoſpitality, or Good-fellowſhip, being unſenſible of the others Neceſſity. The poor Child attended its own preſervation as Nature taught it; a poor ground on which to build ſo ſevere a Charge. Should the beſt of God's People be tried, how duly they make others ſharers in their Bleſſings, who have need of Relief, they may perhaps be more juſtly charged than that Sucking Child; Judg no poor Infants, leſt ye be judged.

To conclude: Seminal Faith, Seminal Repentance, Seminal Ʋnbelief, and Seminal Impenitency, are things of which we have no account in Scripture. And though I would not offend Mr. Firmin, nor at all diſparage his Scholarſhip, which I acknowledg to be abundantly more than mine; yet when I conſider Learning in Saint Paul's ſenſe, 2 Tim. 3. 14. I cannot but think theſe to be very wild and unlearned Notions, which no Man can be aſſured of, nor give a good account that he learned them of any of the Maſter-Builders, the holy Apoſtles. And who ever aſſerts theſe things, ſhall never be able to prove them, viz. That ſome Infants have Faith and Repentance ſeminally; and others have Ʋnbelief and Impenitency ſeminally. And (which is another Impoſſibility) no Man can diſtinguiſh the Infants one from another. Nor can it ever be proved, that Seminal Faith and Repentance (if yet any Body can tell what it is) do give us any ground to baptize any Body. For,

Suppoſe we take this Seminal Faith and Repentance to be the faculties of Credence and Sorrow: Or ſuppoſe ſome take them to be ſome ſecret Inſpirations of the Spirit, yet ſith they appear not to us, it is as if they were not. For that Rule is good in this Caſe, De • non apparentibus, & non exiſtantibus eidem eſt ratio. It is the profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, that qualifies a Perſon (in reſpect of us) for Sacred Baptiſm; the Church is not judg of of Hearts, they are only known to God infallibly.

Diviſion 4. Concerning Original Sin.

It would even grieve a Sober Chriſtian, to read the ſtrange Immaginations which Men have Publiſhed about Original Sin; and the Extreams they have run into on the Right Hand, and on the Left, cenſuring one another very ſeverely for their differing apprehenſions in this Matter. And it is remarkable, how cruelly Cenſarious Mr. Firmin is againſt my ſelf in particular, repreſenting me as a Maſter among the worſt ſort of Anabaptiſts, who, he ſays, denies Original Sin.

Concerning which, he tells you, we are Rotten. That the foundation of Anabaptiſm lies in denying Original Sin. That in this we are given up to more blindneſs than the Heathens, &c. To all which I Anſwer:

1. If I be one of the worſt of my Brethren in this Point, I hope the reſt will be better thought of by Men of Moderation for my ſake, when they have had (what violent Mr. Firmin hath not) patience to conſider what I have publiſhed upon the account of Original Sin, (and that long before I heard there was ſuch a Man in the World as Mr. Firmin) in my Chriſtianiſmus Primitivus, Book 2. Pag. 77, 78. thus you read me.

2. For the better attaining to a powerful conviction of Sin, and a ſence of Man's wretchedneſs by reaſon of Sin, it is neceſſary to underſtate the general ſtate of Tranſgreſſion, into which Mankind is involved; concerning which we find the Scripture gives this Teſtimony, That all have ſinned, and come ſhort of the Glory of God, Rom. 3. 23. And that by one Man Sin entred into the World,—for that all have ſinned. And that the whole World lieth in wickedneſs; which is alſo evident by common Experience, every Nation being greatly corrupted through the abounding of Iniquity; and the univerſality of the ways of Sin does evince the ſame—that the Apoſtle might well ſay, Both Jew and Gentile are all under Sin.

3. The Sin of Mankind is either Original, or Actual. The firſt is come upon all, even the very Infant-ſtate of Mankind lie under it, of whom that ſaying is true, They have not ſinned after the ſimilitude of Adam's Tranſgreſſion; yet, Death reigning over them, proves the Tranſgreſſion of Adam to be upon them. This is that Root-Sin, called the Sin of the World, John 1. 29. whereof none are free. Nor is it convenient to extenuate or leſſen this Sin, either in its nature, or the puniſhment it brings with it; it being indeed the Filum certiſſimum, or Leading-Thred to all other Iniquities, Mankind being hereby corrupt Ab Origine, and wholly deprived of the Glory of God, without the intervening Mercy of a Saviour.

And hence we find David, when complaining of his ſinful ſtate, looks back to his corrupt Original, amongſt the reſt of his Iniquities, complaining, Pſal. 51. 5. Behold, I was ſhapen in Iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother conceive me. Knowing as Job ſaith, None can bring a clean thing out of an unclean one. So that they are not to be deſpiſed, who ſay, that in our Humiliation for Sin, we ought to bewail this our Sinful Original, which had been to Adam's Poſterity like the Sin of Traytors, which bringeth with it corruption of Blood to their Off-ſpring, for which they muſt bear the ſhame of ſuch Tranſgreſſions. How do we find that the Sin of Progenitors was wont to be lamented by their Off-ſpring among the Iſraelites? And is there not the ſame reaſon Adam's Children ſhould do the like, as being ſenſible of the evil Conſequences thereof? We alſo may ſay, Our Father hath ſinned, and we have born his Iniquity.

4. And hence I like the ſaying of Irenaeus well, which I will give in Engliſh, becauſe Mr. F. is pleaſed to lock it up in Latine. Omnes enim venit, &c. Chriſt came to ſave all by himſelf, all I ſay, who are born again in God; Infants, Little ones, Boys, and Young Men, and Old Men: But as for his, Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, I let that alone, for I do not find that Chriſt paſſed through the age of Old Men; yet I ſay, he came to Sanctifie every Age, and therefore every Age who do not profane the Blood of Chriſt by which they were Sanctified (as I am ſure no Infant doth) they ſhall certainly be Saved by him, and hence the Salvation of all dying Infants, is apparent enough. But how Infants are born again in God, is a ſecret, and not to be Demonſtrated by Mr. Firmin, nor any other. Surely had I written as Irenaeus doth, he would have ſaid I exclude the Operation of the Holy Ghoſt; for Irenaeus ſays, he came to ſave all by himſelf, yet as 'tis certain that the Holy Spirit is not wanting to the Aged Sinner, there is no ground to doubt of his care of poor Infants.

Diviſion 5. Of Free-Will.

Concerning Free-Will, Mr. F. calls it our Diana, and an Imperial Majeſty, repreſenting us to deny God to be moſt Bleſſed, becauſe if his Will be reſiſted, he failing of his End, is to want a degree of Bleſſedneſs, &c. I Anſwer:

1. Then it ſeems, according to Mr. F. all that God wills to be ſaved, muſt, and therefore ſhall be Saved; and the reſt he wills to be Damned, and they ſhall therefore be Damned. But how he can reconcile his Doctrines to theſe Scriptures, I cannot tell, which ſaith, I live, I Will not the death of the Wicked. And that this is good in the ſight of God, &c. who will have all Men to be Saved.

2. Was it God's Will, that when he brought Iſrael out of Egypt, that their Carcaſes ſhould fall in the Wilderneſs? If it were not, then he wanted a degree of Bleſſedneſs. Was it God's Will that Adam ſhould fall, and bring himſelf and his Poſterity into ſo many Miſeries? If not, God was not moſt Bleſſed, becauſe he failed of his End. If you ſay, it was God's Will that Adam ſhould fall, and that Iſrael muſt fall in the Wilderneſs, you had as good tell us, that God has Decreed all the evil Actions that Men do, and that they muſt do them, elſe God cannot be moſt Bleſſed, becauſe he ſhould fail of his End, if theſe evil Actions were not done. This is his Logick, let him look to it. But,

3. What I conceive to be Truth concerning Free-Will, I will give you a ſhort account from what I have formerly publiſhed in a little Catechiſm, where in Page 21. I put theſe Queſtions and Anſwers following.—What mean you by the third part of Repentance? Anſw. I mean, firſt, a boly loathing of Sin, becauſe it is of the Devil, 1 John 3. 8. and becauſe God hates it. And becauſe Chriſt died becauſe of it. 2. To abſtain from the act of Sin, in Deſire, Word, and Deed, as much as poſſible. God ſaw their Works, that they turned from their Evil Ways. Break off thy Sins by Righteouſneſs: Repent ye therefore and be Converted. This is to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance.

Queſt. Hath Man any liberty of Will, and any meaſure of Power thus to hate and forſake Sin? Anſw. 1. By the Bounty of God, Man hath ſome liberty and power this way. He is not chained to his Sins of Neceſſity. Chuſe you this day whom you will ſerve. To day if ye will hear his Voice, harden not your Hearts. Mary hath choſen the good part. 2. Man's infirmity in the exerciſe of this Liberty and Power is ſo great, that he is not to depend upon this Liberty and Power, but upon the Strength of God in the uſe of them, Hoſ. 14. 2. 2 Cor. 3. 5.

Now let any Sober Chriſtian tell me, how it is poſſible to make the Will of Man an Imperial Majeſty out of my Words, that is, a Majeſty that hath no Peer; for no leſs than ſuch a Slander would ſerve Mr. Firmin to fix upon us, eſpecially upon my ſelf▪ For what cauſe he is ſo inveterate, I know not.

But come, Mr. Firmin, will the Doctrine of a chief Man of your own pleaſe you? if ſo, you and I may agree in his Sentence. Thus he ſpeaks; Auſtin as well as Pelagius▪ Calvin as well as the Arminians; the Dominicans as well as the Jeſuits, all generally maintain that Man hath Free-will. Origen is condemned by Epiphanius, for ſaying that Man had loſt the Image of God▪—This Image is two-fold, 1. Natural, i. e. Reaſon and Free Will. 2. Qualitative, or Ethical, i. e. Our Holineſs, and this is loſt, and by Grace reſtored. No Man of Brains can deny, that Man hath a Will naturally free; it is free from Violence.—It's a ſelf-determining Principle, but is not freed from evil Diſpoſitions▪ Mr. Baxter's Preface to his Call to the Ʋnconverted. I think I need ſay no more to a Wiſe Man: And I am ſure, this is as much as any Wiſe Man among us will ſay in this Matter.

CONCLƲSION.

Mr. Firmin ſeems diſpleaſed at the multitude which will be Saved; if my Opinion be true, that all Dying Infants ſhall be Saved: I will give you his own words.

I pray (ſaith he) whoſe Opinion are you of, Huberus? the promiſcuous Salvation of all. Or are you of Caelius Secundus Curio's Opinion, That the number of the Elect and Saved is much greater than the number of the Reprobate and Damned? Whether you, or theſe, or Chriſt, be trueſt, (Mat. 7. 14. few find it) the Day of Judgment will determine.

Here, Sir, you ſhew your Spirit. But for anſwer: Although I know that God is not willing that any ſhould Periſh, but that all ſhould come to Repentance, 2 Pet. 3. 9. 1 Tim. 2. 4. yet I ſee too much cauſe to fear, that but very few of the many, to whom God is ſo long ſuffering to lead them to Repentance, will conſider his Goodneſs therein: And that the far greater part will deſpiſe the Riches of God's Goodneſs, and treaſure up unto themſelves Wrath againſt the Day of Wrath, and Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God. And in this very reſpect, I fear, ſome old Profeſſors, ſuch eſpecially as have been Teachers of others, and yet have not learned either Civility, or Honeſty, in treating thoſe who differ from them in Opinion.

As to the Text, Mat. 7. 14. bleſſed be God, Infants are in no danger by it, they may all be Saved, and ſo the number of the Saved be much the greater by them; for ſeeing they none of them are walking in the Broad-way which leads to Deſtruction; they muſt needs go the Way which leads to Life, Tho as it is a ſtrait way of Faith and Obedience, and many Croſſes for Chriſt's ſake, they can neither ſeek nor find it; yet their Redeemer hath found it for them, and has declared their Right to Heaven, and will therefore in his own Time and Way, bring them to the Enjoyment of that Kingdom which he hath prepared for them, as well as others. But here alſo we ſee, you are unkind to many Dying Infants, whilſt you are ſending them to Hell with thoſe who walk in the Broad-way.

FINIS.