sprinkling Infants Nay the Church of Rome will by this Argument stand on equal Terms with you for many of her Ceremonies which you disallow For admit one Error and a thousand will follow Thus by your Argument Men may run they know not whither and return they know not when I now come to your two main Arguments for this you seem not much to rest upon but you use it ad hominem Mr. Petto's first Argument for Infant-Discipleship Some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit upon them Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptised Answer This Argument supposes that some Infants have the Name of Father Son and Spirit upon them before they be baptised This I take to be the newest Piece of Doctrine in the World and therefore must needs enquire what Infants these are How Mr. Petto knows them from others And at what time before their Baptism and also by whom this Name is put upon them and in what manner it is done For all these things he ought to know before according to his own Logick he may baptise them Till he do this and he must do it well too I deny his Antecedent Saying also that no Infants are discipled at all much less so as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them My Reasons are such as these 1. God hath not made this distinction in Gospel-times between some Infants and other some so as to disciple some of them by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them He has taken down the Wall of distinction between Jew and Gentile accounting the one as clean as the other Act. 10. 28. And has given the same Order for discipling to all Nations Matth. 28. 19. but not a word in that Order to put his Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any Person before they be baptised 2. No Man has Authority by the Word of God to make Infants Disciples at all much less by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them before Baptism But the only Way assign'd by God to make Disciples is first by preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every Creature which shews the true Intent of our Saviour in the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which you refer us And our Criticks do allow that it signifies an actual teaching both in the Hebrew and Greek But the best Interpreter of that Verb is the Practice of our Saviour and his Apostles who made Disciples by actual teaching John 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly evincing the Truth of this 3. If it could be proved that the Name of the Trinity were upon the Infants of Christians yet this would not bear your Conclusion that they must be baptised any more than it will bear Augustin's Conclusion that they ought to partake of the Lord's Table Dr. Jer. Taylor and Dr. Barlow confess you may do both as well as either and that the Wit of Man cannot shew a difference in the Sanctions And indeed all your Arguments for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism if they were good might be improved against you concerning the other Ordinance for admit one Error and another will follow But let us examine your Scriptures by which you would prove your Antecedent 1. You bring Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple ye all Nations Now if these Words did oblige the Apostles to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all Persons or Nations before Baptism it quite spoils your Argument which would restrain it to some Infants only Why do you thus abuse the Word Did the Apostles put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any one Infant Is not the Scripture silent as to this Or did they put the Name c. upon any to whom they preached till they received their Doctrine Or did they do this before they baptised them In that solemn Institution they did put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all such as gladly received the Word Act. 2. 40. Act. 10. ult And for this they had full Authority Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. even to preach to and so to disciple all Nations baptising them viz. Mathet as subintelligitur in verbum Mathetusate as the Practice of Christ had directed them John 4. 1. Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John. And Junius and Tremelius adds the Particle Et Ite ergo docete omnes populos baptisate eos c. 2. You tell us they are Disciples not only who actually learn but who are in the School of Christ his Church in order to their future Learning This is not true 1. Infants are not in the School or Church of Christ as it is a School to learn any thing whilst they are Infants God has neither bound his Ministers to teach them whilst such nor enabled them to learn as such If you say this future teaching respects not the time of their Infancy then were you very fallacious in your Argument for this will prove all the Infants in the World to be Disciples as well as any of them seeing Christ's Church is the Light of the World and all that come to Years of Discretion having opportunity are bound to learn of her 2. But yet it does not follow that all who are under present means of Instruction are therefore to be accounted Disciples For you know many heard Christ preach who yet were none of his Disciples but his Persecutors many heard his Apostles teach who yet were not their Disciples for they put the Word of God from them and judged themselves unworthy of eternal Life I suppose also that all that hear Mr. Petto are not his Disciples how much less poor Infants that never heard him at all And here I require Mr. P. to name one Infant that he ever made a Disciple according to Matth. 28. and that will do more a great deal than his empty Dictates 3. You bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. which shews how Saul made havock of the Churches entring into every House haling Men and Women to Prison and that he breathed out Slaughter against the Disciples Sure you may blush to bring such Texts to prove Infants Disciples nor will Act. 15. 10. bear your Inference The false Apostles would indeed have had the Disciples among the Gentiles to have been circumcis'd but it does not follow at all that every one were Disciples whom they would have circumcised This is just such a Consequence as this You would have Infants to be sprinkled Ergo all are Infants whom ye would have sprinkled This Consequence you will deny because you would have others also sprinkled who are no Infants And for the same reason I deny your Consequence for the false Apostles would have circumcis'd some who were no Disciples to wit Infants You bring here Gen. 17. but this we will consider
anon and Acts 21. 4 5. This Place informs us That the Disciples told Paul by the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem Is it possible that * Infants who are not mentioned here should be of the number of these Disciples It is true 't is said that the Wives and Children went with Paul to the Sea-shore and kneeled down and prayed But are all Children Infants Or if there were any Infants did they kneel down upon the Sea-shore and pray with Paul And if not to what purpose has he brought these Scriptures 4. He brings a Cloud of other Scriptures in Figures for had he read them his Folly would have been seen with more ease Let us hear what these Scriptures say 1 Pet. 1. 15. As he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy What must these Places prove I will set down your own Words As to the Name of the Trinity that of being holy is attributed often to Father Son and Holy Spirit And this very Name of the Lord holy he hath imposed upon the Children of Believers But what a wretched Consequence is here as if it would follow that all for whom Christ offered up himself or for whom he was God's High-Priest has thereupon the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit on them Why according to this Logick Saul had the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon him when he persecuted all that called on that Name And the Scripture is very plain that whilst we were Enemies Christ died for us but we had not then the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit imposed on us And how follows it that because Christians are exhorted to be holy in all manner of Conversation that therefore Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Might not a Man by this kind of reasoning prove that all the Infants in the World have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them I am sure that God is the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and that all Nations are in respect of his gracious Providence his People and Sheep of his Pasture and exhorted to enter into his Ways with Praise and Thanksgiving Psal 100. The Places you bring from the Epistle to the Ephesians cap. 1. 13. and 4. 30. informs us that after Men believed they were sealed with the Holy Spirit this shews these Persons were no Infants Rom. 11. 16. shews that an holy Root has holy Branches 1 Pet. 2. 9. tells us Christians are a chosen Generation a royal Priest-hood a holy Nation a peculiar People that you should shew forth the Praises of him that hath called you out of Darkness into his marvellous Light. As for Rom. 11. 16. it evidently refers to the great things which God will do when he calls the Jews which were cast off and so it little concerns our Question otherwise it were easy to shew that at that time how holy soever Abraham had been yet his Children were prophane enough But Mr. Petto's Drift is to make Men believe that each of them whom he calls Believers are as holy a Root in respect of conferring Church-Priviledges as Abraham was and so their Children must needs be holy for Baptism But this is a very unlawful consequence seeing Abraham never did nor ever can confer that Holiness upon so much as one of his Offspring which shall entitle them to Baptism because every particular Person 's Repentance and Faith is required as the true Antecedents to Baptism as is granted by the Church of England in her Catechism But how well she keeps to her Doctrine therein admits of consideration Upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. you teach that Infants are holy by separation to God and his Service But Sir can you tell us what Service of God Infants are fit for If other Men may judg as well as you then as they are not able to serve God in spiritual things so God requires it not of them whilst Infants But so strangely are you transported here that you tell us from Mr. Cotton That Sin it self is sanctified to Believers This is another Strain of new Doctrine and will it not follow from your Doctrine that Sin hath the Name of Father Son and holy Spirit upon it Let Mr. Cotton look to it You must have a care how you take up such Notions You will by no means admit the Holiness here mentioned to be meant of a Matrimonial or Legitimate Holiness And yet I pray what Sanctification of the Unbeliever can that be but Matrimonial so as the believing Husband and the unbelieving Wife might cohabit together as Husband and Wife without Sin The Childrens Holiness is derived from this Sanctification of the Unbeliever as the Word else being rightly referred does shew it doth This Holiness therefore in true Construction of the place is most fitly interpreted as Erasmus doth expound it of Legitimacy and so did the eminent Man Augustine of Hippo long before Erasmus take the sence for he tells us whatsoever that Holiness is it is certain it is not of Power to make Christians or remit Sins 5. The Figures which you give us out of the Old Testament are Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Exod. 16. 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. 2. and 26. 19. and 28. 9. All which do shew That God was the Lord that Israel should know that he is the Lord that he is a holy God and that they should be a holy People But what is all this to your purpose God spake not these things to Infants he tells us so himself Deut. 11. 2. And know you this day for I speak not with your Children which have not known and which have not seen the Chastisement of the Lord your God his Greatness his mighty Hand and stretch'd out Arm c. ver 7. but your Eyes have seen c. Therefore ye shall keep all the Commandments c. Sure you have not proved your Argument by any thing you have yet brought for that purpose For By all that you have said it appears not that some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Nor are you able to name so much as one such Infant now in being and consequently you can with no shew of Reason baptise them I consider again Who must do this previous Work to Infant-Baptism Must the same Minister do both And what Order have you to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost upon Infants twice once before you sprinkle them and then again when you sprinkle them There is one thing remarkable from your self and others in these later times who espouse this Controversy You all seem to be convinced that none are to be baptised but Disciples according to Matth. 28. 19. and indeed the Text is so very clear to that purpose that it cannot be
Example of Christ who when little Children were brought to him for Prayer did not refuse but perform it and wills that little Children be brought to him and accordingly we do dedicate our Children to him from the Womb according to our Capacity 2. Little Children are also by this means i. e. of their Parents Conversion under the Blessing of an early Education in the Christian Religion by which means through God's Blessing I have known some who were not sprinkled in Infancy attain to more true Knowledg of Christianity and Experience of the Work of Grace so far as Man may judg at 7 or 8 years of Age than multitudes of those who were sprinkled in their Infancy have attained at the Age of 70 or 80 years 3. Our gracious God by Jesus Christ hath left us an open Declaration that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants in which Declaration he has not excepted so much as one of them This is more than Circumcision and more clear than any thing before declared concerning Infants tho there was evidence of God's Love to them before From all which you may see that God hath left us in the room of Circumcision a far more excellent Testimony of his saving pleasure concerning Infants than that was or any legal Rite whatsoever As for Mr. Baxter's Argument which you borrow 't is answered in what is said to your Questions Howbeit I have more particularly Answered it in my Examination of no less than five hundred Queries gathered by one of his Admirers out of his voluminous Works all which have been redargued by a proportionable number of Anti-Queries in which all his Devices for Poedorantism is in some measure discovered to be but the cunning craftiness of human subtilty or a copious Brain Of whose Books on this Subject and Dr. Hammonds also take thus the Judgment of a Learned Doctor of the Church of England now living I have seen what my learned and worthy Friend Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in defence of Infant Baptism and must confess I do not a little wonder that Men of so great Parts should say so much to so little purpose for I have not yet seen any thing like an Argument for it Dr. Barlows Letter to Mr. Tombs Thus much in Answer to your Questions See more in the last Part. One thing I take special notice of in your Discourse of Infants You tie up the Salvation of all Infants that shall be saved to their having Faith some way yea you say else they must all perish p. 90. And you allow Faith to no more Infants than are elected in your seme of Election The rest of Infants even of believing Parents are reprobate and damned for all the Noise which ye make of their Covenant-Interest Church-Membership Holiness c. Miserable Infants If there be none to plead your cause better than Mr. Firmin has done it 's uncertain whether so much as one of you shall be saved out of a thousand And whilst his Book may cause many weak Readers to think that Circumcision did and that Infant-Baptism doth great things toward their Saltion it 's evident he can believe no such thing himself For if they be elect saved they shall be tho they be not baptised And for those Infants which are reprobated damned they must be tho they be baptised He is so far from making Baptism of Infants to be of that Concernment which you may imagine from some Passages in him that he plainly tells you p. 20. That he does not think that a sound Believer dying without Baptism shall be damned And then how an innocent Infant dying without Baptism should be damned is not easy to be imagined But by his favour if such a Believer had opportunity to be baptised and neglected his Baptism he will hardly pass for a sound Believer in the Day of Judgment because in this thing he believed not his Lord who told him Thus it becomes us to fulfil all Righteousness Mat. 3. 15. Deut. 1. 33. Act. 3. 22 23. And I must in Faithfulness tell Mr. Firmin that such a sound Believer I take him to be for after all the Improvement which he tells us he has made of his Fathers Covenant which would make a well Man sick even to see what pittiful work he makes with it pag. 68 69 70 71. for after all his shifting from Post to Pillar he only gets Stomach to reject the Counsel of God against himself being not baptised with the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins as some of the Learned have done before him Luk. 7. 30. And seeing it is the known Practice of Infant-sprinklers to sprinkle them when they are fast asleep and it is odds but Mr. Firmin was asleep when he was sprinkled and crossed and therein these wonderful things done which he talks of without Scripture or Reason to warrant his Conceits I desire to know of him what Ground any Man hath his Parents or himself to baptise any Person when they are asleep This is no idle Enquiry but calls for the Consideration of all serious Christians In these and the following Pages you will find this to be Mr. Firmin's sense That the Covenant as it concerns Infants hath two Parts the inward and the outward That some Infants have the outward Part who are not concern'd in the inward Part and that the first sort of Infants cannot fall but the rest may and shall fall because they have not seminal Faith and Regeneration but only reputative Faith. And yet sure this was not the Infants Fault for it could not chuse of what Seed it should be produced And what the Seminal Faith is I suppose Mr. Firmin may know as much as those Infants do whom he supposes to have it Dr. Hammond was a great Man for Infant-sprinkling yet he rejects this Fable of Mr. Firmin's For he tells us he must confess that Faith is so necessarily founded in Understanding that he which hath not Vnderstanding cannot have Faith. And Dr. Taylor confesses whether Infants have Faith is a Question to be disputed by those who care not how much they affirm and how little thâ—y prove This damning all Inâ—â—â—â—â— which have not Faith I take to be a very damnable Doctrine because it represents God to be so cruel as to make millions 〈◊〉 Infants on purpose to send them to Hell who could by no means help 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 want of Faith. What Man would kill his new-born Child because it does not call him Father as soon as it is born And shall mortal Man be more just than God shall Man be more righteous than his Maker I am ashamed of the Doctrine of our Presbyterians and Independents which as I am informed teach that Infants are yelling in Hell yea that Infants of a Span long are yelling in Hell. I am also ashamed of Mr. Firmin's Conceit pag. 90. where from Dr. Ames he would have us believe that an Infant is as capable of a passive Reception of