II. Quest. Whether the greatest part of dying Infants shall be Damned?

Answ. A very Vain Question: Take your Answer from Bellarmin, in my Title-Page. But further, in your First Book, p. 7. you charge some Independents, and Presbyterians with this cruel Doctrine, but you name none. In this you charge only Presbyterians; and any Man who reads your Title-Page, will conclude that I am a Presbyterian, and that I own that Cruel Dectrine. I answer:

I hold Communion both with Independents and Presbyterians, but that I am a Presbyterian, is more then I knew before, or know now.

As to the Opinion you charge me with, Mr. Grantham, if you be a Man of Truth, and would not justly be charged with a Lye, name the Page in my Book, where I have written any such thing: Sure I am, I never spake it, I never wrote it, I never thought it.

It was never the Question. Those which I treated of, were:

Quest. I. Whether God Regenerates any Infants?

2. Whether God Circumcise the Hearts of any Infants? [Which your Disciple said true, come both to one.] Both which were de­nied by two of your Sect, and the latter denied by your self Against Mr. Petto. p. 51..

I proved, if Infants be Saved, they must be Regenerated, 3 Joh. 3. They must be Sanctified. Heaven is an Inheritance only for Sancti­fied Persons, 20 Act. 32. and 26 chap. 18. They must be made meet for it, 1 Col. 12. I am sure they are not meet for it by Na­ture.

But whether God Regenerates all Infants, or the greater, or the lesser part of Infants, I wrote not one word: How should I know what God hath not revealed, 29 Deut. 29. How could you then charge such a Doctrine upon me, in your Title-page?

In the Conclusion of your Book you tell your Reader, Mr. Firmin seems displeased at the multitude which shall be saved; if my Opinion be true, all dying Infants are saved, &c.

I shall answer you very briefly. That you might shew your self to be a Learned Man in the Arminian Controversie, [which I gave you no occasion to meddle with] you tell me, Presump. p. 8. This strange Do­ctrine of damning the greatest part of the World, and that before the World was—makes God the Author of all sin, &c. To the first part I only answered by Christ's words, 7 Matth. 14. As for Huberus, and Caelius Secundus Curio, they were of your side. But mark your own words Mr. Grantham, the damning of the greatest part of the World; not the greatest part of Infants: I hope the World and In­fants, are not the same; then as yet you cannot fasten this Cruel Do­ctrine upon me.

As for the words of Christ, 7 Matth. 14. Few find it, you answer me, quoting 2 Pet. 3.9. &c. That the far greater part will despise the Riches of God's goodness, &c. But I say, if they do so finally, they are damned; and this is strange Doctrine with you.

As for Infants, say you, they are in no danger by this Text, they may be [you should say they are, not may be] all saved, and so the number of the saved be much greater by them. For none of them walk in the broad way, therefore they must needs go the way which lead to Life.

But I pray, is the number of them that are saved so much greater by them, that the words of Christ, Few find it, are not true? Else you do not take of my Answer: You Confute not me, but our Lord, the words are his not mine.

As for your proof, David saith, 58 Psal. 3. The wicked are estranged from the Womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. The Apostle tells us, 1 John 5.19. The whole World [i. e. all that are not born of God] lieth in wickedness: Infants are a part of the World, tho' not the whole World. The corrupt Nature in them, do biass [Page 6] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 8]and incline them to walk in the Broad Way, not in the Narrow Way. Betimes, we see their little Feet, [ i.e. their Words and Actions] stepping in the Broad Way. So that our Lord's Words may be true, tho' the greater part of Infants be saved.

As for the Hellish Torments you speak of so much, Bellarmin Tom. 4. p. 144. [...] Militissima omnium poena Aug. tells the Pelagians, [who are your Friends] and Catharinus, allow Infants Eternal Life, and Natural Blessedness, without any pain; other Opi­nions you may read in him, if you please: But where the Scripture is silent, why should we speak?

Having named Pelagius, and charging you in my Answer to your Book with Pelagianisin, I will here consider your Outcry against me: p. 28. where you tell me, what you have written in your Book, which you call Christianisinus Primitivus.

I never saw any of your Book, nor did I ever hear of your Name, till I saw your Book against my self; there I found you did own Peccatum Originans, but not Originatum. So I told you.

But for all your great Words in that Page, I still say, Mr. Gran­tham is a Man very corrupt in the Doctrine of Original Sin, or he must grosly contradict himself. For,

First, Against Mr. Pet. p. 27. Twice in one Page you tell us, Infants are not guilty of any Sin of their own. Then they have no Sin of their own: It is im­possible to part Sin and Guilt, tho' God pardon the Punishment.

If Infants have no Sin of their own, Circumci­sion was Instituted before Christ, 1923. Bu­colc. then the Administration of Circumcision to Infants of eight days old, almost two thousand years, was a vain Administration.

In a Sacrament, there is the Sign, and the thing signified. What was signified in Circumcision. 10 Deut. 16.30 Deut. 6.4. Jer. 4. 9 Jer. 26. tells us [the Ʋncircumcision of our Flesh is joyned with our Estate, dead in Sin, 2 Col. 13.] But if Infants have no Sinof their own, then the thing signified was not there; so that it was no Sacrament, but the Administration of a Lye, according to your Doctrine.

Secondly, Ibid. p. 11. You tell us, They need not any Laws to be written in their Hearts during Infancy.

Answ. Infants are born either with that Image in which God Crea­ted Man, or not. If they be born with it, then they never fell from God, and so have no need of Christ. If not so born, then there is a Privation of that Righteousness which ought to be, and a Position [as in a Disease] of that Ʋnrighteousness and Evil, which ought not to be. This Image is not restored but in Regeneration in which the Law is written in the Heart.

Thirdly, Ibid. p. 13. You tell us, Infants are innocent. Answ. Then they never fell from God. You could stich Innocency, and Pardon together in your former Book; now you stitch Innocency and Sin together. You quote Dr. Taylor to justifie you: But he does not stitch Innocency and [Page 9]Pardon together. However, I read Dr. Taylor's words; but he was neither a Prophet nor Apostle; a very godly Man, Mr. Antho­ny Burgess. and as learned a Man as himself, who traced him in his Writings, gives this Character of him, He is not meerly Pelagian, Papist, Arminian, or Socinian, but an Hotch-potch of all: Like a Second Julian, in triumphing Lan­guage, with much boldness he hath decryed Original Sin, as if it were but a Non Ens. Thus he. We know sin in one sence is not Ens As Ens convertitur cum Re.; and that this Learned Man knew well. Dr. Taylor's Authority, and yours, are both alike to me.

Fourthly, I suspect you from your Description of Original Sin. p. 23. p. 28. In both your Books you tell us: Original Sin is that came Upon all, even Infants. This word Ʋpon, I do not understand; Paul calls it Indwel­ling Sin, 7 Rom. 17.20. I was conceived in sin, 51 Psal. 5. It may have some truth in respect of Adam's Sin, by which Death passed upon all, and Judgment came upon all, 5 Rom. 12.18. But Original Sin is not without us.

Fifthly, You tell me, Infants have no Seminal Ʋnbelief, p. 25. nor Impe­nitency in them.

Answ. No wonder, since they have no Seeds of any Sin; then I hope they can easily believe, and embrace Christ upon Gospel-terms, when they come to Understanding. They can easily Repent, if they should chance to Sin. They are all born with Hearts of Flesh, God need not take away the Heart of Stone from them. But for all your Commendations of Infants, we do not find them so ready to believe, and repent, when they grow up.

Sixthly, Whereas we say, That which will be a Thorn, will soon prick; So we find how quickly this thorny, corrupt Nature in Infants, begin to prick, and shew itself in actual Sin, so far as they are capable, in Revenge, Envy, Pride, Rebellion against Parents, which lately I observ'd to my sorrow. These Acts you excuse, p. 26. and give to the example of ill Tutors. But I pray, whence is it they are so apt to learn? Pela­gius indeed would have Sin come in by imitation, not propagation. But Tully that Learned Heathen tells us: Tusc. l. 3. Simul ac Editi sumus in Lu­com, &c. As soon as ever we are born, we are presently exercised in all manner of Evil. Ʋt paene in lacte Nutricis Errorem suxisse vi­deamur: As if we sucked down Errour with the Nurses Milk. Com­pare this Heathen, with Mr. Grantham the Christian.

B. Austin's Observation of Envy, in a sucking Child, you slight: But that Godly Learned Father could judge of Envy, as well as Mr. Grantham.

As for the Scriptures you produce to clear Infants from sin, 1 Pet. p. 25. 2.1, 2. Like new born Babes, i. e. to lay aside all malice, guile, &c.

Answ. You do mistake the Text; it is, As new Borns desire the sincere Milk, &c. it is the Milk, and the Babe; it is not as new born Babes, lay aside Malice, &c. If Infants have no malice, guile, &c. in semine, how should they lay aside what they have not? You will make Infants guilty by your Interpretation.

For the 1 Cor. 14.20. in wickedness [...], be ye Children: What do the Apostle mean, he would have them as Children, in your sence, with­out the Seeds of Corruption, Unbelief, Impenitency, and so cross him­self in the 7 Rom. and 2 Ephes. 3. and cross the Apostle John, 1 Joh. 1.8. cross to David, 51 Psal. 5. and to our Lord, 3 Joh. 6. nor is our Lord cross to himself, in that 18 Mat. 3. I resolved for brevity, else I would have spoken to these Texts more.

But what before I spake of the Thorn, I may apply it to this: Tho' the Thorn will prick, and shew itself at first, yet it is not so bad then, and apt to hurt, as it will do two years after, when it runs into a Man's flesh. So the sins of these little ones, tho' cross to the holiness of the Law, yet they have not that degree of evil and guilt, with the same acts in adult Persons.

I said Mr. Grantham is very unsound, or he must contradict him­self: How to reconcile his former sayings, with what he writes page 13. I know not. If this be your sence, Children polluted by Ori­ginal Sin, so under Condemnation, before they can come to Heaven, must be cleansed from these pollutions. I agree [then you are on my side, a­ginst your own Sect, whom yet you justifie.]

But the question is, Whether they cannot be cleansed from Sin, with­out they have Faith and Repentance?

You mistake Mr. Grantham, the question was, Whether God Re­generates any Infants? which your Sect denied.

It was your Disciple that told me, That Faith and Repentance are the two parts of Regeneration. From his telling me thus, I ar­gued.

They that are Regenerated, have Faith and Repentance [they that have the whole, have the parts] this is his Doctrine.

But all Infants saved, are Regenerated, say I, from Christ's words, 3 Joh. 3.5.

Therefore, all Children saved have Faith and Repentance [ i. e. seminally].

To this you answer for him: pag. 11. He that granted this, extends it only to the Adult, of whom these are required. So that this is but a meer Caption, unbecoming a grave Disputant.

It seems he wanted your Wit to express himself plainly. But as for you who thus help him, according to your Doctrine then, there are two Regenerations; one for Infants, another for Men when their [Page 11]Beards are grown, I pray do you define these two Regenerations, and shew us how they differ; then bring forth the plain Scriptures upon which you ground these, and prove your two Definitions. I never read but of one Regeneration in the Holy Canon; for your two Regenerations, I suppose you must fetch y our proof from 23 Revel. 19.

That Infants saved must be Regenerated, the Text is clear 3 John 3. [...]. The word [...] is an indefinitive word, limi­ted to no age, Infant or Adult. Infants are born once, but who­ever are generated, and born after the ordinary course of Man, if saved, must be born twice, or again. [Nicodemus [...], in the fourth verse tells us how Christ's [...], in the third verse is to be translated] so must Infants, else no Heaven. Secondly, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, 3 Joh. 6. So are all Infants, then they must be born of Water, and the Spirit, ver. 5. else no Heaven for Infants. Besides the other Scriptures I mentioned before.

I should define Regeneration thus: It is a work of the 3 Joh. 5. Spirit of God in fallen Man, dead in sin 2 Eph. 1., whereby infu­sing a principle of Spiritual Life 2 Eph. 5., causing an habitual Confor­mity of all the Faculties of the Soul, to the Image and Will of God 4 Eph. 24., all the Faculties are inclined [actu primo] to live the Life of God 4 Eph. 18.; by the same Spirit acting Phil. 13.1 Phil. 11.15 Joh. 5. this first Grace, they do [actu secundo] bring forth the fruits of Spiritual Life; and by the 2 Tim. 1.14. & Rom. 11. 1 Pet. 15. 1 Cor. 1.8. Indwelling, and continued acting of that good Spirit, they continue so to do, till Man comes to Glory.

Mr. Grif. told me, he did not say God could not Regenerate Infants, but God doth not Regenerate. But I say, if God can do it, then according to his revealed Will, he must do it, if In­fants be saved. And as for the first part of the Definition, God can do, and doth work it in all Infants, in which [to use the Me­taphor] are sown the Seeds of Faith and Repentance, as well as of any other Graces. For what difficulty there should be in sow­ing the Seeds of Faith and Repentance, more then all other Graces, I cannot tell.

You tell me, pag. 25. Infants have no Object of Faith propounded to them, therefore they cannot have Faith seminally.

Answ. Nor is there an Object of Love propounded to them. God is the Object of our Faith and Love, so is Christ, 14 Joh. 1. But God is not propounded an Object of Faith, and Love to In­fants, therefore Infants are saved without any Seminal Faith in, or Love to God, as much as to say without any Grace at all.

I shall add but this: If there be no Seeds of Repentance and Faith in Christ, in the Regeneration of Infants, then the Righte­ousness, the Sacrifice, Blood of Christ, with all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, are imputed and applyed to persons, where are only the Seeds of the Graces of the Covenant of Works, which no Man shall make me believe.

That the Lord doth Regenerate Infants saved, I doubt not; but how he doth it, neither Man nor Angel can tell. But you tell your Reader, p. 24. I vainly pretend to know it.

I had been a vain Man indeed, had I pretended to it. But Mr. Grantham, if you be a Man of Truth, name the page [as I I do always when I charge you] in my Book, where your Rea­der may find what you tell him of me. I can name the page 74, where I have spoken the contrary, as expresly as a Man can speak. You tell your Reader, p. 31. of some old Professors, that have been Teachers of others, and yet have not learned Civility or Honesty, in treating those who differ from them in Opinion. Who is more guilty of this then Mr. Grantham, how many Falshoods have you charged me with in this Pamphlet. I resolve to med­dle no more with Anabaptists for your sake; not because I find a­ny strength in you; but for your charging such things upon me which I never spake, or have expresly spoken the contrary.

Because I used this Argument for the necessity of Childrens Re­generation. All the Members of the Kingdom of Heaven are holy: But Infants are Members of the Kingdom of Heaven; Ergo, they are holy. But they are not holy by Birth, it is by Regeneration. You tell me, p. 13. Here I think you have given your Cause its Deaths-blow. What is become of the Birth-Priviledge so much gloried in by Mr. Baxter, and others?

Answ. Do you think so Mr. Grantham? I do not think I have given it the least wound. Did Mr. Baxter, or others of our Di­vines, ever say, Children are inherently holy by Birth? You see I distinguish between Birth-holiness, and Regeneration. Did the Apostle when he tells the believing Corinthians, 1 Cor. 7.14. That their Children were Saints, mean they were inherently holy by Birth? No sure, he meant no more then as the Children under Abraham's Covenant were called holy, 7 Deut. 6. and 14 Deut. 2. 9 Ezra 2. That Holiness gave them a Title to Church-Membership, and the Seal of the Covenant then, so it do now.

Only a word to the Reason why you and your Disciple deny Children, can have any Seminal Faith, or Regeneration, because these come by the Word preached, 10 Rom. 17. 1 Pet. 1.23. But [Page 13] Infants can neither understand it, nor read it. Thus you have tyed up the Holy One to one instrument. But I pray, are all that are born Deaf damned? They can neither hear, read, nor un­derstand the word: Verily, if God can Regenerate those who are born Deaf, he can Infants without hearing or reading the Word. So he did before in Circumcision where he pleased, through the word of his Covenant, I will be their God; and so he doth now in Baptism, when and where he pleaseth. San­ctification, and Salvation being given to Baptism, as an Instru­ment in the hand of the Spirit, 3 Tit. 5. 1 Pet. 3.21. 5 Ephes. 26. besides that controverted Text, 3 Joh. 5. which the Ana­baptists who put so much in Dipping, may well understand of Baptism.

That you might make your Reader know what a pitiful Di­spurant I am, you tell him two faults I am guilty of in my Lo­gick, p. 10. My Argument was this:

They who are Regenerated have Faith and Repentance.

But all Infants saved are Regenerated; Ergo, they have Faith and Repentaece.

My first fault is this, Your Major should have been universal, say you.

And is it not universal? It is not special, for it is neither par­ticular, nor proper, then it must be universal. It is Axioma, [...]. Mr. Grantham then it must be universal: For here praedicatum reciprocatur cum subjecto, ita ut ex praedicato fieri possit subjectum: As in this proposition, Homo est animal rationale & Animal rationale est Homo. So here, they that have the whole have the parts, and they who have the parts have the whole.

A Proposition may be universal in the form of it, tho' it be not true, but this is both universal and true, till you can prove your two Regenerations.

2. The second fault is Ignoratio Elenchi.

Say you so Mr. Grantham; What was the Question I pray? Was it not, whether Infants saved, had Faith and Repentance? Did I not stick to the question, and conclude it affirmatively, from your own Disciple's Doctrine and Concessions, that they are the two parts of Regeneration; but that they were Regenerated, I proved.

Do you Mr. Grantham understand what Ignoratio Elenchi is?

You tell your Reader, p. 12. speaking of me; It is his manner to confound his Discourses with Diversities. I challenge you Mr. Gran­tham, or any of your Sect, to shew me where once I have stated a Question, that in my Discourse I depart from it, to another thing diverse from it. I did not so in this place: For the Question was, Whether Seeds do not go before Fruits, Principles before Actions? [Page 14]So God sow the Seeds of Grace, infuse Divine Principles into In­fants that are saved, tho' they die before they come to act. I men­tioned Peter, 1 Joh 3.9. but I did not argue thus: Peter had a Seed, therefore he could not fall totally and finally: that had been another Question indeed; but I said, tho' Peter did fall, yet there was a Seed in him; I aimed only at the word Seed, of which I was discoursing, as a word being used in Scripture.

To my fourth Argument I used, page 15. viz. If all dying Infants are ju­stified and saved without Regeneration; then there are millions in Heaven, in whom the Spirit of God, as the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity, had nothing to do in their Salvation.

You give two Answers, the first very absurd; only I resolved to be short, else I would have shewn it.

Your second is this:

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

But he shed for all.

The Major you prove thus: They do not resist the Holy Ghost.

I answer: The work of the Spirit in the business of their Salvati­on, is their Regeneration, their Sanctification: then we are agreed, you yield me the Question against your own Party; and this shall not displease me, if they be all saved, as you falsly tell your Rea­der. Yet I am not satisfied in your Discourse.

Infants have sufficient assistance, because they do not resist, say you. This is something odd methinks.

First, What then are Infants active, tho' weak, and so the Spi­rit assist them; for so I conceive assistance doth properly respect one that acts, but is too weak to perfect his act. Are we said proper­ly to assist them who do nothing at all? we assist weak men, not dead men.

Secondly, Do the Spirit work morally, by way of Suasion with In­fants, and they not resist him, as they 7 Acts 51.

Thirdly, The corrupt Nature in Infants incline them to resist him, and not to comply with him.

Fourthly, Are you sure that Christ shed his Blood for every Indi­vidual dying Infant intentionally? 2. And was it not for all Infants as well as dying Infants? 3. And did he shed it for them only while they were Infants, and not when they grew up to be adult? 4. And doth he then give to them all sufficient Grace? 5. And is that suffici­ent Grace statu lapso, that doth not attain its end? If the stony Heart that is to be taken away, be for stoniness six Degrees, the Grace which takes it away must be seven Degrees, else 'tis not suf­ficient. 6. How comes it about then that Christ fails so much, even [Page 15]the far greatest part in his Intentions? Certainly the Father and the Son had the same Intentions, when the Covenant of Redem­ption passed between them.

But p. 16, you propound a profound Question, viz.

Whether the Covenant of Grace was taken from the whole World, and appropriated only to Abraham and his Seed, from the time of making the Covenant of Circumcision, 17 Gen. 7.

I prithee Thomas, how came this Question into thy Crown? My shallow Brains could not have invented it. Will you fasten this upon me too, when my words are expresly the contrary, p. 20. By the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, and the Seal of it, God did separate and divide Abraham 's Seed from the World, living under that Covenant you speak of. How was this Covenant taken from the World, Mr. Grantham, when I tell you expresly the World li­ved under it, tho' that Covenant was made with Abraham and his Seed?

Take my Mind thus: There was one short and Enigmatical Discovery of Christ, and Gospel-Grace, 3 Gen. 15. In the Seed of the Woman. After this, tho' there were thousands in the World, yet God singles out Abraham, and makes another Discovery to him, In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed, 12 Gen. 3. Whence the Apostle, 2 Heb. 16. He that took on him the Seed of Abraham; not of Noah, nor any Man else. After God had given this Promise which concerned the whole World, the benefit whereof divers that were not of the Church of the Jews did partake of, I doubt not; God was pleased to make a Covenant with Abraham to be the God of him and his Seed, and commanded this Covenant to be sealed, and thus did distinguish his Seed from the World, living under the Promise made first to Abraham. This Abraham, not Noah, 4 Rom. 11.16.18. 3 Gal. 29, 11 Rom. 17. God honours with the Title of the Father of Believers. Gentile Belie­vers are called Abraham's Children, not Noah's. They are grafted into Abraham's Stock, not Noah's. As then Abraham's Seed, born under that Covenant, were Members of the Church with their Pa­rents, had the initiating Ordinance applied to them: So the Gen­tile Believers [whose Father Abraham is] Seed being under the Co­venant of their Father Abraham, are Members of the Gospel-Church with their Parents, have a right to the initiating Ordinance, Ba­ptism: unless it can be proved that God hath nulled Abraham's Co­venant expresly See my Scripture Warraw, p. 8, 9.: which all the Anabaptists in England can never do. And this is no obscure Consequence, as you call it, to prove In­fant-Baptism, but it is far more clear, plain, intelligible, then that Consequence by which our Lord proved the great Article of our Resurrection.

As for Noah, about whom you spend so many lines, we honour him as much as you: But do you shew where God made such a Covenant with him and his Seed, as he did with Abraham and his Seed, and sealed it. So that Noah's Seed might humbly and be­lievingly lay hold upon God for their God, by way of Covenant; else all your words about Noah, are but your rambling from the Question, a meer Ignoratio Elenchi, as I told you before.

Then you scribble something about Free-will, and tell me of Mr. Baxter's Judgment: I am of his Opinion, I will not enter in­to that Controversie; only two things I say.

First, Liberty as it is opposed to natural necessity, and co-action is essential to the Will. In the work of the Father drawing the Soul to Christ, the Will in closing with, and embracing of Christ is as free in respect of Co-action, as it was in sinning against Christ. What would you have more Mr. Grantham?

Secondly, Liberty and some necessity may stand together, viz. Libertas Consequentiae, else the Will must be more than bruitish.

But if you have a mind to shew what a gallant Fellow you are in this Controversie, I desire you to read and answer two Men who lived in Communion with the Church of Rome, Bradwardin, and Jansenius, his Augustinus; I name no Protestants. But Janse­nius I commend to you upon this account: Because as I was inform­ed by a sober Dutch Minister, whose Uncle was at Jansenius's Commencement; as you were bound first to a Taylor, so he was bound first to a Carpenter: but he was so exceedingly Bookish while but a Youth, that his Master wished his Parents to take him away, get some help of Friends, and put him to School; there in­deed he differs from you, as your Admirer tells us here, that you served out your Apprentiship. But there is a second difference: This excellent Carpenter chose such Timber, and built so strong, that all the Jesuits [your Friends in this Controversie] could never shake his Building. But you that were a Taylor, do but as Adam did, sew Fig-leaves together, to make an Apron, which will not co­ver your nakedness.