An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications…

QUEST. V. Whether it be the general Opinion, that the same Qualifications are required in a Parent bringing his Child to Baptism, as in an adult Person for his own Admission to this Ordinance?

ANSW. Here, Sir, I suppose you intend only the same Qualifications in Kind: or a Profession and Visibility, in some Degree, of the same Sort of Faith and Repentance; meaning that which is truly evangelical and saving. And understanding you in this Sense, I'm persuaded, by all I can observe, that the Generality of Protestants are in the Affirmative; not assenting to a specific and essential Difference, whatever circumstantial and gradual Disparity they may allow, between the two Cases you mention.

ANSW. Here, Sir, I suppose you intend only the same Qualifications in Kind: or a Profession and Visibility, in some Degree, of the same Sort of Faith and Repentance; meaning that which is truly evangelical and saving. And understanding you in this Sense, I'm persuaded, by all I can observe, that the Generality of Protestants are in the Affirmative; not assenting to a specifick and essential Difference, whatever circumstantial and gradual Disparity they may allow, between the two Cases you mention.

Mr. BAXTER speaking of the Judgment and Practice of the Christian Fathers, tells us, that Faith (justifying Faith, and not another Kind of Faith) was supposed to be in the Parent, for himself and his Seed: because the Condition or Qualification of the Infant is but this, that he be the Seed of a Believer.—And he thinks the Generality of the Reformed are in these Sentiments. He declares his own Judgment in full Concurrence herewith, and backs the same with a Variety of Arguments, in his Five ⟨p. 15⟩Disputations and other Writings. He observes, it seems strange […] that any should imagine, a lower Belief in the Parent will help his Child to a Title to Baptism, than that which is necessary to his own, if he were unbaptized; because mutual Conent is necessary to mutual Covenant, and the Covenant must be mutual: No Man hath Right to God's Part, that refuseth his own: They that have no Right to Remission of Sins, have no Right given them by God to Baptism.—If God be not at all actually obliged in Covenant to any ungodly Man, then he is not obliged to give him Baptism: but God is not obliged so to him. Most of our Divines make the contrary Doctrine Pelagianism, that God should be obliged to […] in a State of Nature in such a Covenant.—If the Parent's Title be questionable (says he) the Infant's is so too; because the Ground is the same: and it is from the Parent, that the Child must derive it; nor can any Man give that which he hath not.—We ought not (says he) to baptise those Persons, or their Children, as theirs, who are visible Members of the Kingdom of the Devil, or that do not so much as profess their forsaking the Devil's Kingdom; But such are all that profess not a saving Faith. If such are not visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil, at least they are not visibly out of it.—All that are duly baptised, are baptised into CHRIST; therefore they are supposed to possess that Faith, by which Men are united or engrafted into Christ: But that is only justifying Faith. Tell me (says he) where any Man was ever said in Scripture to be united to Christ, without saving Faith or Profession of it.—In a Word, Mr. Baxter takes Occasion to declare himself in this Manner. If Mr. BLAKE exacts not a Profession of saving Faith and Repentance, I say he makes soul Work in the Church.